CMR is the leading provider
of funding and management
support for small to
medium-sized businesses and
entrepreneurs
Established 1984 C MR
is the leading venture
capital, management
support and business
services provider for
small to medium-sized
businesses - linking
excellent management
skills with the
substantial financial
resources of a global bank
of private investors.
CMR has over 450 senior
executives, operating
in the UK, USA, Europe, Asia,
Australasia and
globally,
providing both funding and
specialist help for
entrepreneurial
businesses .
For Businesses
CMR provides excellent
resources:
CMR FundEX Business Exchange - gives all companies & entrepreneurs direct access to CMR's global investor base.
CMR Catalyst Group
Programme -
transform
profitability through
merging.
CMR Company Sales Division helps owners to exit
at the best price.
CMR Corporate Recovery
Division -
experts in rescue and
turnaround.
CMR Technology Licensing
Division -
commercialising
innovation.
CMR Executive
Professionals - management support
and consultancy.
CMR Executives-on-Demandâ„¢ Fully experienced
senior executives
available quickly and
cost effectively.
We always welcome
contact with new
business clients- please get in touch
- we will do our
best to match
your needs and exceed
your expectations.
For Investors
Preferential access to new opportunities for investment and/or acquisition
P re-vets
propositions and
provides a
personalised service
to our investors
Syndication service
enabling investors to
link together as desired
Executive and
management support for
investments as needed
CMR's services to
our investors are not
only fast & efficient
but also free
W e
always appreciate new
members- you are welcome
to join as an investor
or as a CMR Executive.
When you
join us as a Senior
Executive:
CMR's strength is in the
skills and experience of
our executive members -
all senior, director level
people with years of
successfully running and
managing companies.
Because the demand for
CMR's support and services
is ever-increasing,
especially as we enter
recessionary times, we
have a growing need for
more high calibre
executives to join us from
every industry and
discipline.
You will be using your
considerable experience to
help smaller businesses
and entrepreneurs to grow
profitably.
We offer full training
and mentoring support to
help maximise potential.
We are
always keen to find more
high calibre senior
executives in all areas-
skills and location.
Make contact with us today
and maximise your
opportunities.
HEAD
OFFICE
124 City Road
London EC1 2NX
Tel: +44 (0)207-636-1744
Fax:+44 (0)207-636-5639
Email: cmr@cmruk.com
Registered Office:
124 City Road ,
London EC1 2NX
Also Glasgow,
Dublin, Switzerland, Europe, USA/Canada
Privacy Statement: CMR only
retains personal details
supplied directly by executives
joining CMR themselves either as
Full Executive Members or
Interim Management Members or
Investors. Those details are
only used within CMR and not
disclosed to any third parties
without that person’s
agreement. We will keep that
data until requested by the
person to be removed – at that
point it will be deleted.
Personal data is never sold or
used for purposes outside of
CMR’s normal operations. Any
correspondence should be
directed to the Managing
Director, CMR,
Kemp House,
152-160 City Road, London EC1V
2N
Senior Executives
CMR is a worldwide network of senior executives. Join us to expand your career and business horizons.
Business Entrepreneurs
CMR has a complete range of resources & services provided by experts to help all businesses to grow and prosper.
Investors & Venturers
CMR has a continuous stream of business and funding propositions, which are matched to investor preferences. Join us - it's FREE!
FundEX
FundEX is CMR's worldwide stock market for small to medium sized companies and entrepreneurs to raise new capital.
Interim & Permanent Management
Many of CMR's executives can be recruited on an interim, permanent or NED basis.
Login
Main CMR Intranet members only
Regional Intranets
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 15:40:00 +0000 'Largest Group Of TDS Sufferers Ever Put Together': Trump Delivers Remarks At Correspondents' Dinner
'Largest Group Of TDS Sufferers Ever Put Together': Trump Delivers Remarks At Correspondents' Dinner
'Largest Group Of TDS Sufferers Ever Put Together': Trump Delivers Remarks At Correspondents' Dinner
Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times,
President Donald Trump attended the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington on July 24.
The event that was originally held on April 25 was abruptly canceled due to an assassination attempt against him.
“I am delighted to be here,” Trump said as he began his speech, which lasted an hour.
“Amazing people, a lot of people that I like. Some I don’t like at all, but I respect most of them. I must say that you do a great job, amazing job, and it’s an honor. As I said three months ago, the show must go on.”
