The Ukraine war is quite obviously escalating, especially regarding Ukrainian leaders seeking to "bring the war" to Russian soil, amid nightly drone attacks which have come in the hundreds and even thousands of late.
President Volodymyr Zelensky is seeking to seize on the momentum of repeat drone hits on Russian refinery and energy infrastructure - a reality Russia has suffered over many months, leading to a current fuel crisis spanning dozens of cities and regions, and especially Crimea, which has temporarily halted fuel sales to common citizens altogether this week.
Ukrainian media is touting a new Zelensky plan to ramp up the pressure on Russia over the next 40 days, aimed at "pressuring Russia to end its war".
Ukrainian Presidential OfficeHe has ordered Ukraine's State Security Service (SBU) to launch a new 40-day operation, which also includes "plan for long-range sanctions, medium-range sanctions, and the results achieved by the SBU," Zelensky said on X. He's further calling it an "influence operation."
"For several months in a row, the SBU has demonstrated the highest performance in defending Ukraine’s positions on the front lines through the use of various types of drones," Zelensky said on Thursday evening. According to more of the statement:
I approved a 40-day influence operation for the Service against the aggressor state aimed at compelling it to end the war.
Importantly, for several months in a row, the SSU has demonstrated the highest performance in defending Ukraine’s positions on the front lines through the use of various types of drones. The Center of Special Operations “Alpha” leads in terms of the occupier’s personnel and equipment neutralized.
Earlier, in mid-June, Ukrainian Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov proclaimed "Hell is beginning," for Russia and its military. "Logistics are being cut off. Crimea is being isolated," he said at the time.
Ukraine's asymmetric warfare against Russia's much-larger and better armed military machine is in a significantly better position than the status of a year or so ago. Russian forces still have the upper-hand on the front line in the east, but the pain clearly being inflicted on Russia's economy can't be ignored at this point.
This sets up a potential slide into tit-for-tat escalation which could unleash a WW3 scenario. In the meantime this is an interesting-timed warning from Latvia and Poland:
Western intelligence agencies are increasingly concerned that Russia may be preparing a limited hybrid operation targeting NATO's eastern flank, potentially involving the Baltic states or Poland.
Such a move, officials believe, could be an attempt to test the alliance's unity as the war in Ukraine enters a new phase.
According to reporting by The Guardian, intelligence officials from two NATO countries have warned that Moscow is considering a "provocation" rather than a full-scale military attack.
Report by Major General Yevhenii Khmara on our long-range sanctions plan, mid-range sanctions, and the results of the Security Service of Ukraine – specifically the Center of Special Operations “Alpha” – on the front.
I approved a 40-day influence operation for the Service… pic.twitter.com/Ue6O21i6xH
At the moment inside Russia, many regions of Russia seem powerless to stop Ukraine's inbound drone waves, given also that conventional air defenses are set up to defend primarily against larger, faster-moving projectiles like missiles or jets.
President Trump has lately suggested that Ukraine is doing well in the war, or at least much better than it once was. Kiev now feels the pressure to keep this narrative going, also so it can attract more and more weapons and intelligence help. But at some point Russia will feel it necessary to strongly reassert its red lines. This could come in the form of another massive escalation, and against 'decision-making centers'.
Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 07:35Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,
Two can certainly play the “extremist” game...
Politicians, government bureaucrats, central bankers, spy agencies, and mainstream news outlets lie to us every day.
For some people, the previous sentence is patently obvious. For others, that sentence represents “fringe” thinking. For certain law enforcement agencies in North America and Europe, that sentence reveals potentially dangerous “extremism.”
“Extremism” is such a morally squishy word. It means nothing. It suggests that the average beliefs of the average person in the average part of an average town are, on average, correct. Should a person’s beliefs move too far away from the “average,” then that person will eventually fall into the “extremist” abyss. Of course, the average person long believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. The average person long believed that bloodletting cured disease. The average person long believed in magic. Relativity, microbiology, atomic physics, and quantum mechanics belonged to the “extremists.”
Defining “extremism” depends upon which populations are included when calculating an “average.” To the average American, Islamic terrorism is religious extremism. To the average jihadi in the Middle East, terrorism is part of the Islamic faith. One man’s “extremist” is another man’s “religious cleric.” Unsurprisingly, as more jihadists migrate to America, the more supportive of Islamic terrorism the Democrat Party becomes. We now have several Hamas-supporting members of Congresswho define Americans opposed to Islamic conquest as “extremists.” For a decade, Americans were told to be on the lookout for Islamic terrorism: “If you see something, say something.” Now, if you see something and say something, you will most likely be denounced as an “Islamophobic bigot.” If the definition of “extremism” can shift 180 degrees since the Islamic terror attacks on September 11, 2001, then “extremism” is a nebulous political label.
