via Zero hedge

At least three people were killed and two others injured overnight in western Russia due to Ukrainian drone strikes, according to regional governors, with one signifcant attack sparking a fire at an oil refinery in central Russia after it was hit.

Ukraine’s military confirmed it Russia’s Ryazan and Novokuibyshevsk oil refineries, triggering large fires. It also said it struck the Annanefteprodukt oil storage site in the Voronezh region, which was likely a long-range drone attack, but few details were disclosed.

Moscow Times: Screengrab of the Novokuibyshevsk refinery, operated by the state-owned oil giant Rostneft, in Russia’s Samara region.
In the Penza region, Governor Oleg Melnichenko reported that a woman was killed and two others injured following a drone strike, and in the Samara region, Governor Vyacheslav Fedorishchev said an elderly man died after drone debris ignited a fire in a residential building.

In Rostov, a security guard at an industrial site was killed when a drone attack caused a fire in one of the buildings, per regional authorites. This was amid Russian trying to intercept the large-scale drone assault which went on for many hours into the morning, downing drones across seven districts.

Additionally, Ukraine’s SBU intelligence agency said its drones hit the Primorsko-Akhtarsk military airfield, known as a launch site for Russian drone attacks on Ukraine. The SBU also claimed responsibility for striking a Penza factory involved in supplying electronics to Russia’s military-industrial sector.

In total, Russia’s milmitary said it shot down 112 Ukrainian drones over Russian territory, including 34 over the Rostov region. In all, the attack reportedly lasted at least nine hours.

“Last night, SBU drones continued targeting Russian military infrastructure deep in enemy territory. The first target of our long-range UAVs was the military airfield in Primorsko-Akhtarsk (Krasnodar Krai), which stores and launches Shahed drones used to attack Ukraine. A fire broke out in the area following the SBU drone strikes,” the SBU said.

“This facility manufactures equipment for digital networks in military command systems, devices for aviation, armored vehicles, naval vessels, and space systems. SBU drones successfully struck the site, and smoke was observed following the explosions,” the agency said.

Ukraine’s military said these stepped-up attacks are in response to the heightened deadly Russian attacks on Ukrianian cities, including one this week on Kiev which killed at least 31 people after nine-story apartment building was directly struck.

Via EUOobserver

On 28 September, parliamentary elections will be held in Moldova.

While this may seem like a minor event on the EU’s periphery, its implications for Europe’s security and political cohesion are far-reaching.

Moldova, sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine, signed an association agreement with the EU in 2014, symbolising a commitment to reform and integration and the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) has vigorously pursued European integration since it came to office in 2021.

However, the PAS government led by president Maia Sandu is projected to lose significant ground in the upcoming parliamentary elections. This decline stems from domestic dissatisfaction with the party’s attitude and policies as well as ongoing interference by Russia.

This interference aims to undermine trust in Moldova’s institutions through corruption narratives and hybrid threats and increase electoral support for pro-Russian political parties.

The likely outcome is that PAS will be forced into a coalition with one of the pro-Russian opposition parties, groups that advocate distancing Moldova from Europe and often exhibit autocratic tendencies.

Such a coalition would almost certainly shift Moldova’s trajectory away from European alignment. This potential shift threatens the European Union’s interests on three key fronts: digital security, regional stability, and political cohesion.

1. Testing ground for hybrid warfare

Moldova has become a laboratory for Russian hybrid warfare tactics, including cyberattacks and large-scale disinformation campaigns.

This was evident in previous election cycles, where attempts at manipulation and foreign influence were widely documented.

We can expect similar, if not more, interference in the upcoming elections.

Should a pro-Russian party gain power, efforts to counter such threats are likely to weaken, or worse, be co-opted. A government with little incentive for transparency will likely tolerate or may even facilitate Russian influence operations.

As a result the focus of these destabilising tactics are likely to migrate westward, EU member states will increasingly become the target and we will see a rise in cyber intrusions, disinformation targeting democratic institutions, and interference in national elections.

