Spiegel's Barbarossa cover is beyond bad framing - it reflects a country where war is being made to seem conceivable again.
For the anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, the German name for the attack on the Soviet Union of 22 June 1941, Germany's declining yet still dominant mainstream news magazine Der Spiegel has dedicated a long title story and a sensationalist cover to Berlin's last open war in, as the Germans used to say back then, the East. So far, so expected. There is no doubt, after all, that this was a historic as well as horrific event.

Launching their surprise attack with millions of troops and the explicit intention to wage a war of extermination, those Germans of yore, sought to build a 'lebensraum' empire from hell, based on multiple deliberate genocides (including one of Soviet POWs), warfare with all legal or moral restraints systematically removed, and a supremacist ideology that would have designated anyone surviving among the conquered as a slave of inferior, if any, humanity.

Moreover, if those Germans, who attacked 85 years ago, had won in 'the East', their form of genocidal fascism - officially termed National Socialism - would have had a realistic chance to survive and even maintain domination in large parts of Eurasia (at least). For the preponderant majority of German forces were destroyed by the Soviet military. If that had not happened, we might all have ended up living in a very different, even worse world now.

The stakes were as high as they could possibly be not just for Europe but humanity as a whole. That is why the defeat of Germany's Operation Barbarossa belongs to the most important facts of global history. The Germans were not stopped by a combination of vile weather, muddy roads, and silly mistakes of their own, as some may still want to believe in blissful ignorance and with more than a hint of racist arrogance. What killed the fascist German bid for world power was the Soviet Union, the leadership of its generals, who after initial setbacks, rapidly learned to out-think and out-plan the Germans, the supreme valor of its soldiers, and the unimaginable grit as well as organization of its home front.

But the price was steep. Especially as Berlin had made a decision to fight a war of extermination, Soviet losses were terrible. 27 million killed (soldiers and civilians) and a corresponding storm of massive economic devastation, social dislocation, and mass trauma, physical and psychological.

At SPIEF 2026, Putin ignored Ukrainian provocations to celebrate Russia's prosperity before stating bluntly that peace would be won on the battlefield, not at the negotiating table.
There has been much discussion in western circles about the need for, and prospects of, a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. Much of this discussion is centered around the need to get Russia and Ukraine to sit at the same table so that meaningful negotiations can take place. Indeed, much of the western approach toward the conflict is focused on the need for Ukraine to escalate the conflict in a manner designed to confront Russia with the inevitability of a military stalemate, and as such the necessity of a negotiated settlement. Russian President Vladimir Putin's appearance at the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), however, appeared to pour cold water on any such possibility. Russia, according to President Putin, is ready and desirous for a negotiated settlement to the conflict with Ukraine, but only on terms acceptable to Russia. As such, the prospects for peace in the near term are non-existent, and the conditions for conflict termination with be defined on the battlefield, and not around a negotiating table.

In the weeks leading up to SPIEF 2026, there had been much talk in both western and Russian intellectual circles about a change in attitude among the Russian people regarding the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which has entered its fifth year. One of the themes popular in the west was premised on the notion that Russia was becoming exhausted, physically and mentally, from a conflict for which there seemed to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Slow gains on the frontlines in Ukraine, often at significant human cost, combined with an increase in long-range Ukrainian drone attacks on strategic infrastructure in the Russian strategic depth, according to this narrative, was having a telling effect on a population for whom the previous unquestioned support for the Russian President was beginning to wane.

In Russia similar sentiments were echoed among conservative circles (there is no longer a viable liberal elite in Russia) whose support for the conflict remained steadfast, but for whom the pace and methodology of conflict lacked the kind of urgency and direction necessary to decisively defeat not just Ukraine, but a notional "collective West" (Europe, Nato, and the United States) whose material and financial assistance to Ukraine was seen as the decisive component in Ukraine's ability to keep fighting.

The Senate on Tuesday approved a House-passed concurrent War Powers Resolution directing President Trump to end hostilities against Iran, marking the first time Congress has approved a concurrent resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act directing the termination of an unauthorized war.

In previous years, Congress has passed joint resolutions directing the president to end wars, such as the 2019 bill to end US support for the Saudi war in Yemen, which President Trump vetoed at the time, but a concurrent resolution doesn't require the president's signature.

Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Act states:

"At any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution."