Trump continued his speech with jokes and said, “This place is really the largest group of Trump derangement syndrome people ever put together.”
The rescheduled gala took place at the Waldorf Astoria.
During his speech, Trump said he is the most transparent president in history and took several jabs at the media, joking that many media organizations would be “broke” once he leaves the White House.
“When I’m gone, you’re all going to be broke. Your business model is going to be finished,” the president said.
He took direct aim at CNN's Kaitlin Collins (and 'Fake Tapper'):
"I want to personally congratulate CNN's Kaitlan Collins ... I thought she had really made it big with a major new sponsorship, but then I informed her that it wasn't her on the Bud Light can, it was Dylan Mulvaney ."
CNN released a statement during Trump's speech defending its reporters, writing in part:
"Honest, accurate journalism may sometimes irritate politicians, but our right to report and present that reporting without government interference is fully protected by the U.S. Constitution."
He also joked that, in order to save the media, he would announce a fourth presidential run.
“That’s why tonight, to show just how much I care about the press,” Trump said, “I’m pleased to announce my intention - and this is somewhat of a scoop - my intention to run for a fourth term as president of the United States.”
He then put on a “Trump 2028” hat , drawing laughs from the audience.
This was his first time attending the dinner as president, except for the April event, which was canceled after a shooting occurred just outside the main ballroom.
Trump joked about the dinner itself, saying it was “far worse” than he expected.
At the same time, he acknowledged that he and the reporters who attended the April dinner “went through a period of trauma” that created a unique bond between them. He said he would attend next year’s dinner.
Throughout the speech, Trump occasionally praised the media, saying he respected most reporters and liked some of them. However, he also said that much of the coverage of his administration and policies had been unfair.
The president also criticized his opponents, targeting individual journalists before shifting to Democrats and other public figures.
Trump rebutted the longstanding claim that he decided to run for president after former President Barack Obama mocked him at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.
He said Obama’s remarks were not a factor in his decision to enter the race in 2016.
“I just decided that I wanted to make America great again. This had nothing to do with that dinner,” he said.
After Trump’s remarks, mentalist Oz Pearlman took the stage and performed mind-reading tricks for the audience, concluding the event.
‘We Will Not Be Intimidated’
White House Correspondents’ Association outgoing President Weijia Jiang delivered the opening address at the dinner.
“Whatever may divide us, we stand together against political violence,” she said.
“An assassination attempt on our president is an attack on democracy itself,” she added, drawing applause from the crowd.
“Tonight, our message is this: We are back. We will not be intimidated.”
The dinner at the Washington Hilton hotel on April 25 was interrupted when gunshots were fired outside the ballroom. Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old man from California, allegedly got past security with a shotgun and shot at a Secret Service officer who was wearing a bulletproof vest. Security officers quickly responded and arrested Allen. The officer was not injured, and no one else was hurt.
The Secret Service immediately evacuated Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and several Cabinet members from the venue.
Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate Trump at the event. He also faces one count of transporting a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony and one count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. He has pleaded not guilty.
At the event, the White House Correspondents’ Association presented special awards to Secret Service Police Officer Victor Gonzales and to the staff of the Washington Hilton to honor their exceptional service during the shooting. The association plans to return to Hilton for next year’s dinner.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is a black-tie gala attended by media personalities, business leaders, celebrities, lawmakers, and Cabinet officials to celebrate the Fourth Estate and White House reporters.
The association said the logistical challenges in organizing a second dinner led it to scale back the event, resulting in a smaller gathering with a reduced guest list. The Washington Hilton’s ballroom can hold 3,000 people, while the Waldorf Astoria only fits 700.
While most of Trump’s Cabinet attended the rescheduled event, the first lady, Vance, and Rubio were not among the guests due to prior commitments, a White House official told The Epoch Times.
According to the White House, the following Trump administration officials attended the dinner: acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Small Business Administration chief Kelly Loeffler, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
As part of the enhanced security measures, each guest was required to present a unique QR code and a government-issued photo ID to get through the ticketing.
The guests then went through layers of security to access the ballroom.
The White House Correspondents’ Association was founded in 1914 to protect press freedom and preserve journalists’ access to the White House. It held its first dinner in 1921, and the first president to attend was Calvin Coolidge in 1924.
Watch the full speech below:
VIDEO
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 11:40 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 15:05:00 +0000 "Hell Of A Great Day For Starship": SpaceX Tests Megarocket In First Time Since IPO
"Hell Of A Great Day For Starship": SpaceX Tests Megarocket In First Time Since IPO
SpaceX launched Starship on its 13th test flight on Friday evening, the first since the company's massive IPO, successfully deploying 20 nex
Read more.....