In the United States, citizens overwhelmingly support federal legislation that would require photo ID, proof of citizenship, and other safeguards to ensure that elections across the country are free, fair, lawful, constitutional, and secure.
Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans in Congress prefer to maintain the current “on your honor” system that can be gamed to permit large-scale vote fraud and rigged elections. By any polling measure, Congress’s point of view is far from that of the average American. Members of Congress, in other words, are the extremists! If you listen to the extremists in Congress, however, our elections have never been more secure.
In fact, when you look at some of the most important policy issues today, it becomes quite clear that Congress is ground zero for extremism.
Most Americans want Congress to stop spending more money than it receives in taxes; Congress has put us forty trillion dollars in debt. Most Americans want secure borders and an end to illegal immigration; Congress has enabled an evil human trafficking system to exist for over fifty years that rewards criminals and has flooded the country with somewhere between fifty and a hundred million (nobody knows for sure!) illegal aliens. Most Americans are concerned about lowering fuel and food prices; Congress has wasted trillions of dollars on “Green New Deal” scams that raise the household costs for fuel and food. Most Americans believe that college admissions and job hiring should be based on a person’s merit, skill, character, knowledge, and hard work; Congress continues to divide Americans by the color of their skin and their sexual eccentricities. Most Americans believe that men and women are biologically distinct; Congress pretends that biological sex is an imaginary social construct. Most Americans believe that a dollar saved today should maintain the same value ten, fifty, or even a hundred years from now; Congress thinks printing and spending dollars, depreciating the U.S. currency, and artificially spiking the dollar-denominated valuation of stocks, homes, and other assets is the best way to fake a constantly “improving” economy. Most Americans believe that we should refrain from military engagements overseas whenever possible; Congress can’t ever get enough of forever-wars. Most Americans want their representatives to work for American citizens; Congress believes it should work on behalf of non-Americans all over the world. Most Americans view their country as a nation; Congress views the United States as both a global empire and a home for every person on the planet.
On the most important issues, Congress is filled to the brim with extremists. They should be put on official security lists and monitored whenever they travel more than fifty feet from their taxpayer-financed homes. Instead, in the United States and throughout the West, the extremists run things.
That would explain why Christians are targeted for their beliefs. That would explain why the governments of Europe and North America have flooded their countries with unassimilable malcontents from the third world. That would explain why men are allowed into women’s restrooms and why pedophiles are accorded more respect than heterosexual married couples. That would explain why Western governments have declared war on “climate change” when most people don’t care about elites’ obsession with the weather. That would explain why so many European and North American politicians are willing to risk a nuclear war with the Russian Federation, while ordinary citizens have never been less willing to fight for the defense of their respective countries.
Perhaps the more that ordinary Westerners realize that it is the people running their governments, universities, and bureaucratic institutions who are most extreme, the less willing they become to do what those extremists say. Six years ago, the extremists locked down the world because of COVID. They closed churches, bankrupted businesses, disrupted childhood education, prevented family members from being together, and killed a lot of people with fake “vaccines.” If public health extremists tried to pull another COVID today, would ordinary Westerners do what the politicians and bureaucrats say? Or would Western citizens conclude that extremist governments endanger both their lives and liberties?
Two can certainly play the “extremist” game. Two-hundred-fifty years ago, the British Empire believed the patriots of America’s thirteen colonies to be extremists. The patriots disagreed. They considered it extreme for members of Parliament to make decisions on their behalf while residing 3,500 miles away. The two sets of “extremists” fought it out, and we American “extremists” now celebrate July 4 as Independence Day.
My question is this: How much longer can the governments of Europe and North America continue to ignore the wishes of their national populations before we find ourselves in a situation where there is an explosion of public declarations of independence from the political and bureaucratic extremists who have ruined people’s lives? For, as much as Western governments appear to be betting on mass surveillance, central bank digital currencies, censorship, propaganda, and technocratic oppression as weapons of control to help maintain power well into the future, there’s nothing so unpredictable as a fed-up populace ready for a little revolution. When enough people recognize themselves as average representatives of the public will and their government officials as extremists representing only their own interests, things get interesting. Being labeled an “extremist” by government extremists means nothing.
One might even ask: Isn’t globalism tantamount to extremism when a politician puts other nations’ interests ahead of his own? Surely, when a government official undermines the nation he serves by championing open borders policies or wasting taxpayer dollars on “climate change” boondoggles at the U.N., that official deserves to be labeled an “extremist.” Globalists certainly don’t represent the average North American or European citizen. But they do represent the average cosmopolitan bureaucrat who sees no country as home.
In a world of nations whose populations require different things, globalism is extremist.
In a world of varying cultures and competing beliefs, forced multiculturalism is extremist.
In a world where some people wish to be free, international government is extremist.
Fighting for liberty is not extremist. It is government tyranny that is extreme.
Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 07:00