Aggregator

Although the New York City skyscrapers of the 1930s and 1950s are no longer the world’s tallest, they remain forever symbolic of Yankee Doodle aspiration and faith.

People were so poor they saved tin cans, old rubber bands, balls of string and bits of gold ... yet they sustained hope and rose up to defend democracy in World War II.

Freddie Figgers has a remarkable story of inventing to protect his dad.

Tick these TikTok tricks off your list.

The World Is Becoming Increasingly Divided By Fertility

The world is becoming increasingly divided by fertility.

One group of countries now has too few births to naturally replace its population, while another continues to see population growth driven by higher fertility rates. This demographic divide has major implications for aging populations, labor markets, immigration, and future economic growth.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins, shows which countries are above and below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, using projections for 2025 from the UN World Population Prospects 2024 Revision.

While the regional patterns are striking, several countries buck the trend.

Fertility Rates by Country

The table below lists projected fertility rates for 2025 and whether each country falls above or below the 2.1 replacement threshold.

Country Total Fertility Rate (TFR) Above or Below 2.1
(Replacement Rate) Chad 5.94 Above Somalia 5.91 Above DR Congo 5.90 Above Central African Republic 5.81 Above Niger 5.79 Above Mali 5.42 Above Angola 4.95 Above Burundi 4.68 Above Afghanistan 4.66 Above Mozambique 4.62 Above Mauritania 4.56 Above Mayotte 4.50 Above Tanzania 4.47 Above Benin 4.42 Above Yemen 4.41 Above Nigeria 4.30 Above Sudan 4.19 Above Cameroon 4.19 Above Ivory Coast 4.17 Above Togo 4.07 Above Uganda 4.06 Above Congo 4.05 Above Guinea 4.04 Above Equatorial Guinea 4.04 Above Burkina Faso 4.00 Above Zambia 3.97 Above Madagascar 3.84 Above Ethiopia 3.81 Above Gambia 3.80 Above Liberia 3.79 Above Comoros 3.76 Above Samoa 3.75 Above Senegal 3.71 Above South Sudan 3.71 Above Guinea-Bissau 3.68 Above Zimbabwe 3.62 Above Sierra Leone 3.61 Above Eritrea 3.61 Above Rwanda 3.59 Above Gabon 3.54 Above Malawi 3.53 Above Vanuatu 3.53 Above Sao Tome and Principe 3.53 Above Pakistan 3.50 Above Solomon Islands 3.47 Above Uzbekistan 3.45 Above Ghana 3.30 Above French Guiana 3.29 Above Nauru 3.25 Above Palestine 3.19 Above Iraq 3.17 Above Namibia 3.17 Above Tuvalu 3.14 Above Kenya 3.12 Above Kiribati 3.09 Above Tonga 3.07 Above Papua New Guinea 3.03 Above Tajikistan 2.99 Above Kazakhstan 2.95 Above Marshall Islands 2.82 Above Israel 2.75 Above Kyrgyzstan 2.75 Above Egypt 2.71 Above Guam 2.71 Above Micronesia 2.71 Above Eswatini 2.68 Above Algeria 2.67 Above Syria 2.66 Above Botswana 2.66 Above Lesotho 2.64 Above Turkmenistan 2.63 Above Saint Martin (French part) 2.63 Above Haiti 2.59 Above Mongolia 2.58 Above Djibouti 2.58 Above Jordan 2.57 Above Tokelau 2.57 Above Timor-Leste 2.56 Above Cambodia 2.51 Above Bolivia 2.50 Above Oman 2.48 Above Niue 2.46 Above Honduras 2.45 Above Paraguay 2.39 Above Guyana 2.37 Above Laos 2.36 Above Saudi Arabia 2.29 Above Northern Mariana Islands 2.28 Above Guatemala 