Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel is back with a message; Europe could be 'destroyed' unless they continue to allow millions of 'non-Europeans' to flood the bloc. 

Sean Gallup/EFE via EPA

Criticizing Chancellor Friedrich Merz's migration policy, Merkel told Southwestern Press Forum in Neu-Ulm last week that efforts to secure borders could have catastrophic consequences.

"I do not believe we can decisively combat illegal migration at the German-Austrian or German-Polish border… I have always advocated European solutions," she said when asked about Merz's latest measures adopted by his cabinet - which include a prohibition on asylum applications at all German land borders, with exceptions for pregnant woman, children and other vulnerable individuals - a sharp reversal from Merkel's 2015 open-border policy.

"Otherwise, we could see Europe destroyed," she continued.

Critics have called Merkel's open-border policy "disastrous" after over a million migrants flooded into Germany during the peak of the 2015-2016 refugee crisis, while Germany continues to be the top destination for asylum seekers - 'welcoming' over 237,000 applicants in 2023, roughly 25% of the bloc's total, according to EU stats.

Merz promised to crack down on migration his 'first day' in office in the run-up to Germany's snap election on Feb. 23. Less than 24 hours after being sworn in, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt announced sweeping border controls that would prohibit migrants from entering Germany, including those seeking asylum.

Merkel's criticism of Merz is her second this year - as she previously slammed his decision to rely on 'far-right' politicians to help pass an anti-immigration motion in parliament.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix news,

Several senior members of the U.S. House of Representatives have written to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen demanding answers over what they describe as possible foreign interference in Poland’s presidential election campaign.

The letter, led by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, calls on the European Commission to investigate a wave of political advertisements that allegedly violated Polish election law by promoting opposition candidate Rafał Trzaskowski and discrediting his rivals, PiS-backed Karol Nawrocki and Confederation-backed Sławomir Mentzen.

The letter was also signed by Keith Self, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Europe, and five other Republican lawmakers. The group cites investigative reporting by Wirtualna Polska, which linked the online ads to Estratos, an Austrian company reportedly backed by Americans with ties to the Democratic Party, as well as a Polish NGO that has received funding from “organizations funded by U.S. Democratic Party megadonor George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.”

“Estratos is the same organization that reportedly played a key role backing the anti-Viktor Orban opposition in Hungary’s 2022 elections,” the letter adds.

According to the Polish media outlet, the Facebook pages “Wiesz Jak Nie Jest” (You Know How It Is Not) and “Stół Dorosłych” (Adult Table) spent more on ads than any official election committee. These ads, appearing just before the second round of voting, encouraged support for Trzaskowski while attacking right-wing candidates Karol Nawrocki and Sławomir Mentzen.

The ads’ origin has raised alarm because, under Polish electoral law, only official committees and voters are allowed to conduct campaign activity — foreign-funded organizations and companies are strictly barred. Wirtualna Polska reports that 80 percent of Estratos is owned by “Higher Ground Labs, a U.S. fund operated by major Democratic Party operatives who helped run the U.S. presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris.”

The remaining 20 percent is controlled by Hungarian liberals — a key figure in the company is Ádám Ficsor, who once served as Hungary’s minister for special services under former Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai.

The letter claims that “approximately 420,000 PLN ($105,000)” has been spent in “allegedly ‘illegal political ads’ posted by the Polish NGO on Facebook since April 10, 2025, in support of Trzaskowski.”

“The integrity of democratic processes may have been undermined,” it adds.

The congressmen also criticize what they see as political bias in the treatment of Poland’s governing Law and Justice (PiS) party.

“Equally disturbing are reports of the Tusk government’s monthslong refusal to release tens of millions of dollars in public campaign funding that PiS is legally entitled to receive, defying a ruling by the Supervisory Chamber of Poland’s Supreme Court, a payment demand from Poland’s National Electoral Commission, and an opinion by Poland’s Ombudsman (Human Rights Commissioner) Marcin Wiące to release the money,” it reads.

As a result, U.S. lawmakers are demanding answers to the following questions from the European Commission, which it claims is potentially guilty of “double standards” in its crackdown on alleged rule of law violations under the previous conservative government, yet turning a blind eye to those conducted by organizations favorable to the liberal Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a former president of the European Council and leader of the European People’s Party:

1.        What entities provided the $105,000 (420,000 PLN) used for the Facebook advertisements promoting Rafał Trzaskowski, and did any of these funds originate from foreign sources in violation of Polish electoral law?

2.        What role, if any, did Estratos Digital GmbH and its U.S.-based owner, Higher Ground Labs, play in coordinating or financing these advertisements, and to what extent were U.S. Democratic Party operatives directly involved?

3.        How does the Commission justify its failure to address the Tusk government’s refusal to release millions of dollars in court-ordered funding to PiS, given its prior sanctions against the prior PiS government for rule-of-law violations?

4.        Why has the Commission remained silent on Finance Minister Andrzej Domański’s defiance of Poland’s Supreme Court, National Electoral Commission, and Ombudsman rulings, given its previous vocal criticism and aggressive actions against the PiS government?

5.        What oversight mechanisms, if any, has the Commission implemented to prevent foreign-funded NGOs, such as those linked to George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, from influencing Poland’s 2025 presidential election?

The signatories urged von der Leyen to launch a full investigation.

