What is there left to sanction in Russia? Apparently the European Union still sees plenty of opportunity to punish Russia over the Ukraine war, and is set to go after even religious leaders, now in year five of the conflict and many sanctions packages later.
The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, is among many names to be targeted in the EU's latest anti-Moscow sanctions proposal. Kirill has long been accused of justifying the war based on his several patriotic-themed sermons over the years.
via Associated PressBrussels first tried to impose individual sanctions on the patriarch in 2022, but Hungary under PM Viktor Orban had exercised veto power over the move.
The sanctions would involve travel bans and an asset freeze, as has already happened with Kremlin officials and notables.
Kirill has at times utilized language in public that frames Putin's 'special military operation' in Ukraine as a 'holy war'; however, some sympathetic pundits especially in the Orthodox Church world have said these are simple calls to patriotism and defense of the 'motherland' or homeland - a common mindset among most religions and nationalities.
American politicians and other church leaders in the US have taken swipes at Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church - and yet it must be recalled that in the lead-up to Bush's disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion, since proven to have been based on lies, propaganda, and falsehoods - an overwhelming number of prominent Evangelical and Baptist leaders supported it as a somehow 'righteous' or 'godly' regime change mission.
The Russian Orthodox Church has of late been especially angry that the Ukrainian government under Zelensky has been seizing churches and historic monasteries in Ukraine which still hold communion with Moscow.
In some cases, Orthodox bishops in Ukraine have been arrested simply for not severing spiritual ties with Kirill. This has happened even when bishops, monks, or priests - who find themselves targeted by Ukrainian authorities - don't support Russia's war.
And yet, the EU has remained largely silent on Ukraine's own abuses, and using religion to foster nationalism and conformity to a political agenda.
Moscow has long highlighted this hypocrisy, also as Orthodox Christian clergy in the United States have of late lobbied Congress to demand that Kiev overturn its discriminatory laws which target Orthodox leaders in Ukraine.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 04:15The US war with Iran has moved beyond its initial phase to an emerging new one — one in which Iran implicitly stakes its chances on the next phase being war. Most likely this will be in abbreviated episodes of limited war, but possessing nevertheless a potential to widen regionally, should the US (and Israel) elect to sharply escalate.
The new phase involves risk of course, yet Iran holds the high cards of an ability to impose disproportionately heavier damage upon Gulf infrastructure as retaliation for any hurt inflicted upon it — and the awareness that the West is edging ever closer to dropping off the energy “cliff.”
The three pillars underlying this shift are firstly, confidence that Iran will not (and cannot) be shifted from its hold over Hormuz, and that in consolidating its administrative structures there, the reality of Iran’s hold over Hormuz will increasingly be assimilated by states, and reflected in their coming to terms with Iranian-Omani control.
via YNetAssociated with this core principle is Iran’s implementation of escalated deterrence vis á vis the American naval blockade. Any attempt to intercept or attack Iranian vessels or interfere with the Strait’s administration will be met with increasingly harsher ripostes. Ultimately this policy may lead to Iran imposing increasing levels of damage to US naval vessels – another friction point.
On 3 June, for example, the US fired a hellfire missile at an Iranian oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. In response, a US-owned (or partly-owned) ship, The Panaya, was struck with missiles. Additionally Iran launched three waves of cruise missiles at the US air and helicopter base in Kuwait from where the attack had originated. Images have emerged of serious damage at Kuwait international airport too (although the cause of the damage remains disputed).
The second underlying principle affecting this shift simply reflects Iranian disdain for Trump’s continuous inflating of demands, exaggerated threats (which palpably fall short of US capacities), together with his continual zigzagging and contemptuous rhetoric towards Iran.
The Iranian leadership has concluded, it seems, that compromise will likely not be forthcoming, and that it is better to cut the “negotiations” rather “than continue the pointless bad-faith negotiations with a deceitful and decrepit American regime,” as the New York Times has termed the Iran “negotiations” — suggesting that the “deal chaos” is not a singular glitch by Trump confined to the Iran issue, but rather is a consistent pattern of dysfunctionality repeating itself across virtually all of Trump’s “peace” initiatives.