"Hell Of A Great Day For Starship": SpaceX Tests Megarocket In First Time Since IPO
SpaceX launched Starship on its 13th test flight on Friday evening, the first since the company's massive IPO, successfully deploying 20 next-generation Starlink V3 satellites while demonstrating further progress with its largest rocket.
"Deployment of 20 @Starlink V3 satellites complete. Today's test will provide critical data as we prepare to expand our Starlink constellation ," SpaceX announced on X.
The Super Heavy booster separated about two minutes after liftoff but suffered engine relight failures before a splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.
Starship's upper stage performed better, completing a soft landing in the Indian Ocean and remaining intact. This gave engineers their first detailed view of an undamaged heat shield after reentry.
"This is the softest splashdown we have ever had with the Starship there in the Indian Ocean, " Dan Huot, communications manager at SpaceX, said on a livestream, adding, "I'm a little over the moon right now. Wow. Lucky number 13. Hell of a great day for Starship ."
In a statement after the test flight, SpaceX said the booster landing "attempted to relight its engines for the landing burn ," but only a subset successfully ignited before the "hard splashdown," adding that the upper stage of the rocket made a "soft splashdown" in the Indian Ocean. It noted that Starship came "to rest intact in the Indian Ocean and providing critical views of an intact heatshield for the first time."
Latest coverage:
SpaceX stock and bonds:
When will SpaceX hit bottom?
The test advances SpaceX's plans to expand Starlink, develop orbital data centers and support NASA missions to the moon.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 11:05 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:55:00 +0000 US Sanctions UK-Based Senior Muslim Brotherhood Leader Over Alleged Hamas Support
US Sanctions UK-Based Senior Muslim Brotherhood Leader Over Alleged Hamas Support
The United States has sanctioned a senior UK-based Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) official alongside six other individuals and entities
Read more.....
US Sanctions UK-Based Senior Muslim Brotherhood Leader Over Alleged Hamas Support
The United States has sanctioned a senior UK-based Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) official alongside six other individuals and entities that it said provided material support to terrorist group Hamas.
State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said on July 23 that the action exposes MB affiliates and “Hamas-directed front organizations that use charitable facades and underground networks to disguise and move funds in support of terrorism.”
As Evgenia Filimianova reports via The Epoch Times, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) identified Mahmoud al-Abyari as one of the sanctioned individuals, describing him as the UK-based secretary general of the Muslim Brotherhood General Secretariat.
OFAC said al-Abyari helped raise funds for two organizations it had previously sanctioned over alleged Hamas ties—Filistin Vakfi and Hayat Yolu—and worked with MB groups to provide financial support to Hamas.
Two charities were also named, including Indonesia-based Tujah Bulah Global and Gaza-based Madad Palestine Charitable Society.
A Turkey-based money exchange rounded out the list. Treasury said El-Kahira for General Trading transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hamas and separately provided underground banking services to organized crime groups in Sweden.
OFAC also designated three men connected to the firm: the owner, Khuldun Khamis Zakaria Alden, and shareholders Zaid Issam Ahmed Al-Jebouri and Abdullah Issam Ahmad Al-Jebouri.
“The Trump Administration will relentlessly pursue terrorists and those who finance them,” said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
“Whether operating under the guise of charities, businesses, or underground financial networks, those who enable Hamas will be exposed, sanctioned, and held accountable.”
The measures build on designations announced in January and March that targeted Hamas financial facilitators, operatives, and MB-linked charities.
Pigott said on July 23 that Washington is “committed to dismantling the financial infrastructure that sustains Hamas and the MB.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during a press briefing at the White House on May 28, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
The sanctions freeze any property and interests in property of the designated individuals and entities that are in the United States or under the control of U.S. persons. The measures also expose foreign financial institutions to potential secondary sanctions if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions on behalf of sanctioned persons.
Different Approach
The latest U.S. action highlights a policy difference between Washington and London.
The Treasury designated the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Lebanese branches of the MB as specially designated global terrorists in January 2026 for providing material support to Hamas.
The MB has been designated a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Jordan outlawed the movement in 2025.
The UK has not proscribed the organization. The UK produced a review of the MB in 2015, which concluded that membership of, association with, or influence by the MB should be regarded as “a possible indicator of extremism.”