2.26 Above Libya 2.25 Above Fiji 2.25 Above American Samoa 2.25 Above Lebanon 2.21 Above Suriname 2.21 Above Faroe Islands 2.20 Above South Africa 2.19 Above Dominican Republic 2.19 Above Morocco 2.18 Above Nicaragua 2.18 Above Western Sahara 2.15 Above Réunion 2.13 Above Bangladesh 2.11 Above Indonesia 2.10 Above Panama 2.09 Below Monaco 2.09 Below Myanmar 2.08 Below Seychelles 2.08 Below United States Virgin Islands 2.07 Below Venezuela 2.06 Below Guadeloupe 2.05 Below Belize 2.01 Below Cook Islands 2.00 Below Martinique 1.97 Below New Caledonia 1.95 Below India 1.94 Below Peru 1.94 Below Nepal 1.94 Below Sri Lanka 1.94 Below Greenland 1.91 Below Philippines 1.88 Below Vietnam 1.88 Below Gibraltar 1.88 Below Mexico 1.87 Below Palau 1.86 Below Tunisia 1.80 Below Montenegro 1.80 Below Ecuador 1.79 Below Georgia 1.79 Below Bahrain 1.78 Below Dem. People's Republic of Korea 1.77 Below El Salvador 1.75 Below St. Vincent & Grenadines 1.75 Below Bulgaria 1.74 Below Moldova 1.72 Below Romania 1.71 Below Armenia 1.71 Below Brunei 1.71 Below Qatar 1.70 Below Barbados 1.70 Below Falkland Islands 1.69 Below Iran 1.67 Below Azerbaijan 1.66 Below New Zealand 1.65 Below France 1.64 Below Australia 1.64 Below St. Helena 1.64 Below United States 1.62 Below Turkey 1.62 Below Colombia 1.62 Below Aruba 1.61 Below Brazil 1.60 Below Ireland 1.60 Below Slovenia 1.58 Below Antigua and Barbuda 1.58 Below Slovakia 1.57 Below Maldives 1.55 Below United Kingdom 1.54 Below Liechtenstein 1.54 Below Malaysia 1.53 Below Kosovo (under UNSC res. 1244) 1.53 Below Isle of Man 1.53 Below Portugal 1.52 Below Denmark 1.52 Below Trinidad and Tobago 1.52 Below Cayman Islands 1.51 Below St. Kitts & Nevis 1.51 Below Argentina 1.50 Below Hungary 1.50 Below Serbia 1.50 Below Kuwait 1.50 Below Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.50 Below Cape Verde 1.50 Below Iceland 1.50 Below French Polynesia 1.48 Below Czechia 1.47 Below Croatia 1.47 Below North Macedonia 1.47 Below Dominica 1.47 Below Russia 1.46 Below Germany 1.46 Below Grenada 1.46 Below Cuba 1.45 Below Bonaire 1.45 Below Montserrat 1.45 Below Netherlands 1.44 Below Sweden 1.44 Below Switzerland 1.44 Below Bhutan 1.44 Below Turks and Caicos Islands 1.44 Below Sint Maarten 1.43 Below Norway 1.42 Below Bermuda 1.41 Below Luxembourg 1.40 Below Wallis & Futuna 1.40 Below Belgium 1.39 Below Uruguay 1.39 Below St. Lucia 1.38 Below Jersey 1.38 Below Cyprus 1.37 Below Estonia 1.37 Below Guernsey 1.37 Below Bahamas 1.36 Below Latvia 1.35 Below Anguilla 1.35 Below Greece 1.34 Below Jamaica 1.34 Below Canada 1.33 Below Austria 1.33 Below Albania 1.33 Below Poland 1.31 Below Costa Rica 1.31 Below Finland 1.30 Below Saint Pierre and Miquelon 1.28 Below Japan 1.23 Below Spain 1.23 Below Belarus 1.22 Below Lithuania 1.22 Below Italy 1.21 Below United Arab Emirates 1.21 Below Mauritius 1.21 Below Thailand 1.19 Below San Marino 1.16 Below Chile 1.13 Below Malta 1.11 Below Andorra 1.10 Below Curacao 1.07 Below British Virgin Islands 1.06 Below China 1.02 Below Ukraine 1.00 Below Singapore 0.96 Below Puerto Rico 0.94 Below Taiwan 0.86 Below St. Barthélemy 0.83 Below South Korea 0.75 Below Hong Kong 0.74 Below Macao 0.69 Below The Great Fertility Divide