Behind Iran’s decision to suspend talks however, likely lies the gradually dawning clarity, seeping out from Israeli and American statements and analysis, that the true objective of the 28 February US-Israeli sneak attack was never regime change per se — aiming to swap out Iranian “hardliners” for a “Delcy Rodrigues”-style more moderate leader; but was intended rather, to bring about Iran’s complete destruction and fracturing — an insight that was bound to shift Iran’s calculus.
This insight has consolidated public support for the Islamic Republic hugely, and at the same time has turned the war into an existential struggle to preserve the ethical values of the Revolution. Seen from this optic, there is little for Iran to discuss with Trump, bar some future modus vivendi — as and when, Washington understands that it is boxed in, and that new realism takes a hold.
The third principle undergirding this new phase of conflict is the one enunciated by Iran from the outset of the Islamabad talks: “Ceasefire for all; or ceasefire for no one.” This was again re-emphasised in Iran’s latest ultimatum to Trump: “If the Israeli threats from last week to flatten the Beirut southern suburb of Dahiyeh had been executed, then Iran would have stricken northern Israel hard with its missiles. ‘It was a ceasefire for all – or no ceasefire.”
Trump chose the ceasefire, and subsequent to his call with Netanyahu, announced that it was in effect. He told Netanyahu to cancel his planned bombing of Dahiyeh in south Beirut. In Israel, a massive wave of anger from all sides of the political spectrum attacked Netanyahu at the very notion of curbing any Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Former PM Naftali Bennett accused Netanyahu of “losing control over Israeli sovereignty.” And former PM Yair Lapid said Israel had been reduced to a “vassal state” after the strikes were called off.
The US and Israel for some months have been attempting to bring a segment of leaders in Lebanon to accept the task of disarming Hizbullah, as Rubio explained, “so Israel doesn’t have to do it” — something Lebanese leaders clearly cannot do.
Israel has no coherent Lebanon strategy. Former senior Israeli military intelligence officer, Danny Citrinowicz, outlines a new strategic “Iranian achievement”:
Tehran has effectively succeeded in linking the Lebanese front to the broader Iranian-Israeli arena. Any escalation in Lebanon is now increasingly viewed through the prism of the US-Iran dynamic.
Nevertheless, he observes:
The situation in Lebanon remains highly unstable. Israel and Hezbollah continue to interpret the current understandings in fundamentally different ways. [Whilst] Israel maintains that it retains freedom of action across Lebanon except Beirut, Hezbollah [on the other hand] insists that any Israeli military activity – at all – violates the ceasefire framework. These competing interpretations create significant potential for renewed friction and escalation on the ground.
In Israel, the situation in northern towns remains neuralgic for nearly all Israelis. Many towns along the Lebanon border and down into the Galilee are half-empty — “entire swaths of land abandoned by [the] government,” writes Ben Caspit. Local politicians claim that they “are Israelis too” and that the government must respond.
We prefer the language of diplomacy, but we speak other languages far more fluently. Break your commitments, and we'll switch to what we speak best.
You ride the horse you saddled!
Lebanon is certain to remain a point of contention. It is not a matter of if, but when, the next crisis will strike. Israel will not let the matter stand — even Liberal opposition leaders demand Hizbullah’s destruction and protest Trump’s tying of Netanyahu’s hands in Lebanon.
Iran will not let matters stand either. Mediators have informed the Americans that Iran considers an end to the war on Lebanon, withdrawal of Israeli forces, and a withdrawal from Hormuz, to be binding conditions — before discussing other issues.
So, here we are. The military skirmishes — effectively an abbreviated series of strikes by US forces on Iranian shipping and Strait infrastructure, arising from Trump’s desire to assert its naval blockade to US public opinion — continue. This situation is clearly flammable – just as is the Lebanon context.
Iran effectively is acknowledging the reality that in this new phase — with so many inherent flash points to it — American military escalation at some point likely will become a political necessity for Trump’s domestic and Jewish financers’ needs.
And the negotiations? They will go nowhere so long as Israel and the US Jewish billionaire donors reject any Iran outcome that leaves Iran both intact and stronger and — pari passu in this binary thinking — the “Israel First” project within the US and the region correspondingly weakened.
A deal that doesn’t see Iran irretrievably weakened will be condemned by these latter forces as a “treasonous dereliction” by Trump. He will be attacked mercilessly. Yet, he must see that Iran is anyway on the cusp of throwing off the US shackles.