It said, however, that these factors alone were not sufficient to justify legal action. Downing Street also found that parts of the movement had used or supported violence in some countries, but stopped short of recommending a ban.
Former UK Commissioner for Countering Extremism Robin Simcox said the United States has taken a more robust approach than London toward MB networks operating in the UK.
Speaking during a Foundation for Defense of Democracies program on July 17, Simcox said, “This is a UK problem first and foremost, and we are not dealing with it in anything like the seriousness that the United States is, and that’s a major problem.”
Simcox said the British government, police, and security services have not considered the MB a sufficiently high priority compared with other terrorist threats.
He described that approach as “a massive strategic mistake” and said he hopes the latest U.S. measures will encourage the UK to revisit the issue.
The Epoch Times reached out to the UK Home Office for comment but didn’t receive a response by publication time.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 09:55 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:20:00 +0000 Ukraine's Drone Campaign Against The 'Russian Amazon' Is Driven By Political Motives
Ukraine's Drone Campaign Against The 'Russian Amazon' Is Driven By Political Motives
Ukraine's Drone Campaign Against The 'Russian Amazon' Is Driven By Political Motives
Authored by Andrew Korybko,
The goal is to create a growing class of malcontents by inflicting major harm to small business owners who might then shift the electoral odds against the ruling party ahead of September’s next elections and later possibly form the core of a future protest movement that could be exploited from abroad.
Ukraine’s US-assisted long-range drone campaign against Russia has recently begun targeting the country’s online retailer Wildberries, which is essentially the “Russian Amazon”, with recent strikes either totally destroying or greatly damaging several of its logistics centers. The Financial Times cited Russia’s edition of Forbes to report that these attacks might have already destroyed 150-275 billion rubles’ worth of inventory thus far, equivalent to around $2-3.5 billion, or more than Wildberries’ net profit last year.
They also importantly cited Alexander Kolyandr, a director at Eurasia Group, who told them that “The loss of the goods will put thousands of traders out of business, resulting in unpaid taxes, defaulted loans and the like.” Therein lies the political motive behind Ukraine’s drone campaign against the “Russian Amazon”. Zelensky announced a 40-day influence operation against Russia late last month with the objective of coercing it into a ceasefire without any concessions from Ukraine or its Western patrons.
It’ll formally end in early August, so nearly six weeks before the next Duma elections in late September, the first since the special operation began as the last ones were in 2021. His influence operation will likely be extended, however, even if only informally. With this political context in mind as well as the explicitly stated goal that he aims to achieve, it’s clear that Zelensky authorized his forces to do whatever they can to maximally inconvenience average Russians for the purpose of turning them against Putin.
This explains the prior spree of strikes against Russian energy infrastructure, which led to a spike in fuel costs that Ukraine expected would raise prices across the board due to higher transport costs for slashing average Russians’ disposable income, and the Wildberries campaign is the next phase. Harming small businesses more directly affects average Russians, both buyers and of course sellers, and the particular intent appears to be to create a new and growing class of malcontents within the country.
If taken to its extreme, and it’s possible that more logistics centers will be targeted and at least damaged since 18 of the 20 largest in Russia are reportedly within range of Ukrainian drones, this could have long-term socio-political and economic consequences for Russia. The state, which is already under financial strain due to the combination of sanctions, attacks against its energy infrastructure, and the recent large-scale destruction of small business’ taxable inventory, might thus be pressured to bail them out.
Inadequate support for struggling small business owners could shift the electoral odds against the ruling party in what would then be spun as a symbolic setback to Putin, create the earlier mentioned class of malcontents, and thus possibly rekindle long-dormant protest potential that could be exploited from abroad. The consequences could therefore cascade in the worst-case, which admittedly isn’t likely since the state still has time to avert it, so it’s premature to expect this yet it also shouldn’t be ruled out either.
The larger trend is that Ukraine’s spree of strikes against Russia is gradually evolving from showmanship into strategy , assisted as it’s been by the US, which provides targeting intelligence and overall guidance to its proxy. “Trump 2.0’s Escalation Strategy Against Russia Is Starting To Take Shape ”, and it’s centered on a “war of attrition ” that’s now setting its sights on largely civilian targets like Wildberries, the aim of which is to advance political goals that are in any case unlikely to get Putin to declare a ceasefire.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 09:20 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 12:45:00 +0000 US Pauses Iran Bombing Campaign As Saudi-Houthi Red Sea Front Erupts
US Pauses Iran Bombing Campaign As Saudi-Houthi Red Sea Front Erupts
Brent crude surged 27% over two weeks to settle at $96.78 a barrel on Friday, briefly breaching $100 this past week as traders priced in a higher war-risk premium
Read more.....