The second round of the Polish presidential election is scheduled to take place on June 1, with a run-off between the liberal Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski and conservative Karol Nawrocki.

The latest polling suggests the vote is on a knife-edge, with Trzaskowski ahead by one percentage point, but well within the margin of error.

Read more here...

In 2024, there were a record-breaking number of elections. Over two billion people voted for political leaders in 40 countries. What does the balance of power look like now?

In this graphic, in collaboration with Inigo, Visual Capitalist's Jenna Ross shows a breakdown of the types of government in proportion to the global population.

Imagining a Global Parliament

Data for this chart comes from Arden Strategies’ Global Parliament Index. The index assumes there is a hypothetical global parliament with 1,000 seats, each representing about eight million people. 

To determine the political alignment of each government, Arden Strategies considered many factors including the government’s affiliations, policies, manifestos, and record in power. Where a governing party has complex or multiple identities, the team of experts used their judgment. 

The below shows how the types of government break down in 2025.

*Includes Populist or Authoritarian Left, Centrist Authoritarian, and Populist or Authoritarian Right

Autocratic or powerful monarchic systems rule the most people. For instance, China, Russia, Egypt, and Iran all have autocratic systems.

Shifts in Types of Government

Many populations had declining support for leaders amid struggles like inflation, leading to some shifts in political power.

For example, the U.S. shifted from center-left to center-right with President Donald Trump’s victory. Trump has since issued a record number of executive orders in his first 100 days.

The UK and France, historical allies of the U.S., shifted left in 2025.

As more people are governed by non-centrist governments, we are reaching a global crossroads in geopolitical stability.

In the face of global change, today’s data can help form the foundation of tomorrow’s resilience.

By Thomas Brooke of Remix News,

Dutch right-wing leader Geert Wilders has issued a stark ultimatum to the country’s ruling coalition, threatening to withdraw support from the government within weeks if it does not impose a strict asylum freeze.

“Otherwise we will get out,” the Party for Freedom (PVV) leader declared at a press conference on Monday, during which he presented a hardline 10-point plan aimed at radically curbing migration and dismantling existing asylum policies.

Wilders’ proposals include closing the borders to all asylum seekers, deploying the military to enforce border controls, halting family reunification for recognized refugees, and deporting tens of thousands of Syrians with temporary protection status. He also called for the closure of asylum seekers’ centers, the fast repeal of the Dispersion Act, which distributes asylum seekers across municipalities, and the withdrawal of housing priority for status holders.

“Our patience has run out now,” said Wilders, claiming his party has been “very reasonable and very patient” over the past year while waiting for tougher migration policies. He invoked Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows member states to act unilaterally on matters of internal security, to justify a total border closure for asylum seekers.

“My limit, and the limit of a lot of Dutch people, has been reached,” he told journalists, as cited by TPO. “Holland must become Holland again. The PVV will wait no longer.”

One of the more radical proposals is the forced return of around 60,000 Syrians to what Wilders claims are now “safe” areas of Syria following the fall of deposed former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. “The EU and the U.S. recently lifted the sanctions on Syria. So, it’s time to go back!” he said.

The plan further demands the immediate deportation of asylum seekers and dual nationals convicted of violent or sexual crimes. For dual citizens, Wilders proposes stripping them of Dutch nationality and removing them from the country, even if this means unilaterally exiting the European Convention on Nationality.

He also criticized Dutch police leadership and local authorities for what he sees as a failure to maintain order during public unrest. Citing riots in Scheveningen and pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Wilders demanded tougher police intervention and said mayors who stand in the way should be suspended. “If a mayor fails to let the police do their job, and when necessary use violence, they should pack their bags,” he said.

Wilders’ ultimatum puts further strain on the fragile four-party coalition government, led by independent Prime Minister Dick Schoof. Although the PVV achieved a historic victory in the 2023 parliamentary elections to become the largest party in the Netherlands, Wilders was blocked from becoming prime minister by New Social Contract (NSC) former leader Pieter Omtzigt and VVD leader Dilan Yeşilgöz.

“Omtzigt and Dilan did not allow me to become prime minister, so there was a Schoof I cabinet,” Wilders said. “But if that cabinet behaves like Rutte V, and does not change or does not change sufficiently, we are gone.”

The NSC, one of the coalition parties, downplayed Wilders’ threats and emphasized that the coalition agreement already contains robust migration measures awaiting implementation by parliament.

As reported by VRT, Opposition parties also dismissed Wilders’ plan, describing it as a “political show” and a “diversionary tactic.” The Dutch defense union VBM criticized the call to deploy the military at borders, stating this is the responsibility of the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, which already lacks sufficient personnel to monitor all 840 border crossings.

Despite criticism, Wilders insists that the PVV is simply demanding that the government act on what voters mandated in the 2023 election. “The streetscape of our cities and neighborhoods has changed beyond recognition due to mass migration and Islamization,” he said. “We have too many foreigners, too much Islam, there is a lack of respect for our culture and our people.”

Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on May 28 that the United States would begin revoking visas of Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

“The U.S. will begin revoking visas of Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,” Rubio wrote on X.

The State Department confirmed the action in a short press release, stating that it will work with the Department of Homeland Security to “aggressively revoke” the visas. It will also revise the visa criteria and “enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications” from China and Hong Kong.

The Epoch Times reached out to the State Department for further comment on the matter.