The bill passed the Senate on Tuesday by a 50-48 vote, with four Republicans — Senators Rand Paul (KY), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), and Bill Cassidy (LA) — voting in favor. Senator Jon Fetterman (PA) was the only Democrat to oppose the effort, and Republican Senators Mitch McConnell (KY) and Dave McCormick (PA) were not present for the vote.

The Iran-U.S. de-escalation framework has been signed. As always, getting a framework agreed is one thing, but preserving it from disruptive actors or malicious distortion of the text is quite another. Who knows how long it will survive intact? The MoU nonetheless constitutes an important phase - albeit one leg - in a long journey ahead for Iran. The Agreement however, may also prompt wider geo-economic 'plate' shifts.

Iran has succeeded in pushing a reluctant Trump to cross the Rubicon. Danny Citrinowicz, a former senior Israeli Iran military intelligence analyst, says that for Trump, "achieving a deal with Iran and ending the current cycle of escalation is not merely an option but a clear strategic goal ... He now envisions a broader vision of U.S.-Iran relations".

An unquestioned dogma has bitten the dust:

"The long-standing expectation in parts of Jerusalem and Washington has been that sustained pressure could lead to regime change in Tehran ... [However] the announced agreement suggests a [new] fundamental reality: The campaign that many hoped would weaken or even destabilise the Islamic Republic will instead conclude with the regime intact, strengthened, and formally engaged by the U.S. ... [This] amounts to the collapse of a broader strategic assumption: that coordinated American and Israeli pressure could generate conditions conducive to fundamental political change inside Iran. Instead, the likely outcome is the opposite ... [it is] an outcome likely to reinforce confidence amongst [Iran's] ruling elite rather than weaken it ...".

This moment represents a major strategic achievement for Iran: A heroic image is surging across the globe - whereas Israel's isolation on the Iran issue, even amongst its Gulf allies, has spiked. On the personal level, Netanyahu's standing in Israel has plunged catastrophically.

Over the span of five days in 2021, the CIA abruptly changed its opinion on the origins of COVID-19 from a laboratory to neutral, a newly released document confirms.

Originally, CIA analysts concluded that COVID-19 likely came from a high-level laboratory in Wuhan, China located near where the first cases were detected in late 2019, senior CIA officer James Erdman III told lawmakers in May. Over the span of five days in 2021, however, Edman says the agency changed its stance to 'neutral.'

Then in September of 2024 during a private briefing between intelligence officials and members of Congress, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) inquired as to how the agency came to the conclusion that lab-origin vs. natural origin were about equal, according to yesterday's document release by outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

On this dark street, the sun is black
The winter life is coming back
On this dark street, it's cold inside
There's no retreat from time that died

Cream, Deserted Cities of the Heart

One of my recent columns on How Iran engineered its multipolar breakthrough provoked some serious response by top old school U.S. Deep State intel operatives, now involved in global business. I was sent a consistent, detailed breakthrough about what they maintain is the main reason for President Trump to sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iran, which he is frantically spinning as his (italics mine) deal.

As one of these sources bluntly put it, "the main point you are missing is that Trump was scared stiff by June 15 being only 60 days away from the final emptying of the world reserve oil supplies, leading to the complete destruction of Donald J. Trump. That is the only reason for his about face. If he waited much longer, he would by August 15 be so behind the eight ball that he would not be able to recover And that may happen anyway."

The source was referring to a detailed risk assessment where the hard data points to mid-August 2026 as "the moment the U.S. must legally halt the emergency dumping. When that tap closes, the global oil supply deficit will instantly widen by millions of barrels per day, creating a world crisis."

Even tough he may be acting now, nothing is secured for Trump. The sources comment that "first, he (Republicans) would lose the first week in November elections. Then the Democrats would impeach him. And then he would be destroyed by lawsuits, losing all his money."

Way beyond the destiny awaiting the self-styled neo-Crassus, the sources mostly insist that "the 60-to-90-day runway we are currently sitting on is not just a timer on the physical oil in the ground; it is the remaining fuse on the largest credit bubble in human history."

Which bring us, once again, to the Rosebud in this Orson Welles-sized epic: the Strait of Hormuz, which for all practical purposes remains virtually closed.