US Pauses Iran Bombing Campaign As Saudi-Houthi Red Sea Front Erupts
Brent crude surged 27% over two weeks to settle at $96.78 a barrel on Friday, briefly breaching $100 this past week as traders priced in a higher war-risk premium into energy markets amid simultaneous chokepoint threats to the Strait of Hormuz and the southern Red Sea .
Meanwhile, the US appeared to pause its 13-day campaign of daily overnight strikes against Iran . While there was no indication that the operational halt would extend into next week, the pause certainly reinforces the diplomatic signals highlighted in our US-Iran wrap on Friday.
However, there was an escalation overnight with Saudi-led strikes on Iran-backed Houthi targets in Hodeida . This comes after the terror group attacked multiple Saudi-linked tankers in the southern Red Sea area.
Houthis escalate with attacks against Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Arabian oil refinery reportedly hit by Houthi missile:
The confrontation threatens to open a second major front in the Gulf conflict . With traffic through Hormuz largely paralyzed, sustained Houthi attacks on Yanbu or ships entering Bab al-Mandab Strait could disrupt millions of barrels of Saudi exports, raise shipping costs, and further tighten physical markets.
Hormuz Traffic
Bab al-Mandab Strait Traffic
Commodity desks from JPMorgan, RBC, Goldman Sachs and others warned this past week that spreading "strait chaos" across the Gulf and widening disruptions to regional energy flows could drive further upside in crude if the conflict persists. Brent has returned to the $90s after briefly trading above $100 a barrel.
Here's what top commodity desks are saying :
•Goldman Warns Brent Could Top $120 If Gulf Chokepoint Crisis Deepens
•RBC Commodities Chief Warns "War Entering Dangerous Phase" As Chokepoint Chaos Risks Oil Above 2008 Peak
•Gas Prices Nearing Levels That Could Push Trump Towards Iran Talks, Says JPM Commodities Expert
And then there's this :
•Nine Potential Commodity Wildcards As "Once-A-Decade" Shocks Become New Normal
Red Sea disruption already materialized on Friday when a Hong Kong-flagged supertanker decided to turn away before reaching Bab el-Mandeb and to instead transit around the Cape of Good Hope, reinforcing longer freight times, higher rates, and more disruptions:
•Oil Tanker Makes Red Sea U-Turn After Houthi Threats, Reroutes Around Africa In Costly Transit
There is good news because US-allied Gulf countries are either planning or already developing new pipeline and port projects to bypass the Hormuz chokepoint entirely, which in the long run will erode Tehran's leverage on the critical waterway:
•Seven Pipeline Projects That Could Break Iran's Grip On Hormuz Chokepoint
Here are the latest overnight developments , courtesy of Bloomberg:
US Strikes & Pause
• Iran reported no US strikes overnight on Saturday, marking an apparent break after nearly two weeks of consecutive nightly US attacks.
• US strikes had progressively expanded in scope over two weeks, targeting bridges and infrastructure deeper inside Iran, following a collapsed ceasefire and renewed fighting over the Strait of Hormuz.
• Trump said on Friday he has not yet made a decision on whether to conduct major strikes against Iran, while noting US-Iran talks are continuing through VP Vance, Secretary Rubio, and others.
• Trump had previously told Axios he was considering a "massive attack" on Iran, saying the country "hasn't received enough pain yet" and is not ready to make a deal.
Strait of Hormuz
• Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Saturday they stopped four ships attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz over the past 24 hours after firing warning shots.
• The US and UK are planning a high-level international conference in London next week focused on forming a coalition to protect maritime shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, according to two European diplomats and other sources.
• An LPG tanker with 28 Indian crew members was attacked in Iranian territorial waters on Friday; India's embassy confirmed the crew is safe.
Regional Escalation
• Houthis claimed to have struck Saudi Arabia with missiles on Saturday morning, targeting southern Saudi provinces; Saudi authorities issued emergency warnings before lifting them for Jazan.
• Bahrain and Kuwait secretly sent warplanes to strike drone- and missile-storage depots inside Iran earlier this month, according to people familiar with the matter, their first such direct retaliation against Tehran.
