Aggregator

EU Approves Biggest Russia Sanctions Yet After Holdout Greece Secured LNG Exemption

Zero Rss
2 weeks 4 days ago
EU Approves Biggest Russia Sanctions Yet After Holdout Greece Secured LNG Exemption

What is there left to sanction and what is its effectiveness? Europe is boasting of no less that its 21st package of sanctions against Russia, approved by the EU on Thursday.

Apparently it has found plenty of entities still to sanction, as the compiled blacklisting is said to be the EU's largest in four years, targeting primarily financial and energy sectors. The bloc also agreed to freeze the Russian oil price cap at current levels for another year, alongside issuing 218 new designations.

Getty Images

"At a time when Ukraine has built military momentum, our sanctions continue to weaken the economic foundations of Russia’s war effort," EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said.

And Kaja Kallas, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and chair of the Foreign Affairs Council, announced that "With each round of sanctions, we squeeze Russia's economy and its capacity to prolong its illegal war. Our 21st package includes the highest number of listings in four years."

She described: "We’re hitting over a hundred banks and crypto operators, 40+ vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet, and several oil refineries in Russia and Belarus. More than 50 military-industrial entities are included, key actors involved in the production of Russia's long-range drones. Russia will only negotiate to end its illegal war and stop killing civilians if it is pressured to do so. Sanctions add to this pressure."

Notably the EU is targeting not just Russia's so-called shadow fleet, but any vessel that even assists ships under sanction. According to a rundown via an EU media readout:

Concerning energy, today’s package pauses the automatic adjustment of the oil price cap mechanism until 15 July 2027. This is to ensure that Russia's profits from oil sales remain contained, despite the exceptional market situation caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Today’s agreement foresees an interim review of the suspension to ensure that the mechanism remains necessary and proportionate. The EU is also continuing to target the shadow fleet by extending the scope of the existing rules also to cover vessels supporting the shadow fleet, by providing bunkering and other services, and listing 41 more vessels on top of the 632 already sanctioned. These measures target non-EU tankers that are part of the shadow fleet circumventing the oil price cap mechanism, that support Russia’s energy sector in other ways, or that transport military equipment for Russia or stolen Ukrainian grain. The EU is designating 8 entities and 1 individual active in the shadow fleet ecosystem, including companies operating on behalf of Russia’s oil majors and, for the first time, a crewing agency providing support to the shadow fleet.

Furthermore, the EU is targeting the oil sector, in particular refineries. It is designating 18 entities and 1 individual in the oil sector, including 3 refineries in Russia, a major Belarusian oil refinery, as well as a company created to sell Belarusian petroleum products within Russia. In addition, the package creates the possibility to prohibit transactions with listed refineries in Russia and in third countries which process or refine Russian crude oil and petroleum products. In that framework, the EU is imposing a transaction ban – entering into force in six months - on a Georgian refinery trading and processing Russian oil in Kulevi. Furthermore, the EU added five oil traders to the entities subject to transaction ban for frustrating the prohibition on purchasing Russian crude oil and petroleum products.

With the Iran war and Hormuz crisis seeing rising oil prices, Russia might not find itself so squeezed after all?

"Russia's state oil and gas revenue, which accounts for around a fifth ​of total budget income, is seen rising ‌by 60% in July from the same month a year ago thanks to the increase in ​global oil prices, Reuters calculations showed ​on Thursday.

A steep rise from profit-based… pic.twitter.com/tFLV902APw

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) July 23, 2026

Also notable is that Russian LNG is to remain partially exempt from EU sanctions - in what some analysts are calling a sign of weakness.

EU countries have reached a deal on a sweeping 21st sanctions package against Moscow.

It was only possible by allowing Greece to keep sending Russian gas to countries outside the bloc.

🔗 https://t.co/tqqhCCbmqW pic.twitter.com/TRpiygcDQL

— POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) July 23, 2026

After previously holding up the EU passage of the new anti-Moscow measures, Greece won an exemption permitting continued shipments of Russian LNG to non-EU buyers indefinitely.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 02:45
Tyler Durden

The Multipolaristas' Are China-Maxxing

Zero Rss
2 weeks 4 days ago
The Multipolaristas' Are China-Maxxing

Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org,

Let’s consider the arguments of those who advocate global governance, the people whom Hrvoje Morić identifies as the Multipolaristas. They are often engaged in China-maxxing and are, whether they know it or not, essentially serving as propagandists for the global oligarchy.