The divide is strikingly regional.

Europe is entirely below replacement fertility, joined by most countries across the Americas and East Asia. Meanwhile, most African countries, along with parts of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, remain above the replacement threshold.

The map also reveals several notable exceptions.

Geographic Pockets That Buck the Trend

While regional patterns are remarkably consistent, several countries stand out as exceptions to their neighbors:

• Central America: Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala all have fertility rates just over replacement. On both the north and south sides, virtually every other country in the Americas is below replacement.
• Africa: Tunisia is the sole country in continental Africa with a rate under 2.1.
• South America: There are two pockets of higher fertility: Peru and Paraguay, and the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana).
• Middle East: UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain are below 2.1, while surrounding nations in virtually every direction are above replacement.
• South/Central Asia: A strip of connected countries, from Pakistan all the way up through Kazakhstan to Mongolia, has higher fertility. Bangladesh also stands out as higher fertility.
• Southeast Asia: Laos and Cambodia stand out as above replacement. Indonesia is the only country with exactly a 2.1 fertility rate, equal to replacement.

Most of these outliers are countries at different stages of the demographic transition than their neighbors.

Their fertility rates remain above or below replacement while surrounding countries have already moved in the other direction, creating pockets that stand apart from the broader regional pattern.

If you enjoyed today’s post, see Japan’s birthrate collapse over the last 60 years in this visualization on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/01/2026 - 06:55

Melania Trump made a rare statement on a Supreme Court ruling, praising the high court for upholding a West Virginia law.

A dog missing for a month in Mexico has been reunited with its owner after it was found partying with fans swept up in the World Cup craze.

The New York doctoral student allegedly raped and murdered by her brother-in-law called him “one of the most wonderful people in the world” in a celebratory Facebook post on the day he married her sister that has taken a dark new meaning following her horrific death.

Who needs a childhood when you can have preferred stock?

Who needs a childhood when you can have preferred stock?

The US Should Exit The UN

Authored by Wendy McElroy via The Brownstone Institute,

The future of the United Nations (UN) is in play, largely because of its refusal to censure Iran—a member nation.

In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reprimanded the UN:

“If you’re telling me that the international community and hundreds of countries cannot rally behind that, then I don’t know what the utility of the UN system is.” 

Severing all ties to the UN could require an act of Congress, but the US is moving in this direction. On February 4, 2025, Executive Order 14199 directed the US to withdraw from 31 UN organisations. A great deal hinges on how highly Rubio still prizes America’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council which comes with a veto.

The UN is often viewed as an ineffectual bureaucracy that occasionally does some good. It is nothing so benevolent. Its origins may have been well-meaning, but the current UN has become what it claims to oppose. The US should leave the UN altogether and immediately, especially since its unjust policies are likely to get worse…and soon.

The UN’s Original Mission

The UN Charter (1945) opens,

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women…  

The Preamble of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states, 

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Article 2 of the Declaration provides, 

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex…

‘All human beings are equal’ is the basis of Western justice, whether the equality is under nature, God, or law. Instead of pursuing equality, however, the UN is now a woke and corrupt actor that creates inequality and division. The UN’s financial malfeasance, the sexual abuse by field personnel, its demonization of the West…are well documented in the 104-page report From Watchdogs to Ideologues: How Politicized UN Rapporteurs Are Subverting Human Rights by the Geneva-based NGO UN Watch. 

The UN’s demonstrated commitment is to social justice or a wokeness rooted in equity, not equality. Equity seeks the redistribution of wealth and power to those who are considered oppressed from those who are considered oppressors. Equity is the opposite of equality under the law.

Consider its treatment of men who clearly are not viewed as equal to women, as the UN’s mission claims. An obvious example is the prominent presence of the UN Women commission that claims to be “the global champion for gender equality.” The commission identifies its goal as ensuring “every woman and girl lives up to her full potential.” No mention of men or boys. No comparable UN Men agency, although males are included peripherally by recognizing a need to train them to oppose patriarchy. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) explains, 

UNFPA works with men and boys around the world to advance gender equality and end violence. These programmes are encouraging men and boys to abandon harmful stereotypes, embrace respectful, healthy relationships, and support the human rights of all people, everywhere.

Men face many of the same global problems as women, however, including poverty, lack of education, violence, disease and harmful stereotypes. Men also face unique problems, including male-only conscription, paternity fraud, false rape accusations, and longer sentences for the same crimes. Nevertheless, compared to the UN’s emphasis on women, men are virtually ignored. And deliberately so.

The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is considered by many to be the international bill of rights for women. Again, no comparable agency exists for men. The FAQ of one CEDAW branch speaks of substantive justice for women. 

Substantive justice judges fairness by results rather than a process; it favors the equitable distribution of rights, not equal rights. CEDAW states, “The concept of substantive equality arose out of the recognition that formal equality may not be sufficient to ensure that women enjoy the same rights as men. An ostensibly gender-neutral policy, while not excluding women per se, may result in a de facto discrimination against women.” 

Instead, in the name of equality, the UN discriminates against men. It denounces the “poison of patriarchy,” decries the manosphere, and discusses the anti-gender movement. The anti-gender movement is defined as groups with an agenda of harming radical feminist and LGBTQIA+ policies. Even questioning these policies or advocating parallel ones for men seems to be anti-gender. 

Earlier, I stated the UN’s policies are likely to get worse and soon. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres steps down on December 31, 2026. The leading contender as his replacement is the aggressively woke Michelle Bachelet, who launched UN Women and served as its Executive Director from 2010 to 2013. After this, she acted as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2018 to 2022).