Diplomacy & Sanctions
• China urged Iran and the US to return to implementing their ceasefire memorandum, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressing deep concern over renewed escalation at an SCO meeting in Kyrgyzstan on Friday.
• Pakistan is exploring a path toward resuming stalled US-Iran talks following a push initiated by China, according to three Pakistani sources cited by Reuters; obstacles to talks remain high.
• The US Treasury imposed new sanctions on Friday on the network of Iranian financier Babak Zanjani, targeting four individuals and nine entities linked to sanctions evasion and digital asset exchanges.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 08:45 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 12:10:00 +0000 The Far-Right 'Terror Plot' That Didn't Exist... Until The UK Government And Media Just Said It Did
The Far-Right 'Terror Plot' That Didn't Exist... Until The UK Government And Media Just Said It Did
The Far-Right 'Terror Plot' That Didn't Exist... Until The UK Government And Media Just Said It Did
Authored by Steven Tucker via dailysceptic.org,
Did you see that huge Muslim gathering held in Suffolk recently, which had to be called off early due to a major far-Right terror plot being hatched against it? You may well have done, as the news was all over the media and referenced in alarmist tones by leading politicians, up to and including the Prime Minister (both the ones we've had this week).
But did you also see that the 'plot' didn't even exist? Quite possibly not, because the subsequent release of everyone concerned (bar one aberrant and misleading exception, who we'll come to later) didn't get anything like as much space in the media, and no mention at all from any of the politicians who had so eagerly jumped the imaginary gun to condemn it.
Empty threats
The disrupted event, called the UK Ijtima, attracted 15,000 members of the Religion of Peace from around the world to gather in the grounds of the country estate of Shrubland Hall in Barham to engage in events of a peacefully peaceful nature. This peace was suddenly shattered, however, when armed counter-terror police descended, warning visitors of a severe threat to their wellbeing in the shape of the nearby presence of some white people, causing the jamboree to be closed down a few hours early on Sunday July 12th. Eight men across the country were detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, whilst a further four individuals were apprehended upon different grounds like conspiracy to commit murder. Counter-terror cops confirmed the arrests were "Right-wing terrorism related".
Then-Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer , another recent victim of things having to end early, was quick to express shock at the "credible, serious threat", as was his soon-to-be successor, Andy Burnham .
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood went further, saying the prompt police action "undoubtedly saved lives", making a statement in the Commons, playing up the cancellation as all part of a wider campaign of terror and intimidation being waged against Britain's Muslims by the agents of Anglo-Saxon hatred.
Hannah Spencer, the Green Party MP for Gorton and Gaza, joined in, demanding stronger governmental action against "anti-Muslim hatred" and bemoaning how the "alarming incident" in Barham "has barely been covered in the news", even though it appeared on the BBC , Sky News , ITV and many major newspapers .
The lengthy ITV report is particularly cringeworthy and dhimmified . An interviewee, before any details of the 'plot' were even known, says that, if it had succeeded, it could have been the biggest terror massacre in British history. ITV would not have run an interview just after Axel Rudakubana's arrest in 2024 with someone saying the same thing about his own plan to kill thousands with the bioweapons he was brewing in his bedroom, because Axel was from a minority group himself, and so speculating about his own case was officially discouraged by media and politicians alike, even though his offences, unlike those of the white Barham 'terrorists', were actually real.
Others doing their best to inflate the risk included the Muslim Council of Britain, who used the incident to specifically warn that "the threat facing Muslim communities is real, not imagined". A few days later, of course, it turned out the precise reverse was true as regarded Barham, yet still the MCB's statement remained online and unaltered .
Did it really matter to those bemoaning the 'threat' so loudly here that it ultimately did turn out to be wholly imaginary, though?
PCS gone mad
The PCS, our main civil service union, momentarily confused itself with the CPS, and put out an eerily similar statement to the MCB on the 'plot', also presenting it as part of a wider pattern:
There is no doubt there was a serious risk to life. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood described a "credible threat" and said that police action had "undoubtedly saved lives". Britain's Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP) confirmed that the investigation was "Right-wing terrorism related". This is not an isolated incident. There is increasing evidence of growing Islamophobia and alarming Islamophobic attacks. On Friday June 19th PCS condemned violent attacks targeting Edinburgh's Muslim community. This followed serious violence earlier the same month over several days in Belfast, Northern Ireland. In Manchester and Stockport, mosques have been attacked during evening prayers.