Research conducted by analysts working for the South China Morning Post (SCMP)—an English-speaking, Western-aligned Chinese news outlet—suggests that, between 2015 and 2025, a notable shift occurred in the way China and its government were portrayed by the leading Western media organisations.

Chief analyst Jianlu Bi, who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Policy Studies and a research fellow at the Charhar Institute in Beijing, wrote:

[N]early 70 per cent of stories covering China’s economy, technology or environment in 2019 had a negative tone [but] by 2025, the share of negative stories dropped to around 40 per cent, along with an increase in neutral coverage across all categories and positive coverage of the [Chinese] economy.

This notable Western media narrative shift is part of a wider trend that can be described as “China-maxxing.” With outlets like The Economist, the Financial Times, and The New York Times—all previously known for their staunch anti-China propaganda—now quite regularly extolling the virtues of China and, most notably, its economy, “China-maxxing” is an identifiable phenomenon.

The Western mainstream media is gradually shifting to sell the Chinese government to us as the “good guys.”

Recently, Elon Musk has engaged in some China-maxxing of his own. Musk is part of the gaggle of oligarchs eager to roll out AI data centers wherever they can. Musk was keen to point out that the only national government that has, in his view, adopted the right approach is China’s:

The availability of energy is the issue. If you look at electrical output outside of China, it’s more or less flat. Very slight increase, but pretty much flat. [. . .] If you’re putting data centers anywhere except China, where are you going to get your electricity? Especially as you scale, how are you going to turn the chips on? Magical power sources? Magical electricity fairies?

The previous blanket Western media vilification of China was always absurd state propaganda. China has been framed as the comic-book villain to encourage Western populations to accept further suppressions of their rights by their own governments and to claim justification for increased public spending on the Western military-intelligence complex.

Meanwhile, the multinational corporations that benefit from the government contracts, supposedly awarded to protect Western populations from the fabricated Chinese threat, such as Musk’s SpaceX, are led by oligarchs who genuinely pose a threat to everyone.

Though he didn’t use the term himself, in trying to explain China-maxxing, Mr. Jianlu offered a list of potential reasons for it. These included the Western media’s recognition of China’s technological and economic progress, the Chinese government’s apparent commitment to tackling climate change, its drive for efficiency, and so on. Jianlu argued that all of this has combined to force Western media outlets to reevaluate how they cover China and China-related matters.

Nation-states and national governments are set to be replaced by a global Technocracy. At some point, therefore, the conversation about moving away from the extant governance system to which people are accustomed to the new one has to commence.

Returning to Jianlu’s analysis, he is a leading Western policy think tank representative, and the media outlets he discussed primarily serve as propagandists for Western policy. Buried in the analysis, there is a brief statement that indicates what the real purpose of China-maxxing is:

Unlike the US, where policy shifts can abruptly occur due to political changes and short-term economic pressures, [. . .] China’s long-term strategic planning and consistent policy implementation have yielded results.

Dark Enlightenment-enthused oligarchs like Peter Thiel want to “escape from politics in all its forms,” and beyond dictatorship, there is no political mechanism of any kind in the Technocracy advocated by oligarchs like Elon Musk.

The oligarchy intends to make itself the feudal lords (founders) of private smart city-states similar to those currently being developed in China. The UN desires the same transformation. China-maxxing suits their shared agenda perfectly.

China-maxxing is yet more Western media propaganda, this time intended to convince Westerners that the model of government they are accustomed to no longer works. The Chinese development of Technocracy is better because it “yields[s] results.” Irrespective of the fact that no Westphalian-model Western government has ever operated as a democracy, China-maxxing has arrived to persuade Westerners that the so-called “representative democracies” that they have been misled to believe are democracies are now surplus to requirements.

Multipolaristas, specifically those working in the independent media, perhaps unwittingly argue that the dictatorial state control of human beings’ access to resources is acceptable because the accompanying surveillance state seemingly “yields[s] results.” Some say it reduces crime or that the gleaming towers of the new city-states are so beautifully clean and convenient. Others that China’s infrastructure investment strategy shows the world a clear alternative to austerity.