In between stints at the UN, Bachelet served two terms as President of Chile. A prominent member of the Socialist Party of Chile, she mandated 50% female representation in her Cabinet and instituted political quotas to boost women’s presence in government, as well as establishing a Ministry of Women and Gender Equality; again, no comparable Ministry of Men exists.

And, again, the equality pursued was equity because it applied privileges to women. 

While at the UN, some of the global initiatives championed by Bachelet included: 

• Safe Cities Free of Violence Against Women and Girls to address sexual violence in public spaces. The word “sexual” is key. Even the U.N. admits men experience more physical violence in public (81%) compared to women (19%). It is not clear the rate at which men experience sexual violence, however, as men report such abuse at a far lower rate than women.

• Fund for Gender Equality to provide money exclusively to women to empower them at the grassroots level. Males can access other U.N. gender funds but only in order to dismantle gender inequality, not to empower themselves. Men are to act as gender allies and “agents of change.”

• Increasing Women’s Access to Justice in Post-Conflict Societies to support transitional justice and women’s human rights in conflict and post-conflict zones. 

Everyone has the right to discriminate peacefully on his own time and dime. But the UN is primarily funded by mandatory assessed and voluntary contributions from its member nations; that is, by tax dollars extracted from individuals, half of whom are men and many who are dissenting women, like me. 

The good news: there are rumors of the UN’s financial collapse since some member states—most prominently the US—are withholding their contributions. The US alone owes $2.196 billion to the regular budget and $1.8 billion to separate peacekeeping operations, which amounts to about one-quarter of UN funding. Without it, the UN will be sorely diminished in status.

Good. And if the UN does collapse, then better.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/01/2026 - 06:30

PSA: it's one of the best drops the brand has ever had.

There is no reason to dwell on the negative and every reason to believe better days are ahead for the Giants.

Weighing in at almost 1,700 pounds and measuring nearly 14 feet, his latest Z-ping went off on Thursday, June 25, according to OCEARCH's global shark tracker. 

Before Harvard, there was high school.

Before Harvard, there was high school.

Berenson, one of the most prominent skeptics of the US response to COVID-19, settled a suit against Twitter in 2022 for banning him from posting.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship. 

President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

In a massive 194-page, 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed a District Court ruling, holding that Executive Order 14160 - Trump's attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present - violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson.

Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote against the order while explicitly rejecting the majority's constitutional theory, arguing the EO fails only because it conflicts with a 1940s immigration statute - leaving the door open for Congress, not the Constitution, to revisit the question.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled that the children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals born in the U.S. count as American citizens.

Roberts and Barrett joined all the liberals.

Disgusting. pic.twitter.com/FStIm0J3R3

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 30, 2026

Polymarket had it right on SCOTUS Birthright decision (it wasn't even close) pic.twitter.com/aIXK1g9kcz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 30, 2026

In response to the ruling, President Trump wrote that it was "too bad for our Country," but that Republicans can "easily make up for it in Congress through Legislation..."

Background

Birthright citizenship - the principle that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen - has stood as a foundational element of American law and identity for more than 150 years. Its modern constitutional anchor is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The clause was enacted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (which denied citizenship to black people) and to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. It established a clear rule of jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) with narrow historical exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies.

Original intent. Four Justices just threw it out. pic.twitter.com/OtGZOqCoY4

— NoNonsense2 (@NoMoNonsense2) June 30, 2026

The Supreme Court's landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark cemented this broad understanding. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legal residents but ineligible for naturalization under then-existing exclusionary laws, was ruled a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray's majority opinion affirmed that the 14th Amendment codifies "the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country," applying to children of resident aliens without regard to race or the precise immigration status of the parents (beyond the traditional exceptions).

For well over a century, this interpretation has governed practice: federal agencies, courts, and both political parties treated birth on U.S. soil as conferring citizenship almost universally, regardless of whether a parent was undocumented, a temporary visa holder, or a lawful permanent resident.

The Modern Challenges

In recent decades, conservatives, immigration restriction advocates, and President Donald Trump have advanced a narrower reading. They argue that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires a deeper form of political allegiance or domicile - essentially limiting automatic citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. In short: the clause was chiefly meant for freed slaves and their children, that extending it to children of undocumented immigrants creates "anchor babies," encourages illegal immigration and birth tourism, and imposes costs on the country. They point to certain 19th-century commentaries and historical practices in other nations as support.

On January 20, 2025 - his first day in office for his second term - President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order directs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States after February 20, 2025, in two main scenarios:

• The mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident (LPR/green card holder); or
• The mother's presence was lawful but temporary (e.g., student, work, or tourist visa) and the father is neither a citizen nor LPR.