The other attacks upon Muslims referred to by the PCS here were real, physically extant events. The pseudo-events in Barham later turned out not to be. Fran Heathcote, the PCS General Secretary, reassured her union's Muslims that the difference didn't matter, though. Look at the sentence I've highlighted in bold:
Firstly I am thankful that this potentially catastrophic attack was prevented on this occasion without injury. However, I recognise that the threat facing Muslim and other religious communities is very real. Once again, we send our solidarity to those affected who may be feeling frightened and insecure at this time. PCS is ready to support any of our members affected by such events whether threatened or real. This kind of violence has no place in any society. We stand firmly against racism and religious intolerance in all its forms.
A union which explicitly promises to protect its members from imaginary threats? Would that include handing them out free cloves of garlic to ward off vampires, and silver bullets to see off werewolves? I wrote on the Daily Sceptic recently about a bizarre new far-Left faux -academic philosophy called 'eventism', or the unjustifiable social prejudice against false claims of things which never actually happened at all. This philosophy, which allows minority groups like Muslims to demonise majority groups like whites as being collectively 'guilty' of crimes like rape, murder or slavery even if they have never personally committed them, seems also here to apply to non-existent acts of 'terror' like the one which never occurred at Barham.
Bodies like the Muslim Council of Britain expressly want to use such purely imagined 'events' as a basis for implementing concrete polices. As the MCB said in its post-Barham statement, "The MCB calls on ministers to match the language of condemnation with actual action and policy, not another round of statements that change nothing." If you want "actual action", rather than mere abstract words, isn't that a kind of eventism in itself?
Droning on
What actually happened at Barham during the Ijtima, then? It is quite hard to ascertain for certain, due to the mainstream media, police and previously mouthy politicians, all of whom must now know, failing completely to tell us. So, we have to guess.
The best explanation (officially unconfirmed) I have seen appears in a TikTok video from Shayne Wiskin, a Right-wing campaigner who says an anti-immigration patriot group, as it would style itself, had gone to the Ijtima bearing drones. The Ijtima gathering is banned in several Islamic nations around the globe, with the parent sect which organises it, Tablighi Jamaat, sometimes accused of being extremists. Fearing such rumours may be true, the patriots, from something called the British Security Project (BSP), decided to go to a nearby field and pilot some drones equipped with cameras overhead just to check the festival-goers weren't secretly building a nuclear warhead.
If this narrative is true, then the supposed 'Nazi terrorists' were nothing of the kind, just the modern-day equivalent of Uncle Jimmy and his Fairly Secret Army from the 1970s Reginald Perrin sitcoms, attempting to protect the nation from fifth-columnists armed with little more than broomsticks and bravado. The BSP aspires to place over 120,000 members in schools and on trains nationwide, just in case a jihadi or a paedo happens to wander into one someday. This might be difficult as yet, as it would seem lucky to have 120 members. It sounds more like well-meaning fantasists than genuinely dangerous men. To be fair to the police, though, if the below alleged photographs supposedly showing BSP drone-operatives at work are real, they did look somewhat suspicious, and it was hardly unreasonable to investigate what they were doing, albeit the ultimate decision to go in so hard with nationwide arrests of alleged 'accomplices' appears to have been rather over the top .
It isn't so much that the police approached these people that is the problem here - if those were masked Muslims flying drones over a Christian gathering, I'd certainly want them taken in for questioning - it was the political and media reaction to the arrests that was more worthy of critique.
Event management
Having expended so much political capital upon condemning this "credible, serious threat" to the Muslim population, politicians, activists, unions and media could hardly just come out and openly admit they had got it all horribly wrong. This, for example, is how ITV News obediently and uncritically reported the Muslim Council of Britain's initial comments about the affair on its website:
I would have loved to have seen a follow-up headline saying 'Far-right danger MCB described as 'real, not imagined', turns out to be imagined, not real', but I suspect that would have been far too humiliating for ITV to own up to. Also, once again, to do so would have been 'eventist', and so just another unacceptable form of systemic white racism.