2. Strategic buffering and support for Ukraine

Moldova plays a vital role in supporting Ukraine, both morally and practically, serving as a critical humanitarian and logistical corridor.

Even though it is Europe’s poorest country, it has hosted over 1.5 million refugees and absorbed over 100,000 for long-term stays. It also helped reroute grain shipments through its Danube ports, alleviating pressure on Ukraine’s blocked Black Sea routes.

Should Moldova pivot toward Moscow, Ukraine’s support structure will be weakened, undermining the EU’s eastern resilience.

More importantly, an ambivalent Moldova will erode the eastern buffer between the EU and hostile actors, increasing the risk of military provocations near EU borders.

This not only raises the stakes for Nato but also increases the likelihood that EU member states, especially those with Nato commitments, will be drawn into more direct responses.

3. Erosion of democratic norms and EU cohesion

Moldova’s democratic trajectory is also a symbolic battleground for the values underpinning the European project: democratic governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights.

A shift toward autocratic governance in Moldova would contribute to the broader erosion of these values in the EU’s neighbourhood.

This will further weaken the EU’s credibility as a global advocate for democracy and human rights and will complicate enlargement policy.

The EU’s failure to prevent democratic erosion in candidate countries like Georgia and Serbia has already dampened public enthusiasm for enlargement.

A similar trajectory in Moldova would not only complicate accession talks but could also bolster eurosceptic narratives in western Europe, where support for further expansion is increasingly fragile.

Moreover, such a shift will send a damaging message that democratic principles are negotiable, even in states that aspire to EU membership.

This narrative emboldens not only autocratic regimes abroad but also anti-democratic actors within EU borders. This will increasingly threaten internal cohesion.

Despite its internal challenges, the Moldovan population remains broadly supportive of European integration.

The upcoming elections are a decisive moment, not only for Moldova’s future but for the EU’s ability to safeguard its values and interests at a time of global democratic backsliding.

The EU must therefore continue to provide as much political and financial support as it can to fight Russian interference and ensure free and fair elections in Moldova.

Not just through election-monitoring and support for civil society watchdogs but also through its fights against disinformation and cybersecurity support.

A democratic, European-oriented Moldova is a stabilizing force on the Union’s eastern flank that helps safeguard our digital space, supports our geopolitical resilience, and defends the normative foundations of the European project.

The rise in insolvencies is attributed to high borrowing costs and shrinking demand

via RT

The Russian infrastructure construction sector is expected to see a wave of bankruptcies this year, according to CEO of National Projectstroy, one of Russia’s largest construction firms.

Aleksey Krapivin, whose firm oversaw the construction of the Crimean Bridge as well as key motorway projects, pointed to high interest rates and a drop in orders as key drivers of the oncoming challenges.

Three years ago the Bank of Russia raised its key rate from 9.5% to a high of 21% to stabilize the ruble and contain inflation in response to Western sanctions.

Last month, the regulator cut its key interest rate by 100 basis points to 20%, citing a slowdown in inflation, the first rate reduction since 2022.

About half of the companies in Russia’s civil construction sector are nearing insolvency, Krapivin told RBK in an interview published on Monday. National Projectstroy, he said, is already under pressure from borrowing costs and had tightened financial discipline and delayed investment plans.

Infrastructure projects are particularly exposed due to their high capital intensity and long execution timelines, Krapivin claimed, adding that new developments are not viable. “Building today is always cheaper than building tomorrow,” he said.

Smaller firms in the sector are especially vulnerable due to risky investments in non-core activities or allocating profits from future projects in advance while virtually all construction companies are feeling the burden of “expensive money.”

Krapivin acknowledged that the government and private sector are exploring ways to mitigate the impact of high rates, including expanded use of public-private partnerships, and expressed confidence that the situation would gradually improve.

Bank of Russia Deputy Governor Aleksey Zabotkin has also claimed that key rates could be cut by over 100 basis points at the bank’s upcoming July 25 meeting, adding the move depends on inflation trending toward the 4% target by 2026.

by Evi Kiorri , via EUObserver https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar56575dcd

On 25 December last year, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 took off from Baku, headed for Grozny in Russia but it never made it. The plane crashed near Aktau, in Kazakhstan, killing 38 of the 67 people on board.