This phase of the Iranian conflict likely will only end when the West falls off the approaching economic cliff …
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 03:30In yet another example of Ukraine war fatigue among European allies, NATO member Bulgaria has newly announce it is halting weapons deliveries to Ukraine, signaling a major shift in the eastern European country's longtime policy.
The prior government proved itself early out of the gate as an enthusiastic arms backer of Kiev, but new Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev, whose Progressive Bulgaria party won the April election, is rolling back the prior policy.
The new government has made clear it has a new peace agenda, and its position is that nothing will be resolved by just pouring more heavy arms into the conflict, now in its fifth year. It was given a new mandate, but after reports of low voter turnout in the country.
Anadolu Agency"What we are witnessing is a war of attrition, and no matter how much weaponry is amassed, its only result is the loss of human lives," the country's Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov told reporters on Tuesday,
The defense chief stressed it is time to sit down at the negotiating table "to seek a just peace that is defined by both sides."
"Ukraine needs more people, not more weapons. It has enough weapons, so we do not envisage providing more weapons to the Ukrainian army," he added.
"Of course, the role of the EU is extremely important," he said, explaining that "it would be difficult to assign this role to that of a mediator for the simple reason that the EU has also assisted Ukraine in its efforts in this war anyway."
As for the recently installed in office Radev, he's a eurosceptic former fighter pilot, who had built his campaign around calls for pragmatic ties with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy supplies and an end to military aid for Ukraine.
He has repeatedly criticized EU overreach on green-energy mandates, sanctions policies and what he describes as moral posturing in a “world without rules.” While analysts note he is unlikely to ultimately jeopardize the flow of EU funds that sustain Bulgaria’s economy, the result installs a distinctly Russia-friendly government at the heart of the EU’s southeastern flank - a shift that will draw close scrutiny in Brussels, Washington and Kyiv.
Bulgaria has become the first EU member state to formally halt military aid to Ukraine since the return of Rumen Radev to power, raising new questions about European unity on the war.#Bulgaria #UkraineWar #RumenRadev #EuropeanUnion #NATO #RussiaUkraineWar #Kyiv #Sofia…
— Balkan View (@BalkanView2025) June 9, 2026Radev’s campaign had leaned heavily into criticism of EU overreach - particularly its green-energy obsession, sanctions regime, and moral posturing in a “world without rules.” He has repeatedly called for improved relations with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy flows, and an end to military aid for Ukraine - and now he's begun to make good on these promises, it appears.
Other Western allies have complained he's too 'Russia-sympathetic' - and have called to keep up the steady flow of arms to Ukraine forces.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 02:45Authored by Patrick Keeney via The Epoch Times,
The brutal murder of Henry Nowak should have focused public attention on the circumstances surrounding his death and the troubling questions it raises about justice, race, and social cohesion in contemporary Britain.
Yet one need only read one widely publicized headline to know that another story is about to be told: “How Britain’s far right hijacked the murder of Henry Nowak.”
Predictably, the tragedy is being pressed into service as evidence of the supposedly inexorable rise of the “far right” and “white grievance.”
The victim, it seems, is of secondary importance.
What truly concerns much of the legacy media is not the murder itself but the possibility that ordinary citizens might draw conclusions that fall outside the approved narrative. Once again, a deeply disturbing event is filtered through a set of ideological assumptions so familiar that the outcome is known before the reporting has even begun.
The most revealing aspect of this story is not the crime itself, however disturbing, but the legacy media’s inability to imagine it meaning anything beyond its established ideological script. The circumstances may change, but the narrative remains reassuringly familiar: another cautionary tale about the rise of the “far right.” The conclusion is already written before the reporting begins.
Predictably, the legacy media appears determined to interpret the controversy through the now-standard lens of right-wing extremism. Whenever social tensions arise around immigration, crime, identity, or unequal treatment under the law, the first instinct is rarely to assess whether the public’s concerns have any merit. Instead, attention immediately shifts to the alleged dangers posed by those raising concerns. The story ceases to be about the underlying issue and becomes about the people noticing it.
This reflex reveals a profound intellectual exhaustion. The explanatory framework that dominated public discourse twenty years ago remains largely unchanged despite repeated failures to account for social realities that large numbers of ordinary citizens can plainly see.