According to the State Department, the Chinese regime monitors Chinese students, mobilizing them through the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA). Some CSSA branches in the United States have openly admitted that they are directed, supported, or financed by Chinese consulates. These students have been known to attempt forced cancellation of events or speeches hosted by overseas dissident groups at U.S. schools.

The FBI warns on its website that the CCP uses its post-graduate students and post-doctorate researchers in fields like engineering, science, and mathematics to “operate as non-traditional collectors of intellectual property.”

“China is the world’s principal infringer of intellectual property. The annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets is between $225 billion and $600 billion,” the FBI states.

Rubio’s announcement comes two months after House Republicans raised the issue of Chinese student visas on March 14.

Introduced, in part, by Rep. Riley Moore (R-W. Va.), the “Stop Chinese Communist Prying by Vindicating Intellectual Safeguards in Academia Act of 2025,” or “Stop CCP VISAs Act of 2025,” would ban Chinese citizens from obtaining student visas, citing CCP-related national security concerns.

“Every year we allow nearly 300,000 Chinese nationals to come to the U.S. on student visas. We’ve literally invited the CCP to spy on our military, steal our intellectual property, and threaten national security,” Moore said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

The bill was co-sponsored by Reps. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Addison McDowell (R-N.C.), Andrew Ogles (R-Tenn.), Troy Nehls (R-Texas), Owens Burgess (R-Utah), and Mary Miller (R-Ill.)

“The Chinese Communist Party is fundamentally opposed to our American values, and yet we have handed out hundreds of thousands of student visas to Chinese nationals, many of whom are state-sponsored spies,” Gill said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

Recent Cases

Some Chinese nationals who have gained access to the United States under student visas have also been at the center of legal matters concerning national security.

In 2020, Ye Yanqin, a lieutenant in the People’s Liberation Army, who attended Boston University from October 2017 to April 2019 on an exchange program, was charged by federal prosecutors with allegedly concealing her continued military service on her visa application. She allegedly completed “numerous assignments” for the Chinese military, including sending U.S. documents to China and retrieving U.S. military intelligence.

In October 2024, five Chinese nationals who were students at the University of Michigan as part of a joint program with the China-based Shanghai Jiao Tong University were indicted after being accused of misleading investigators about their trip to a remote military site in-state and conspiring to delete photo evidence from their cell phones.

In December 2024, Wen Shenghua, a Chinese national, was arrested in California for allegedly making military shipments to North Korea. Shengua had also overstayed his student visa.

More Visa Changes

The news also comes one day after a senior State Department official confirmed to The Epoch Times that an internal cable was sent to American embassies around the world, pausing student visa interviews effective May 27.

That suspension, according to the cable, which prohibits consular sections from adding any appointment slots for student and exchange visitor visas “until further guidance is issued,” was part of an effort to strengthen the vetting process of visa applicants, specifically regarding social media screenings.

“There is no right to a student visa,” Rubio told reporters in March. “We can cancel a student visa under the law just the same way that we can deny a student visa under the law. And we will do so in cases we find appropriate.”

This announcement also comes hours after Rubio announced new visa restrictions for foreign nationals found to be involved with censoring the free speech of U.S. citizens.

“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio announced in a post on X.

“Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life—a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.”

Ryan Morgan, Emel Aken, Frank Fang, and Eva Fu contributed to this report.

Fashion giant Victoria's Secret & Co. has halted certain office operations and told employees to avoid using company technology amid a "security incident" that has caused the company to take their e-commerce and some store services offline.

Employees were locked out of email accounts on Wednesday, a 'person familiar with the situation' told Bloomberg Thursday. Shares of the company fell 6.9% (Beavis) on Wednesday.

"Recovery is going to take awhile," said CEO Hillary Super in a note seen by Bloomberg, which adds that customer care operations and some distribution center operations had been halted.

also...

The incident comes on the heels of yet another retailer - Adidas AG - which said that customer data was stolen by a third-party service provider, which included the contact information of anyone who had emailed the German company's customer service help desk.

One sec...

As Bloomberg continues;

In addition, several UK retailers announced breaches in recent weeks. Marks & Spencer Plc said it is facing a £300 million ($403 million) hit to operating profit from a cyberattack that disrupted sales and operations. The hackers were able to breach M&S’s systems via human error at a third party, the company said. The UK supermarket chain Co-op said intruders were able to access and extract customer data during a recent cyberattack, while luxury department store Harrods Ltd. disclosed that it had suffered attempts to compromise its systems.

A hacking group called DragonForce claimed responsibility for the UK attacks - which came after investor BBRC International Pte Limited increased its stake in Victoria's Secret - causing the company to adopt a poison pill strategy.

We hope they can pull this off!

Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

California has declared war on its middle class, and the special interests controlling the state are doing everything they can to impose this punitive economic model on the rest of America. It’s a quasi-feudal system, with the entire population divided into aristocrats and serfs. The means to destroy the middle class is to engineer an unaffordable cost of living for households, and a regulatory environment that only huge corporations can afford to navigate. The moral justification for this destruction is to cope with the “climate emergency” and to achieve social “equity.”

While the Trump interregnum has slowed the march of neo-feudalism in the rest of America, in California, the plan continues to move relentlessly forward. If you’re extremely wealthy, California’s abusive cost of living is not a big concern, and you stay for the scenic beauty and abundant sunshine. If you’re extremely poor, you stay because California’s taxpayer-funded assistance programs—financial aid, food assistance, healthcare, and other support services—offer a lifestyle orders of magnitude better than what you may have previously endured in the barrios of Tegucigalpa or the suburbios of Maputo.