China is nation-building while Western nations decline and collapse. Chinese Technocracy “yields[s] results” that failing Western nations cannot match. Unless, logically, they too adopt Technocracy.

To an extent, the Multipolaristas make reasonable points. Who wouldn’t want to live in safe, clean cities? Who wants austerity when the state could invest in much-needed infrastructure instead? Who wouldn’t want the employment opportunities and the economic benefits that result? But all of the Multipolarista’s ostensibly reasonable observations and commentaries are based upon fatal omissions that result in them essentially spreading Western propaganda, intentionally or otherwise.

No state needs to impose a centralised technological population surveillance system in order to improve public safety, clean the environment or the streets, or invest in public infrastructure and its own economy. By effectively promoting global governance and Technocracy, the Multipolaristas’ foolhardy suggestion is that functional oligarchies are benevolent and that we should trust them.

Oligarchs are constructing their digital kill chains, and oligarchs like Musk are also promoters of China’s blossoming Technate. This is not a coincidence.

There are no historical examples of a state ever successfully imposing the full gamut of despotic behavioural control systems on a large population. But with its Greater Bay Area initiative, linking China’s numerous smart city projects together, China is reaching that point. Now Western mainstream and independent media outlets are showcasing China’s development to sell all the alleged benefits of Technocracy to Western populations.

Neither fascism nor communism even comes close to the behavioural dictatorship Technocracy is designed to inflict. Ignoring this aspect of China’s undoubtedly impressive modernisation is an epistemological error so profound it renders the rest of the Multipolaristas’ arguments practically irrelevant.

If the objective was not to enslave us, no state and no oligarch would construct Technates. The sole purpose of Technocracy is systematic human bondage.

From humanity’s perspective, there is nothing good about living in a Technocracy. No matter what incentives we are given, irrespective of the claimed benefits offered to entice us, giving our consent to those who wish to foist Technocracy upon us is an act of generational suicide.

There is, of course, no reason why we should agree to any of it.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 02:00
Tyler Durden

The Odyssey And The Tiresome Woke War Against White Culture

Zero Rss
2 weeks 4 days ago
The Odyssey And The Tiresome Woke War Against White Culture

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

We’ve all heard the argument for most of our lives: “White culture doesn’t exist.” It’s perhaps the most common racial refrain because it’s the most socially acceptable to repeat. If someone said “Black culture doesn’t exist because black people all herald from different tribes…” that person would be browbeaten as a bigot by the woke mob. When it comes to white culture, such claims are applauded.

The question is, why is it okay to diminish or denigrate white culture while worshiping every other culture? Furthermore, if white culture doesn’t exist, why are woke minority groups constantly trying to hijack white history and accomplishments?

I want to explore this issue a little more deeply, mostly because of the endless targeting of western civilization through the leftist deconstruction of our most popular figures and mythologies. This time, the Hollywood elites have chosen Homer’s The Odyssey, an ancient Greek classic deeply rooted in western history (white history), as their victim.

Hollywood has pulled out ALL the stops for this movie and I suspect it’s because they are desperate. They are desperate for a woke win. They’ve had hundreds of failures both in film and television in the past few years and it’s starting to look like “Get Woke, Go Broke” is becoming the dominant force in popular discourse. The leftists can’t stand it.

In response, Hollywood has stacked the deck – They brought in Christopher Nolan, one of the only directors left in the industry who still has a built-in audience of simps who will go see his movies regardless of their quality. The distributors have focused on IMAX ticket sales for a wealthier clientele, artificially inflating the overall box office take.

The media has been running non-stop interference, promoting the movie heavily months in advance. Evidence also suggests that Rotten Tomatoes is once again rigging the audience score for this film by rejecting most negative reviews (they have done this with multiple woke tent pole movies over the years).

Hilariously, journalists are already declaring The Odyssey “proof” that “Get Woke, Go Broke” is a fallacy. As I write this, the movie hasn’t made a dime in profit yet. What I find most interesting, however, is that these activist journalists are actually using the phrase “Get Woke, Go Broke” in their vernacular. It’s an indirect admission of their agenda.

They are specifically citing our movement as their enemy and declaring us “defeated” because The Odyssey is projected to make money. By default, they are admitting that we are a threat to them, and that The Odyssey is a woke project designed to “silence us.” But why does this matter?