The administration maintains this is consistent with the 14th Amendment's original meaning and with the statutory codification in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which largely tracks the constitutional language.

The Path to the Supreme Court

The order never took effect. Federal district courts in multiple jurisdictions quickly struck it down as unconstitutional, with one judge describing it as "blatantly unconstitutional." In June 2025, the Supreme Court addressed related procedural issues in Trump v. CASA (and companion cases), ruling 6-3 that district courts generally lack authority to issue universal/nationwide injunctions. This narrowed some protections but left the core constitutional question unresolved.

Today's SCOTUS case, Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Plaintiffs include families challenging the order on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of affected children. One named representative is "Barbara," a Honduran asylum applicant whose child was due in late 2025; other plaintiffs include individuals on temporary visas (e.g., a Taiwanese student whose daughter was born in April 2025) and a Brazilian applicant for permanent residence whose son was born in March 2025. The district court issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment from the First Circuit.

During oral arguments held April 1, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order - emphasizing historical sources, the role of "domicile" in Wong Kim Ark, and contemporary policy concerns. Plaintiffs' counsel Cecillia Wang urged the Court to reaffirm Wong Kim Ark as establishing a fixed, bright-line rule rooted in text, history, and longstanding practice.

One of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court. American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration. https://t.co/qZuwzZq5tr

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) June 30, 2026

Questioning from the justices spanned the ideological spectrum and focused heavily on Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and whether the government's proposed limitations could be squared with precedent and the amendment's text. Observers noted significant skepticism toward the administration's position, with several justices highlighting the breadth of the 1898 ruling and questioning efforts to distinguish it or limit its application based on parental status. A decision was widely expected by the end of the Court's term (June 30, 2026) or shortly thereafter.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/01/2026 - 05:55

Kremlin Confirms Rare Talks To Import Gasoline Amid Drone Strike Mayhem

Russia has confirmed its government is currently in negotiations with other countries to purchase gasoline while desperately seeking to stabilize its domestic market after months drone mayhem out of Ukraine.

"Discussions are actively being held," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said at a press briefing Tuesday, though without specifying which countries. "If agreements can be reached at acceptable price points, then [imports] will move forward," he added.

File image: UBN

The development is surprising given that Russia remains the world's second-largest crude oil exporter and third-largest supplier of refined petroleum products - and yet it is now facing the somewhat humiliating prospect of importing gasoline.

Last week, Reuters dropped a bombshell citing industry insiders who revealed that Moscow has been in backroom talks to import a staggering 50,000 metric tons of AI-92 grade gasoline from neighboring Kazakhstan. India has also been mentioned in reports.

President Putin just over the weekend estimated Russia's total gasoline reserves to be at at 1.7 million metric tons, which would constitute a 4% decline compared to the same period last year. Politico notes further:

Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak has described imports as one of the government's key tools for stabilizing the market, while Russian lawmakers last week approved tax changes creating subsidies to help finance gasoline purchases from abroad.

Putin had further in a speech and separate interview belatedly acknowledged Sunday that his country is facing a "certain shortage" of fuel following weeks of ramped-up drone warfare coming out of Ukraine, which has chiefly targeted oil refineries and domestic supply facilities, including in the Moscow region.

"As for strikes against critical infrastructure in general, and energy infrastructure in particular, of course, these attacks on our infrastructure facilities create problems," Putin said. "That's obvious."

"Right now we're observing a certain shortage, but it's not critical," he added. He also made wide-ranging public remarks at a major summit of the ruling 'United Russia' party.

Some Western pundits have agreed that the situation is not yet critical, and that a fuel squeeze has been a long-running Ukrainian goal of its intensified drone attacks...

From October 2025 (for perspective): "Ukrainians hope [drone campaign] will persuade Putin to end the war at last...Increasingly severe gasoline shortages have hit multiple regions of Russia...half of the stations in Russian-occupied Crimea stopped selling gasoline..." pic.twitter.com/VILpIKhRK8

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) June 30, 2026

A state of emergency for all citizens was also declared in Crimea last week - with fuel only being provided to military and state entities at this point.

Putin further acknowledged in his recent comments that small, slow-moving drones have proven a problem for Russia's anti-air defense systems, which were conventionally designed to intercept large fast projectiles like missiles or warplanes.

This has been big on Russians' minds, as this month they beheld unprecedented scenes of massive smoke plumes overtaking Moscow's skyline, as a key refinery there burned. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/01/2026 - 05:45

Nearly 1,000 travel-weary passengers were forced to wait for their checked luggage for over five hours at a Florida airport due to severe storms and were threatened with arrest if they left the building empty-handed.