Seven months later, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev has gone public with an accusation: that the plane was shot down by Russian air defences, specifically, a Pantsir-S missile system. But why is this crisis between the two countries escalating just now?

On December 25th last year, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 took off from Baku, headed for Grozny in Russia but it never made it. The plane crashed near Aktau, in Kazakhstan, killing 38 of the 67 people on board. Seven months later, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has gone public with an accusation: that the plane was shot down by Russian air defences, specifically, a Pantsir-S missile system. But why is this crisis between the two countries escalating just now?

So, according to Aliyev, this allegation isn’t a suspicion. It’s a fact. “We know what happened, and we can prove it, we know that Russian officials know what happened,” he said.

So far, Moscow’s line is that the incident was a “tragedy” – yes. But their investigation is still ongoing and crucially, no one in Russia has accepted responsibility.

Aliyev isn’t waiting around. He’s preparing lawsuits in international courts, demanding compensation, prosecution of those involved, and a formal acknowledgment from the Kremlin.

But the real story is: why now? Why is this crash, tragic as it is, triggering such open hostility between Baku and Moscow?

Well, because this is about a changing regional order. And it’s about two strongmen who no longer need, or trust, each other.

But, let’s rewind.

For decades, Russia and Azerbaijan maintained warm, even strategic ties. Trade, energy, diaspora links, Moscow was a key partner. But since Russia invaded Ukraine, things have shifted.

Russia has become overstretched, distracted. Azerbaijan saw the opportunity and took it. So, with backing from Turkey, it won back control of Nagorno-Karabakh, ending decades of conflict with Armenia. Russia, officially the peacekeeper in the region, barely lifted a finger. which left both Armenia and Azerbaijan questioning Moscow’s reliability.

Now, Baku is growing bolder. It’s drawing closer to Kyiv. It’s arresting Russian nationals, it’s raiding Kremlin-backed media outlets, and is openly challenging Moscow’s version of events.

Meanwhile, Russia has responded with police raids on ethnic Azerbaijanis, detentions, and what Azerbaijan calls extrajudicial violence. The crash of Flight 8243 didn’t cause this crisis, it just exposed it.

And let’s not forget the politics behind the scenes: a transit corridor through Armenia that Azerbaijan desperately wants, growing Turkish influence in the region, and the Kremlin’s increasing paranoia about losing control in its post-Soviet backyard.

So, what we’re seeing is the public unraveling of a geopolitical relationship and it’s getting messy.

But, what can we expect now?

Aliyev says Azerbaijan is prepared to take its case to international courts. And he’s also made it clear that this is now a matter of national dignity. As I mentioned, Baku is demanding compensation, prosecutions, and a public admission of guilt from Russia, something the Kremlin is rarely in the habit of doing.

Whether this escalates further remains to be seen. But relations are at their lowest point in decades with open diplomatic snubs, tit-for-tat arrests, and accusations of state-sponsored violence.

And while Russia may be used to operating from a position of strength, in the South Caucasus, that dominance is crumbling.

Comments from the internet:

Contained within the Epstein court filings is a land mine… linking Epstein and JPMorgan to the GFC.
At Bear Sterns Epstein “Pioneered” CDOs…
And, while the bailout was being handed out in 2008, Epstein was texting and emaling the CEOs of JP Morgan and the largest financial institutions on the planet. At one point he brags about pulling in over 44 BILLION in tax payer bailout cash in just two weeks.

… CEO of JP Morgan also brags about the 44 billion dollars in bailout cash, while WAMU goes under, and they buy it up for pennies on the dollar.

At Bear Sterns, Epstein was the president of Liquid Funding Ltd between 2000 and 2007. The company was an early pioneer of CDOs

https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/82004676

From at least 2000 to 2007, Epstein chaired a company registered in Bermuda called Liquid Funding Ltd. This entity was partially owned by the investment bank Bear Stearns, where Epstein had worked, according to the report.
The bank’s collapse would help set in motion the 2008 financial crisis.