It’s important to understand that leftists think like children. They believe that having a “majority” is the same as being right; having a majority to them is the same as having power. If the Odyssey is a box office success, they think this proves that they are the dominant political movement.

They don’t care if their supposed majority is actually astroturf; if they can fool the public into thinking the political left has a social mandate, this will win them control over the culture. In other words, they’re trying to manufacture a consensus.

The Odyssey film is a clear salvo aimed directly at conservatives and western history. It is a multicultural travesty, a joke of a movie filled with historical inaccuracies and based on a deconstructionist translation written by a feminist academic from Oxford (Emily Wilson). The movie explicitly undermines the heroism of the story and makes Odysseus a broken man, suffering from “trauma” and PTSD over his regrets of the war and his “colonist” behavior.

But the spurious additions to the mythology are less interesting to me than the reasons they were included.

The deconstruction of Odysseus reminds me of what Kathleen Kennedy and friends at Disney did to Luke Skywalker in “The Last Jedi”. They took a brilliant, courageous and moral man and turned him into a shattered, crusty and nihilistic little bitch – completely the opposite of his original character. This was not a mistake, this was quite deliberate.

White people are not allowed to have bold, wise and confident heroes. We’re supposed to regret our history and our accomplishments. We’re not supposed to celebrate such things, because that might inspire us to be bold, wise and confident today.

The race swapped cast of The Odyssey featuring black actors, Hispanics, Asians, and other people (including a transgender Ellen Page playing a male Greek warrior) who would never have populated Homer’s era is the common angle of attack for woke Hollywood, but it’s not the only attack. If a main protagonist is white, as is the case in Nolan’s film, he must be torn down and made weak. He must be portrayed as shamed and desperate for redemption, which, of course, he will only receive by embracing progressive ideals.

The last thing Hollywood wants is to portray a white hero who is unapologetic for his actions and values.

This is the underlying woke messaging that really poisons the well when it comes to The Odyssey. The minority actors are primarily a shield from criticism. If anyone complains about African or Hispanic or Asian actors in a Greek epic, the media can pull the “racism” card and dismiss the issue outright. They assert that we merely hate seeing minorities in movies.

But it’s not minorities in movies that we have a problem with; it’s the injection of woke propaganda. This is the real crime. If Christopher Nolan made a film based on the African “Epic of Liyongo” from the 9th Century and he replaced the Swahili characters with white actors in a bid to hijack African history, the left wing would lose their collective minds and scream “cultural appropriation.”  The double standard is obvious.

Will Odyssey make a profit? Possibly. The movie had a big first weekend, but adjusted for inflation it didn’t even crack the top fifty on the list of opening weekend box office winners. The film has to make around $700 million in order to break even, not counting the 20% of the gross receipts that go to Christopher Nolan according to his contract.

I am doubtful that the studio will make much money on this flick, but Hollywood will declare it a victory all the same. Firstly, because no woke movie has had similar momentum in years. And secondly, because the political left is dying and they need a very public win in order to justify their habit of doubling down on failure.

Any sane and intelligent person would point out that one “successful” movie does not make up for the cemetery filled with woke box office disasters. This doesn’t matter to the activist mob. They think that one win will erase all their previous losses.

Furthermore, The Odyssey is intended to act as a continuation of the long Marxist march towards a multicultural west and the end of white history as we know it.

Homer’s epic poem was composed around 2800 years ago and is one of the oldest surviving works of literature in human history. It stands as a testament to the incredible accomplishments of the western world; part of the wellspring from which the modern west poured forth.

At the time The Odyssey was created, the Mediterranean was overwhelmingly Caucasian according to genetic records. This includes North Africa, which was majority Caucasian and largely “white” by modern standards. It should be noted that Sub-Saharan Africans did not exist in any notable quantity in North Africa or the Mediterranean until many centuries later because travel across the deserts of central Africa prevented their migration north for thousands of years.

Arabs were also limited and did not occupy the region in great numbers until the invasion of the Muslim hordes long after Homer lived.

Numerous images from the ancient Greeks and Macedonians, including pottery, murals and other surviving art, depict people of fair skin, often with blue eyes, and in some cases blonde hair, etc. In other words, they were white – Varying shades of white, but still white.