Every electoral upset, every protest movement, every surge of public dissatisfaction is interpreted as evidence of the same phenomenon: the mysterious emergence of the “far right.” One might be forgiven for thinking that half of Europe has spent the last decade spontaneously transforming into fascists.
Yet a more plausible explanation often presents itself. Perhaps public frustration stems not from an outbreak of extremism but from a growing perception that institutions no longer operate by consistent principles. Is it reasonable to think that people object when standards appear to vary by race, ethnicity, religion, or political ideology? Or maybe they become angry when authorities seem more concerned with managing public perceptions than with addressing legitimate grievances.
In Nowak’s case, the question many people are asking is straightforward. Would the response have been identical had the races of those involved been reversed? Would the media framing have been the same? Would public officials have reacted in precisely the same way? These are not inherently extremist questions. They are questions about fairness, equal treatment, and institutional legitimacy. And we all know the answer.
Yet for many journalists, the possibility that institutions themselves may be engaging in differential treatment is dismissed before it can even be considered. The hypothesis cannot be entertained because it collides with a set of assumptions that have become foundational to institutions throughout the West.
The result is a curious form of myopia. Evidence that might challenge prevailing assumptions is either ignored or reinterpreted until it fits comfortably within the existing narrative framework. The rise in public discontent cannot be attributed to institutional failures; therefore, it must reflect the rise of extremism.
Declining trust in the media cannot result from biased reporting; therefore, it must result from misinformation. Electoral revolts cannot be responses to genuine policy failures; therefore, they can only be reactions driven by fear, prejudice, or ignorance.
This explanatory model is remarkably resilient. Like the medieval physician who attributed every illness to an imbalance of humors, today’s media class has found a single diagnostic tool that explains virtually every social phenomenon. Economic stagnation? Far right. Concerns about immigration? Far right. Questions about crime? Far right. Skepticism toward public institutions? Far right.
At some point, one begins to suspect that the diagnosis may reveal more about the diagnostician than the patient.
The irony, of course, is that this approach increasingly undermines the very institutions that employ it. Public trust in mainstream media has declined sharply across much of the Western world. Journalists often attribute this erosion to social media or partisan manipulation. These factors undoubtedly play a role.
But another explanation suggests itself: people lose confidence in the media when they repeatedly observe a gap between what they see with their own eyes and what they are told to see. One thinks, for example, of the obvious dementia of the former U.S. President Joe Biden, even as the legacy media repeatedly told us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes and propagated the blatant untruth that he was, in fact, better than ever.
The public may not hold advanced degrees in journalism or sociology. They may not speak the language of intersectionality, structural privilege, or critical theory. Yet they retain a stubborn attachment to common sense. When institutions appear unwilling even to entertain obvious questions or obvious explanations, ordinary citizens naturally begin to search elsewhere for answers.
This is the disaster facing much of the legacy media today. The problem is not simply bias. All human beings possess biases. The deeper problem is an inability to recognize alternative explanations. A profession once dedicated to curiosity increasingly shows a remarkable lack of it. Stories are filtered through a set of approved assumptions that have hardened into dogma. Facts are welcomed when they confirm the narrative and treated with suspicion when they complicate it.
Meanwhile, the public grows steadily less willing to accept these interpretations at face value.
The great danger for legacy media is not that the “far right” will triumph. The greater danger is that journalists will continue to mistake every challenge to their assumptions as evidence of what they continue to label “extremism.” In doing so, they become incapable of understanding the societies they claim to describe.
After all, if every criticism of institutional behavior is dismissed as evidence of right-wing radicalism, the term eventually loses all explanatory power. It becomes less a description than a ritual incantation, repeated whenever reality threatens to intrude on the narrative.
And when that happens, people stop listening. And they are right to do so.
The public’s patience with such shibboleths is not infinite. Indeed, one suspects it is already running thin. Nevertheless, the old formulas still appear on cue. The familiar warnings are dutifully repeated. The specter of the far right is once again summoned from its cupboard. Yet with each repetition, the performance becomes less convincing.
The audience has heard the script before. The plot no longer surprises. Increasingly, they suspect that the storytellers may have lost touch with the story itself.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 02:00