Epstein’s offshore company was loaded up with some of the financial products — like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized loan obligations — that would become synonymous with the financial excesses leading to the financial crisis.
According to the Miami Herald and McClatchy, Liquid Funding had commercial mortgages and investment-grade residential mortgages bundled into complex securities.
“The three main credit rating agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service — all helped Bear Stearns create the securities in a way that would allow the creative product to get a gold-plated AAA rating,” the Miami Herald and McClatchy reported.

Epstein was the president of the company Liquid Funding Ltd. between 2000 and 2007.[64][65] The company was an early pioneer in expanding the kind of debt that could be accepted on repurchase, or the repo market, which involves a lender giving money to a borrower in

Liquid Funding Ltd., which was initially 40 percent owned by the Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns.”

by Dmitry Trenin:
In the West’s eyes, Russia must be destroyed. That leaves us no choice.

Dmitry Trenin is a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

RIAC

Many now speak of humanity’s drift towards World War III, imagining events similar to those of the 20th century. But war evolves. It will not begin with a June 1941 Barbarossa-style invasion or a Cuban Missile Crisis-style nuclear standoff. In fact, the new world war is already underway – it’s just that not everyone has recognized it yet.

For Russia, the pre-war period ended in 2014. For China, it was 2017. For Iran, 2023. Since then, war – in its modern, diffuse form – has intensified. This is not a new Cold War. Since 2022, the West’s campaign against Russia has grown more decisive. The risk of direct nuclear confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine conflict is rising. Donald Trump’s return to the White House created a temporary window in which such a clash could be avoided, but by mid-2025, hawks in the US and Western Europe had pushed us dangerously close again.

This war involves the world’s leading powers: the United States and its allies on one side, China and Russia on the other. It is global, not because of its scale, but because of the stakes: the future balance of power. The West sees the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia as existential threats. Its counteroffensive, economic and ideological, is meant to put a halt to that shift.

It is a war of survival for the West, not just geopolitically but ideologically. Western globalism – whether economic, political, or cultural – cannot tolerate alternative civilizational models. Post-national elites in the US and Western Europe are committed to preserving their dominance. A diversity of worldviews, civilizational autonomy, and national sovereignty are seen not as options, but as threats.

This explains the severity of the West’s response. When Joe Biden told Brazil’s President Lula that he wanted to “destroy” Russia, he revealed the truth behind euphemisms like “strategic defeat.” Western-backed Israel has shown how total this doctrine is – first in Gaza, then Lebanon, and finally Iran. In early June, a similar strategy was used in attacks on Russian airfields. Reports suggest US and British involvement in both cases. To Western planners, Russia, Iran, China and North Korea are part of a single axis. That belief shapes military planning.

Read more Dmitry Trenin: Why the next world order will be armed with nukes
Compromise is no longer part of the game. What we’re seeing are not temporary crises but rolling conflicts. Eastern Europe and the Middle East are the two current flashpoints. A third has long been identified: East Asia, particularly Taiwan. Russia is directly engaged in Ukraine, holds stakes in the Middle East, and may become involved in the Pacific.

The war is no longer about occupation, but destabilization. The new strategy focuses on sowing internal disorder: economic sabotage, social unrest, and psychological attrition. The West’s plan for Russia is not defeat on the battlefield, but gradual internal collapse.

Its tactics are all-encompassing. Drone strikes target infrastructure and nuclear facilities. Political assassinations are no longer off-limits. Journalists, negotiators, scientists, and even their families are being hunted. Residential neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals are not collateral damage – they are targets. This is total war.

This is underpinned by dehumanization. Russians are portrayed not just as enemies but as subhuman. Western societies are manipulated to accept this. Information control, censorship, and historical revisionism are used to justify the war. Those who question the dominant narrative are labelled traitors.