But if you’re not rich, and you’re not poor, but just work, pay taxes, and pay for everything you need with after-tax earnings and without government assistance, California is a hostile environment. The numbers on out-migration are unequivocal. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an astonishing 8.5 million people have moved out of California since 2010. In 2023 alone, the last full year for which estimates are available, 690,000 people left. In 2022, 818,000; in 2021, 841,000. No other state has sustained anywhere near this 15 years of unrelenting mass exodus.

These people aren’t just leaving. By the millions, they’re being driven out. The latest reported cost of a home in California averages nearly $788,000 compared to $361,000 in the rest of the U.S. The price for a gallon of gasoline in California is roughly $5.00 compared to $3.00 nationwide. With refineries quitting production in California thanks to ridiculous and escalating regulatory harassment by state agencies, the price of gasoline is only going to rise. As for residential electricity rates, consumers in California have to pay around $0.30 per kilowatt-hour, a rate that is twice the national average.

This isn’t news. It costs a lot to live in California due to restrictions placed on housing and pretty much any enabling energy or water infrastructure by extreme environmentalists and the special interests that support them. It’s simple math. Homes cost twice as much. Gasoline costs nearly 60 percent more. Electricity costs twice as much. Double the cost of real estate and energy, and you double the cost of everything that needs real estate and energy to be produced.

And to ameliorate the problems they caused, California’s state legislature has indulged in a spending spree designed to shower benefits onto residents who can’t afford the overpriced necessities. It’s a good trick. Deny people the ability to make a living, blame a scapegoat (climate change, greedy corporations, billionaires, racism), and then distribute free stuff from the government in exchange for votes.

But massive government benefits are expensive for the state to maintain, with costs going into hyperdrive in the 21st century. Between 2010 and 2020, the per capita state government spending in California, adjusting for inflation, more than doubled. Since then, it’s continued to grow, with Newsom’s proposed 2025-26 state budget of $322 billion equating to $8,173 per resident. Back in 2011, in 2024 dollars, total state spending was only $4,696 per resident. Did anything get better? Schools? Crime rates? Homelessness? Affordability?

Meanwhile, the middle class pays. Not only via the cost of living, which they pay for in full since they’re not poor enough to qualify for free stuff from the government. They also pay higher taxes to support the swollen state. A lot more taxes.

Suppose a person works as an independent contractor in California and makes $100,000 per year in their regular job. They then work nights and weekends to make enough money to support their family. Let’s assume that second job doesn’t pay enough for their total annual income to exceed $176,100, which is the ceiling beyond which workers don’t have to contribute any further to Social Security (Medicare withholding has no limit). Here’s how bad these taxes get:

The marginal withholding rate for the State of California on income over $141,212 is 9.3 percent. Anything over $111,732 is taxed at 8.0 percent. Then there is federal tax of 22 percent on any income over $94,300, with Social Security and Medicare (for which an independent contractor pays the employee and the employer share) adding another whopping 15.3 percent. In all, the government taxes 46.6 percent of those last hard-earned dollars.

That’s how the State of California thanks an independent contractor who is working nights and weekends to make some extra money. Sure, the federal government takes most of it, and the federal government wastes trillions instead of merely wasting hundreds of billions. But other states don’t have California’s punitive cost of living, and in states with low or minimal state income taxes, the hit for federal income tax and Social Security/Medicare would be 37 percent, little more than a third of marginal earnings instead of nearly half.

And it doesn’t end there. Let’s have a look at sales taxes in Los Angeles County, where 9.7 million people live, 25 percent of the entire state’s population. The combined state and local sales tax rate is 9.75 percent, which means if the household in our example spent $2,000 per month on retail purchases, they’d be out another $2,340 annually. The average home in Los Angeles County costs $900,000, which means California’s supposedly low property tax rate of 1.0 percent still equates to another $9,000 per year in property taxes.

Most people in California haven’t mustered the degree of hard work and good luck it takes to make a six-figure income. The average annual salary in California is $68,917. For people making that amount of money, owning a home is an impossible dream. Just paying for gasoline and electricity is a hardship.

The betrayal that California’s state and local politicians have inflicted on the people living there is unforgivable. The state is run by a coalition of public sector unions, allied with environmentalist billionaires and the nonprofit advocacy groups they fund, and the monopolistic corporations that thrive in over-regulated environments that smaller competitors can’t survive. These aligned special interests pour billions into backing politicians who do what they’re told. The result is a bloated public sector and “green” industries profiting off of high prices and a captive market. And the established media—increasingly populated with indoctrinated youths straight out of union-controlled universities—marches in lockstep with this corrupt establishment, saying all the right things and controlling the narrative.

It’s easy enough to blame California’s voters for the predicament they’re in. Except that 40 percent of the electorate routinely votes against the one-party Democratic machine candidates. And the rest of them, certainly enough to swing the result away from Democrats, have been thoroughly indoctrinated by what is probably the most powerful political machine in America. They spend literally billions to foment nonstop fear of boiling oceans, burning forests, and genocidal Nazis lurking in every shadow. They hire the best behavioral scientists on earth to foment this paranoia. And it works. Never mind the price of gas; we have to save the planet and end racism.