The sources are careful to remind those willing to listen that

"what we have now is a rebellion at the Strait of Hormuz. 20% of global oil goes through there, and Iran wants that power to protect itself. When it is cut off the price of oil according to Goldman Sachs will go to $700 a barrel. It does not today as the U.S. and allies are dumping their storage on the market to hold the price down. They have about 2.5 months supply to do this. Then everything explodes. You have here the rebellion of the slaves."

So welcome to the current ultra high-stakes structural chess match - of course totally gamed by Tehran right before the start.

Behind Poland and Ukraine's symbolic feud lies a brutal fight over EU cash, borders, and regional dominance.

At the heart of Polish historical literature, brilliantly adapted for the screen by film director Andrzej Wajda, is a timeless, almost archetypal Slavic narrative. Take Adam Mickiewicz's poem, 'Pan Tadeusz', or Aleksander Fredro's comedy, 'The Revenge'. In both cases, we see two noble clans trapped in a shared space - whether within a city or castle walls - selflessly and relentlessly destroying each other over long-held historical grievances, ambitions, and boundary disputes, while the entire 'security architecture' around them crumbles.

The stories have different endings, but the historical circumstances are similar, which undoubtedly provides grounds for reflection on the complex fate of the Polish people. Comparing the recent 'war of the orders' between Warsaw and Kiev with the above-mentioned historical narratives, it becomes clear that June 2026 will go down in the history of Polish-Ukrainian relations and diplomacy as the political version of a scene from an old Polish comedy about squabbling neighbors. However, this incident demonstrates several important aspects that define Poland's current condition and foreign policy which are worth reflecting on.

On June 19, Polish President Karol Nawrocki decided to strip Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle because a Ukrainian unit was named after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA). He also stated that Poland would not allow those who do not understand the need to renounce the "cult of totalitarianism and violence" to join the EU.

What the Ukrainian Insurgent Army was, and why Poland was offended by it?

China said on Monday that it will add 10 American firms to its export control list, including two rare earth firms MP Materials and USA Rare Earth, while also restricting 46 US firms from government procurement, signalling it would respond to Washington's recent expansion of a military blacklist, even amid a broader stabilization of bilateral ties, the SCMP reported.

The Ministry of Commerce said in a statement on Monday that the 10 American firms to be added to the export control list were

• AVEOX (Simi Valley, California)
• Red Cat Holdings and Teal Drones (South Salt Lake, Utah)
• IMSAR (Springville, Utah)
• Jaia Robotics (Bristol, Rhode Island)
• Ball Aerospace & Technologies (Broomfield, Colorado)
• Oshkosh Defense (Oshkosh, Wisconsin)
• L3Harris Maritime Services (Norfolk, Virginia)
• MP Materials (Las Vegas, Nevada)
• USA Rare Earth (Stillwater, Oklahoma)

While the US certainly suffered some reputational damage and significant economic costs from its unprovoked attack on Iran, the United Arab Emirates may really be the big loser. Let's focus on Dubai.

Think of Dubai as the World's most expensive adult theme park that has no emergency exit. For decades, Dubai sold itself to the world as what would happen if Las Vegas and Disney World had a child together, raised it on sovereign wealth, and sent it to finishing school in Monaco. The result was a city of genuinely staggering audacity — an indoor ski slope in the desert, a hotel shaped like a sail that awards itself seven stars because five simply wasn't enough, palm-shaped islands visible from space that are slowly sinking back into the sea from which they were so expensively extracted. It was, by any measure, the greatest theme park ever built for people who found actual theme parks insufficiently gilded and too puritanical.

It is open. Nope, it is closed. Wait... It is open. What? Closed again? If you are following the media reports on the Strait of Hormuz you are probably dizzy from hearing about the changing status of the Strait of Hormuz. If you think that getting a firm agreement between Iran and the US to open the Strait of Hormuz will result in an instant solution to restoring global oil reserves, think again.

Even if Iran agrees to a 60-day moratorium on charging ships entering and leaving the Persian Gulf a "usage fee" (Trump calls it a "toll"), and the moratorium starts this week, the world still faces some serious economic shocks from the disruption of Crude Oil and LNG. Crude Oil and LNG production will take time to ramp back up to the pre-Ramadan War levels. We still do not have a full assessment of the damage to the Oil and LNG infrastructure in the Gulf nations. Even if all those systems are intact and functioning — they are not — there is still the problem of having the tankers that carry the Black Gold ready to take the shipments.