Meanwhile, the West exploits the more open systems of its adversaries. After refusing to interfere in foreign politics for decades, Russia now finds itself on the defensive. But those days must end. As our enemies coordinate their attacks, we must disrupt their unity. The European Union is not a monolith. Hungary, Slovakia, and much of southern Europe are not eager for escalation. These internal fractures must be widened.

Western strength lies in unity among its elites and their ideological control over their populations. But this unity is not invulnerable. The Trump administration presents tactical opportunities. His return has already reduced US involvement in Ukraine. Yet Trumpism should not be romanticized. The American elite remains largely hostile to Russia. There will be no new détente.

Read more Fyodor Lukyanov: The West mocked BRICS for years but now it’s paying attention
The war in Ukraine is becoming a war between Western Europe and Russia. British and French missiles already strike Russian targets. NATO intelligence is embedded in Ukrainian operations. EU countries are training Ukrainian forces and planning attacks together. Ukraine is just a tool. Brussels is preparing for a wider war.

What we must ask is: Is Western Europe preparing to defend or attack? Many of its leaders have lost their strategic judgment. But the hostility is real. The goal is no longer containment, but to “solve the Russian question” once and for all. Any illusion that business as usual will return must be discarded.

We are in for a long war. It will not end like in 1945, nor settle into Cold War coexistence. The decades ahead will be turbulent. Russia must fight for its rightful place in a new world order.

So, what must we do?

First of all, we must strengthen our home front. We need mobilization, but not the rigid models of the Soviet past. We need smart, adaptive mobilization across all sectors – economic, technological, and demographic. Russia’s political leadership is a strategic asset. It must remain steady and visionary.

We must promote internal unity, social justice, and patriotism. Every citizen must feel the stakes. We must align our fiscal, industrial, and technological policy with the realities of a long-term war. Fertility policy and migration control must reverse our demographic decline.

Secondly, we must consolidate our external alliances. Belarus is a strong ally in the west. North Korea has shown reliability in the east. But we lack a similar partner in the south. This gap must be addressed.

Read more Dmitry Trenin: The West’s war on Russia will go beyond Ukraine
The Israel-Iran war offers important lessons. Our adversaries coordinate tightly. We must do the same. Not by copying NATO, but by forging our own model of strategic cooperation.

We should also pursue tactical engagement with the Trump administration. If it allows us to weaken the US war effort in Europe, we should exploit it. But we must not confuse tactics with strategy. American foreign policy remains fundamentally adversarial.

Fellow European powers like Britain, France, and Germany must be made to understand they are vulnerable. Their capitals are not immune. The same message should reach Finland, Poland, and the Baltics. Provocations must be met swiftly and decisively.

If escalation is inevitable, we must consider pre-emptive action – firstly with conventional arms. And if necessary, we must be ready to use ‘special means’, including nuclear weapons, with full awareness of the consequences. Deterrence must be both passive and active.

Our mistake in Ukraine was waiting too long. Delay created the illusion of weakness. That must not be repeated. Victory means breaking the enemy’s plans, not occupying territory.

Finally, we must penetrate the West’s information shield. The battlefield now includes narratives, alliances, and public opinion. Russia must once again learn to engage in others’ domestic politics, not as an aggressor, but as a defender of truth.

The time for illusions is over. We are in a world war. The only path forward is through bold, strategic action.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

The main sensation of this news, which is now flying around all the world media, is the retelling in the Financial Times of the alleged conversation between Trump and Zelensky, in which Trump allegedly asked Zelensky if he could strike Moscow with American missiles? And St. Petersburg?

Zelensky allegedly answered: if you give us missiles, then we will strike Moscow and St. Petersburg with missiles.

Trump also allegedly said in another interview that a strategy is needed to “hurt the Russians” and then Putin will agree to Western peace terms.
If Trump said all this, this is a sharp escalation.

And this is a question for Trump: does he really want Zelensky to strike Moscow and St. Petersburg with American missiles using American military satellites? That is, Trump is really going to war between the United States and Russia?

Or is the Financial Times lying?

This news shocked everyone.
Sergey Markov