California is a failed state. The only people of modest income who can possibly afford to live there are people who purchased their homes decades ago or people who inherited those homes from their parents and grandparents. Everyone else just works, all the time, and barely survives, or they give up and get government handouts.

Americans in the rest of the country need to thoroughly recognize the threat coming from California, because it is not obvious. The special interests running the state don’t merely deflect accountability by blaming the hardship they’ve engineered on climate and racism. They’ve also successfully conned voters into thinking that these special interests fight against each other, when in fact they are united. Public sector unions, billionaire-backed NGOs, and monopolistic corporations are not antagonists. These aligned groups share the same agenda, and they work together. To serve each of their varied interests, they intend to destroy the middle class in this country.

In California, they’ve succeeded in doing exactly that.

Over 40 investors in Vietnam’s solar and wind energy sector are warning they may default unless the government honors its original pricing commitments, according to Nikkei Asia. 

Vietnam had initially offered feed-in tariffs ranging from 7.09 to 9.35 U.S. cents per kWh for solar energy, valid for 20 years, to attract investment and support the country's shift to renewable energy. However, the government now wants to pay in local currency at a rate equal to 4.7 U.S. cents per kWh—a cut of 34% to 50%, depending on the exchange rate.

Most affected projects are solar farms, and many investors have reported delayed or reduced payments from the state utility Electricity Vietnam (EVN). These delays stem from a government review claiming that key documentation—the construction completion acceptance (CCA)—was missing, despite not being required at the time.

Investors argue that most projects have since secured the document and paid related penalties.

In a letter sent on May 16 to top leaders including Communist Party chief To Lam and Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, the investors urged the government to protect what they described as Vietnam’s “contractual integrity, regulatory consistency, and the credibility” of its investment environment. They also warned that the dispute “poses serious and immediate risks to investor confidence, financial stability, and Vietnam’s long-term energy and climate objectives.”

Concerns have grown over EVN’s proposal to retroactively change terms, which could require investors to return past payments. One Vietnamese investor noted that while the rules have shifted, most developers are now in compliance.

The Nikkei report says that the letter—signed by more than 40 foreign and local investors representing a combined 6.38 gigawatts of capacity—also noted that over $13 billion in equity is at risk, including about $4 billion from foreign-led projects.

Signatories include Japan’s Fujiwara Energy and Toho Gas, Thailand’s B.Grimm Renewable and Super Energy, the Philippines’ ACEN, Portugal’s Sunseap, and the Netherlands’ SEP. The group warned that they are breaching loan agreements and face growing risks of default. According to the letter, the situation has led to cash flow problems affecting “plant maintenance, repairs, and operations,” threatening project sustainability and business operations overall.

Vietnam’s export-driven economy relies heavily on foreign capital and competitive energy prices. With growth expected to hit 8% this year and even higher in the coming years, the country is facing rising energy demand. Power outages in 2023 already rattled manufacturers and residents in the north.

EVN posted nearly $1 billion in losses last year, following an $800 million shortfall in 2022. Although it was still in deficit in the first half of 2024, price hikes eventually helped the utility return to profit by year’s end.

Authorities have so far maintained that only projects meeting all formal requirements are eligible for the favorable pricing.

Dominic Scriven, chairman of Dragon Capital, whose firm has 123 megawatts of solar affected by the changes, said the lack of clarity is already hurting both investor confidence and the stability of ongoing projects. He added that he hopes the government will act constructively to resolve the dispute.

Even companies without current feed-in-tariff projects are watching closely. Kengo Nagaki, deputy chief representative of Tokyo Gas in Vietnam, said that while his firm’s projects are not affected, “if this were to happen, it would be a concern for foreign investors.”

He emphasized that the government cannot meet its renewable energy targets without international investment.

Authored by Charles Kennedy via OilPrice.com,

• Following ExxonMobil’s massive 2017 oil discovery offshore Guyana, Venezuela has revived and intensified its claim over the Essequibo region.

• A series of cross-border attacks on Guyanese troops, including three on May 15, points to a potential Venezuelan strategy of deniable, Russia-style hybrid warfare.

• The U.S. has warned Venezuela that any attack on Guyana or ExxonMobil would carry serious consequences.

A quiet frontier in South America is rapidly becoming one of the world’s most volatile energy flashpoints.

The disputed region of Essequibo, a sparsely populated expanse administered by Guyana but claimed by Venezuela, has seen tensions simmer for years. But a combination of geopolitical ambition, economic desperation, and energy opportunity is now threatening to tip the standoff into open conflict.

At stake is one of the most valuable stretches of territory in the world—an area that, until recently, few outside the region had heard of.

Essequibo, which comprises nearly two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass, was thrust into the global spotlight after ExxonMobil’s 2017 discovery of the Stabroek Block offshore reserves, estimated at over 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

For Guyana the find transformed the country from economic backwater to a regional energy giant almost overnight.

The newfound wealth has also revived Venezuela’s long-standing claim to the region, a grievance dating back to colonial arbitration rulings of the late 19th century. Caracas has never fully relinquished its claim, but it was only after the oil discovery that Venezuela began actively pressing the issue. Since 2022, under President Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has dramatically escalated its rhetoric and actions—announcing referenda, redrawing maps, and even moving military assets toward the border.