Simply pointing out this historical and scientific fact will immediately trigger the woke mob and their academic allies. You will be inundated with a flurry of exceptions and some tiresome mental gymnastics about why the people of these early civilizations were not really “white”. Remember, “white culture doesn’t exist”, only other cultures exist.

Far too many critics and historical conspiracy nuts actually think the demographics of North Africa and the Mediterranean in the time of Homer were the same as the demographics of North Africa and the Mediterranean today. They don’t know anything about the great migration shifts of the Middle Ages or the invasion of the Muslims. No meaningful discussion can be had with these people because their point of reference is built on pure ignorance.

Beyond that, there is another subset of dishonest people (woke leftists) who see it as their duty to undermine white history and rewrite as if it never existed. They often cater to the inferiority complexes of minority groups by asserting that white history is actually THEIR history. White people just “stole” accomplishments from other civilizations and replaced them over time.

This is part of the narrative that motivates the discourse over Christopher Nolan’s dismal film version of The Odyssey. It is a woke treatise, a magic talisman designed to brown-wash and feminize yet another piece of western heritage. It’s part of a greater agenda to make white people forget who we are, or at the very least, make us ashamed of who we are.

The end game? Like I said, it’s about the multicultural takeover of the western world. Everything stems from this scheme. Hollywood’s woke reboots are rooted in it. The mass immigration policies of leftist governments drive the agenda forward. The deconstruction of our history in public schools and colleges is designed to indoctrinate children so they never learn the truth.

Until one day, we look around, and everything that makes us who we are is gone, from meritocracy to republicanism, from Christianity to critical thinking, from innovation to entrepreneurship, from individual liberty to free markets, from property to responsibility, and yes, colonialism (the act of improving third world hellholes where people are incapable of improving their own surroundings so they don’t turn into pillagers trying to invade our countries).

All of it replaced with a socialist purgatory in which everyone is equally pathetic, hopeless and useless.

The whole conspiracy has become quite transparent and grimly boring. Luckily, one garbage movie isn’t going to change the overwhelming trend, which is the slow but steady decline of left-wing insanity. Nothing they are doing is hidden from us. We see it all, and in the long run, they’re going to lose. It’s inevitable.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 23:25
Tyler Durden

China Plans Planetary Defense Test By Slamming Mach 26 Spacecraft Into Asteroid

Zero Rss
2 weeks 4 days ago
China Plans Planetary Defense Test By Slamming Mach 26 Spacecraft Into Asteroid

A new paper under peer review by the Chinese-language Journal of Deep Space Exploration lays out an ambitious plan to crash a spacecraft at Mach 26, or 20,000 mph, into a near-Earth asteroid to test new planetary defenses.

The South China Morning Post reports that a team led by Li Mingtao, chief scientist for planetary defense at the China National Space Administration, is planning a mission even more ambitious than NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART).

That mission would slam a spacecraft into 2015 XF261, an asteroid estimated to be about 30 meters wide, in either 2029 or 2030.

"Dart was the first to demonstrate asteroid deflection by kinetic impact in space, but it did not directly change an asteroid's orbit around the sun relative to Earth, making it different from a real planetary-defense scenario," the researchers wrote in the report.

The planned impact would be nearly 50% faster than NASA’s 2022 DART, which hit the asteroid Dimorphos at 6.1 kilometers per second, or about Mach 18.

According to the paper, the mission calls for two spacecraft: one interceptor and one observation spacecraft, which would use a Venus gravity assist before rendezvousing with the target. It would deploy a small probe to monitor the collision and measure changes to the asteroid's orbit, shape, surface, and internal structure.

"Focusing on China's first asteroid-defense demonstration and verification mission, planned for implementation before 2030, this paper systematically reviews the frontier scientific questions in kinetic-impact asteroid defense to support mission design, implementation, and preliminary scientific research," the researchers said.

If successful, the test would become China's first end-to-end demonstration of an operational planetary-defense system. It will help scientists better understand how – and when – a kinetic impactor spacecraft could be used to deflect an Earth-bound asteroid.

Meanwhile, SpaceX will launch the NEO Surveyor asteroid-detection telescope no earlier than September 2027, which will discover and monitor most of the potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that come within 30 million miles of Earth's orbit.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 23:00
Tyler Durden

zero rss