Most alarmingly, Venezuela has begun to mimic the playbook of its closest geopolitical ally—Russia. Much like Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea using unmarked “little green men,” Venezuela appears to be laying the groundwork for a slow, deniable incursion into Essequibo. The playbook combines official rhetoric with irregular warfare tactics, allowing for plausible deniability while steadily undermining Guyana’s control.

The first major signal of this new phase came last year when Maduro’s government held a referendum to “reclaim” Essequibo. Despite international condemnation, the vote passed and led to the formal creation of a new Venezuelan “state” encompassing the territory. Venezuela began offering citizenship to Essequibo’s residents and launched efforts to organize elections in the region.

In March 2025, a Venezuelan naval gunboat intercepted ExxonMobil operations in Guyanese waters, accusing the U.S. oil major of encroaching on Venezuelan territory.

The incident was widely seen as a warning shot—not just to Exxon, but to any foreign investors backing Guyana’s energy future.

But the most ominous sign yet came on May 15, when Guyana’s military reported three armed attacks in a single day on its patrols along the Cuyuni River, a critical stretch of the Guyana–Venezuela border. According to the Guyana Defence Force, unidentified gunmen in civilian clothing opened fire on soldiers in three separate engagements. No casualties were reported, and the Guyanese military responded with what it described as “measured force.”

The attacks were chilling in their timing and coordination. While the assailants were not officially identified, officials in Georgetown and most international observers believe they were Venezuelan operatives or proxies acting on Caracas’s behalf. The region is not known for organized crime or guerrilla activity, and no local insurgency has taken root—at least not yet.

This wasn’t the first time violence erupted in the contested zone. In February, another attack left two Guyanese soldiers critically injured. That incident, too, was blamed on Venezuela-linked forces. 

While the skirmishes may seem minor in isolation, taken together they mark a dangerous pattern of escalation. What’s emerging is a shadow conflict—gray-zone warfare that avoids the threshold of open war while steadily eroding Guyana’s control over Essequibo. The danger, analysts warn, is that this slow-motion campaign could culminate in a de facto annexation, much like Crimea, before the international community has time to respond.

The Guyana Defence Force fields just over 3,000 active personnel with limited air, land, and naval capabilities. Venezuela, by contrast, commands over 100,000 troops, around 200 tanks, dozens of combat aircraft, and a sizable paramilitary force—making any conventional war a one-sided affair.

However, during a visit to Georgetown in March, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned that any Venezuelan attack on Guyana or ExxonMobil would mark “a very bad day” for Caracas, hinting at serious consequences. Venezuela swiftly condemned the remarks.

The real question now is how the international community, and especially the United States, will respond. ExxonMobil’s deep involvement gives Washington both an interest and a stake in the dispute. But the broader issue goes beyond oil. A successful Venezuelan land grab would further erode the already fragile post-Cold War order. It would also send a message to authoritarian regimes worldwide: territorial revisionism is back—and it works.

Guyana has vowed to defend its sovereignty and is seeking stronger security partnerships.

But unless it receives military support or any other type of real security guarantee from the U.S., Georgetown will struggle to hold the line alone.

For now, Essequibo remains under Guyana’s flag. But the shadow of Caracas is growing—and so is the risk that South America’s next war may erupt in one of its least known, but most strategically vital, regions.

Via Middle East Eye

Far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has called for the rebuilding of a Jewish temple on the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque and for the expansion of Israel’s borders and Jewish settlements in Gaza.

In speech addressing crowds at a Jerusalem Day rally on Monday, which celebrates Israel’s occupation of the old city of Jerusalem, Smotrich also called for "complete redemption" and reconstruction of "the Temple here," referring to Al-Aqsa Mosque, which settlers had raided earlier. 

Reuters: Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich walks to visit the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem's Old City, as Israelis mark Jerusalem Day, 26 May 2025

“We are conquering the Land of Israel, liberating Gaza, settling Gaza and defeating the enemy,” Smotrich said to crowds that had chanted “death to Arabs” as they marched through Jerusalem’s Old City and attacked Palestinians. 

“With God’s help, we will expand Israel’s borders, bring about complete redemption, and rebuild the Temple here,” he said.

Smotrich also reiterated his calls for Jewish settlement in Gaza, declaring that “Israel is not afraid of the word occupation”.

“Some people are afraid of victory. We are not afraid of victory,” he said. “Lets give strength to our brave and heroic fighters”.

Several attacks and brawls were caught on film during Jerusalem Day marches...

Right-wing Israelis storm Al-Aqsa compound in occupied East Jerusalem, attacking Palestinians and chanting anti-Muslim slogans on “Jerusalem Day,” which marks Israel’s 1967 occupation of the city. pic.twitter.com/XFNTjW2yEN

“Are we afraid of victory? Are we afraid of the word occupation?” Smotrich demanded, to which the crowd responded with a resounding “no”.

Smotrich has long advocated for extending Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank and Gaza, and across the Middle East as part of his vision of a “Greater Israel”.

Earlier this month, Smotrich vowed that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed” and its Palestinian population will “leave in great numbers to third countries”.

He also declared that Israel would “apply sovereignty” in the occupied West Bank before the next Israeli general elections in October 2026.

On Jerusalem Day, Israeli women chanted ‘May your village burn!’ as they marched through the Armenian Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem. pic.twitter.com/AtbTK6S9nv

“Within a few months, we will be able to declare that we have won. Gaza will be totally destroyed,” Smotrich said. “In another six months, Hamas won’t exist as a functioning entity.”

Authored by Connor O'Keefe via The Mises Institute,

As President Trump wrestles to deliver on his campaign promise to end the war on Ukraine by helping to bring about a negotiated peace deal, the effort has, in part, been undermined by an escalating exchange of kamikaze drones by both sides.

The last week especially saw a sharp escalation, with Ukraine launching thousands of drones deep into Russia—most of which the Russians claim to have intercepted—and Russia, in turn, stepping up its drone attacks in Ukraine. The Russian strikes over the weekend got a lot of coverage in the American media, especially an aerial assault on Saturday night where parts of some of the largest drone swarms launched in the war so far hit residential buildings around the Ukrainian armament factories Russia claimed to be targeting.

That series of strikes led Trump to issue his sharpest rebuke of Vladamir Putin to date. He called the Russian president crazy and voiced frustration with how Putin has changed since their phone call together—after which Trump had characterized Putin as reasonable and interested in a ceasefire.

The establishment press gleefully seized on Trump’s comments to argue that even he is now waking up to what they’ve been saying this whole time: that Putin is an unhinged maniac who cannot be reasoned with because he is motivated solely by bloodlust and delusions of conquering Europe. They then, predictably, bring it back to their broader argument that Trump’s “naïve” effort to “appease” Putin with a peace agreement and then “retreat from Europe” to usher in a new age of American isolationism is futile and dangerous and that he ought to instead recommit to the establishment’s preferred strategy of heavy-handed interventionism.

It is true that the Trump administration’s attempt to kickstart negotiations to end the war in Ukraine has run into difficulties that make it unlikely a ceasefire will be reached soon. But that is not an argument in favor of the political establishment’s interventionism, as that is the very thing that brought about this difficult situation in the first place.

Much has been written on the decades between the collapse of the USSR and the rise of the Western-friendly Russian Federation and the eventual return of Cold War conditions encapsulated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There is plenty of debate about the details and consequences of decisions made along the way. But nobody with any real credibility is even trying to argue that this period was characterized by a lack of US meddling in Eastern Europe.

Washington was heavily involved in the region from the beginning. At first, it was all under the friendly guise of helping with the transition from communism to capitalism. But as that process was botched by a combination of statist Western economists—who thought free markets had to be organized and managed in a top-down fashion—and outright corruption by officials on all sides, the respect, admiration, and trust the American government enjoyed in much of the region began to fade away.

That was accelerated when US presidents began working to expand NATO, the anti-Soviet military alliance, up to Russia’s border. For Russia’s entire history, the lack of natural barriers between Moscow and the rest of Europe has been a source of tremendous anxiety for Russian leaders. No mountains or major waterways blocked the armies of Napoleon and, later, Hitler from marching directly into the Russian heartland. The only factor that doomed both of those invasions was distance.

Even in the age of nuclear weapons, when long infantry supply chains are less relevant, the greater the distance a ballistic missile needs to travel to reach Russian cities, the more time the Russian regime has to detect, assess, and respond. Distance is still a factor in their defense strategy.

US officials knew this and still chose to help NATO expand closer and closer to Moscow. They were even told explicitly by the US ambassador to Russia that working to bring Ukraine, specifically, into NATO would almost certainly cause Russia to invade Ukraine.

Virtually every major American Cold War strategist was vocally against NATO expansion because they saw it as a surefire way to unnecessarily restart the US-Russia conflict that had just miraculously ended without nuclear annihilation. But they were out-lobbied and out-maneuvered by the weapons companies that produce all the military hardware that new NATO countries are required to buy.

So NATO expanded, American military hardware moved east, and anti-government protests in countries aligned with Russia received funding and support from the American government.

Even if we accept the establishment’s argument that Putin doesn’t actually care if the US pours weapons into and arranges security guarantees with the countries right on his border and is only using those actions as an excuse to further his imperial ambitions, US officials still handed Putin an easy way to get the Russian public onboard with an invasion of Ukraine for no real reason whatsoever.

Then, tragically, after the invasion happened, US officials and their allies in Western European governments like the UK convinced the Ukrainians to abandon an early peace agreement that would have resulted in Russian forces pulling back to pre-invasion boundaries. In the years since, Russia has laid permanent claim to much of the eastern Ukrainian territory they had earlier agreed to relinquish. And the Ukrainian government has continuously lost leverage over its Russian occupiers as they tried and failed to drive them out by force.

Last summer, Ukraine made the surprising decision to draw soldiers and resources away from the front lines to conduct a small invasion in Russia’s Kursk region on Ukraine’s northern border. That operation may have been an attempt to regain some leverage in future negotiations. But it did not accomplish much, and Russia has since retaken virtually all the territory they lost. The transfer of Ukrainian troops and resources has now given the Russians momentum on the rest of the front.

That is why it is unlikely that a peace agreement will be reached in the near future. Because it appears that Russia can achieve more if it continues fighting than through negotiations. And, importantly, that is not because the US and its European allies have held back and avoided giving the Ukrainians what they needed to fight the Russians. It’s because the officials who recognized the West’s leverage in future negotiations would only get worse lost out to those who thought the war should be prolonged anyway because it was a good way to “weaken Russia” without risking American lives.

There is no easy path out of this mess. It’s not as if NATO governments have some special weapons system they haven’t sent to Ukraine yet that could begin to turn the tide of the war. If they had, they would have sent it already. Short of sending American troops into combat with the Russians, there is little more that can be done to prop up Ukrainian forces. And, as Scott Horton noted in his recent talk here at the Mises Institute, even if Trump genuinely tried to reverse course and repair relations between Washington and Moscow, the Russians would probably just assume, understandably, that any progress he made would be undone by the next Democrat to win the presidency.

That’s why, if we’re ever going to see a true end to this unnecessary second Cold War with Russia, it requires that more Americans understand how it truly came about in the first place. It needs to be widely understood that if our government’s priority were really keeping us safe, they would have done everything in their power to avoid kickstarting a new conflict with the most heavily nuclear-armed government in the world. And yet, they seemed to have done the precise opposite.

What the path out certainly does not involve is doubling down on the same exact policies that both created this mess in the first place and that are being championed by those who want to see this war drag on indefinitely in a vile attempt to use Ukrainians to weaken Russia a little bit more.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to not attack Iran, or at least to hold off any preemptive action to give more time for Washington and Tehran to forge a nuclear agreement.

“Well, I’d like to be honest. Yes, I did. Next question, please?”...and also: "I told him this would be inappropriate to do right now because we're very close to a solution," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about the issue.

Q: "On Iran, did you warn Prime Minister Netanyahu against taking some sort of actions that could disrupt the talks there in a phone call last week?"

President Trump: "Well, I'd like to be honest. Yes I did." pic.twitter.com/yoXB3t90SZ

"It’s not a warning," Trump added. "I said, ‘I don’t think it’s appropriate.’ I just said I don’t think it’s appropriate. We’re having very good discussions with them, and I don’t think it’s appropriate right now."

The question to Trump was prompted by an Axios report published the day prior:

President Trump cautioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a phone call last week not to take any action that could jeopardize negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on a new nuclear deal, a White House official and a source familiar with the details tell Axios.

Trump's message was "he doesn't want him to antagonize at a time when he is trying to solve problems," the official said.

Trump also repeated his tone optimism on the talks, telling reporters, “We’re doing very well with Iran.”

The White House's messaging to Israel has been to say "stay united and let this process play out" - and that the process needs some time. Of course, Trump has still warned that "other options" are on the table should Tehran refuse to make progress.

The Iranians have said they are willing to guarantee (and allow monitoring) that uranium enrichment is only for peaceful nuclear energy production, and will pledge no development of nukes. Critics of Trump point that this was essentially the 2015 JCPOA nuclear which the first Trump administration pulled out of in April 2018.

Plenty of indirect 'threats' were peppered into Trump's Wednesday Iran comments:

He seems to suggest that his conditions for a deal with Iran include the US being allowed to come in and “take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want.” Seems unlikely that Iran would consent for the US to come in and “blow up” its infrastructure pic.twitter.com/jxHUM8oljw

Also on Wednesday, the head of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, the IAEA's Rafael Mariano Grossi, said that "the jury is still out" on negotiations. "For the moment, the jury is still out. We don't know whether there's going to be an agreement or not," Grossi told journalists in Vienna.

"I think that is an indication of a willingness to come to an agreement. And I think that, in and by itself, is something possible," he added of ongoing meetings.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The FBI is investigating after officials said a religious event in Seattle was disrupted by violence, a top FBI official said on May 27.

“We have asked our team to fully investigate allegations of targeted violence against religious groups at the Seattle concert,” Dan Bongino, the FBI’s deputy director, said on social media platform X. “Freedom of religion isn’t a suggestion.”

The office of Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Organizers said the May 24 event was held at Cal Anderson Park in support of “the sanctity of human life, the sacrality of biological gender, the importance of the nuclear family, and the right to freedom of speech and religion.”

They said the movement organizing the event stands against indoctrination of children “by a liberal, political, and sexual agenda that seeks to destroy their God-given identities.”

Counterprotesters, including the Freedom Socialist Party, said their demonstration was meant to “keep your bibles off our bodies.”

Clashes at the event resulted in 23 arrests, the Seattle Police Department said. One juvenile was released. The rest of those arrested were charged with assault and obstruction.

The White House Faith Office said in a statement on Tuesday that it condemned “the violent disruption of Seattle’s MayDay USA worship event.”

“We affirm the fundamental rights to free speech and religious freedom for all Americans, as protected by federal law. Public officials must protect the inalienable rights of all citizens, regardless of their faith or religious beliefs. We urge the City of Seattle to uphold these rights at all faith-based events, safeguarding the ability of people of faith to gather and express their beliefs without fear of harassment or violence,” the office said.

After the event, Harrell, a Democrat, called it a “far-right rally” that he said was meant “to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.”

He said that anarchists infiltrated counterprotesters and “inspired violence,” which led to officers making arrests and asking organizers to end the event early. The request was accepted.

Organizers said in a statement to news outlets that “under Mayor Harrell’s leadership, the city of Seattle has continued its spiral into lawlessness and dysfunction while the First Amendment rights of citizens to peacefully assemble has been disregarded.”

The Seattle mayor’s office later released statements from some faith leaders that offered support for Harrell and criticized the event organizers.

Russell Johnson, the lead pastor at Pursuit NW, said on X that Harrell should apologize to Christians in the state “for his bigoted remarks after folks who were holding a peaceful worship event at Cal Anderson Park were violently assaulted for the high crime of expressing their deeply held religious beliefs in the form of a permitted worship event on city property.”