The main Establishment face-saving tactic rolled out has been simply to stay silent. Mahmood, Burnham and Starmer don't seem to have issued any corrections or apologies, nor do the MCB or PCS union. As for the media, several outlets have dutifully printed follow-up stories explaining how everyone arrested was later released facing no specific terror charges. However, these seem less prominently reported than the initial news of the arrests, and one particular report , from the BBC, was framed in such a way as to make it all sound like the direct opposite of what really happened:
If you only read the headline there, which many users will, it sounds like there was a real terror threat in Barham after all. But if you examine the whole story, it turns out one of the men arrested, during a search of his home and vehicle, was found to possess two extendable batons and a stun-gun. He had made no attempt to take them to the UK Ijtima, had no intent to use them there and wasn't even present in Barham during the gathering, being apprehended in distant Basildon. For this, the man has already been charged, tried and sentenced to six months in prison on a suspended sentence: the wheels of justice really can spin quite quickly on the odd occasion the state actually wants them to. Elsewhere, the BBC reported the other men's release in more honest terms, but the headline reproduced above looks like a clear exercise in damage limitation.
Speculation nation
There's something about all this that does not add up. I would guess it's more an exercise in quietly obscuring yet another DEI-created policing cock-up rather than a case of initial intentional elite conspiracy, but Reform UK's Deputy Leader Richard Tice thinks otherwise. Tice questions whether the whole thing was some government false-flag psy-op to counteract the widespread belief that the murderer of his fellow Reform member Ann Widdecombe may have been a far-Left extremist, by spuriously dragging alleged far-Right extremists back into the headlines instead. (Some have even tried to link the British Security Project to Ann's killer.) In other words, 'White woman killed for real, make the headlines about poor brown men feeling threatened by made-up non-threats': anti-eventism activism in action.
This is pure speculation on Tice's behalf, of the kind you would normally expect politicians like Mahmood, Starmer or Burnham to immediately condemn - but on this occasion, neither their lips nor their Twitter-fingers, moved. Why? Perhaps because, if they had done, Tice could legitimately have shot back that they were guilty of doing precisely the same thing themselves first.
'Don't speculate about motives,' our leaders command us whenever a Muslim attacks people shouting 'Allahu Akbar!' In this case, some white persons do basically nothing, and our leaders themselves can't stop speculating right from the start, because, when possessed by the dogma of 'eventism', fictional 'events' (inverted commas) which tell the right story become somehow automatically much truer than factual events (no inverted commas) which do not.
We were always brought up to believe that actions have consequences. Today, it seems children are more likely to be taught that complete non-actions have consequences too. Being arrested by counter-terror police for doing absolutely nothing wrong, for example.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 08:10 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 11:35:00 +0000 Finland & Spain Have The Highest Unemployment Rates, Japan The Lowest
Finland & Spain Have The Highest Unemployment Rates, Japan The Lowest
Unemployment across the OECD averaged 4.9% in May 2026, but labor market conditions continued to vary significantly from one country to another as economic growth
Read more.....
Finland & Spain Have The Highest Unemployment Rates, Japan The Lowest
Unemployment across the OECD averaged 4.9% in May 2026, but labor market conditions continued to vary significantly from one country to another as economic growth slowed across parts of the developed world.
This visualization ranks seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for people aged 15 and older across OECD member countries in May 2026, using data from the OECD.
Finland Tops the Ranking
Finland recorded the highest unemployment rate among OECD countries at 10.8%, narrowly ahead of Spain at 10.3%.
The country’s labor market challenges have been especially pronounced among younger workers , with unemployment reaching 23% among Finns under the age of 25.
Several European Economies Face Labor Market Pressure
Europe dominates the upper end of the ranking, with Sweden, France, Türkiye, Greece, Lithuania, Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Baltic states all posting unemployment rates above the OECD average of 4.9%.
Spain has consistently recorded one of the highest unemployment rates in the OECD for decades, reflecting long-standing structural challenges in its labor market.
Meanwhile, countries such as France and Sweden have also experienced softer labor demand amid weaker economic growth across Europe.
Japan and South Korea Remain Among the Lowest
At the opposite end of the ranking, Japan posted the lowest unemployment rate at just 2.5%, followed by Mexico (2.7%), South Korea (2.8%), Israel (2.8%), and Czechia (2.9%).
These countries continue to benefit from relatively tight labor markets, supported by demographic trends, steady employment demand, or structural labor shortages.
The United States also remained below the OECD average, with an unemployment rate of 4.2%, while Canada stood at 6.6%, reflecting somewhat weaker labor market conditions than its southern neighbor.
Overall, the OECD average unemployment rate of 4.9% suggests that labor markets remain relatively healthy despite slowing global growth and ongoing economic uncertainty.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out this graphic on the world’s richest countries by GDP per capita.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 07:35 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 11:00:00 +0000 "Why I'm Writing This Anonymously And What That Says About Free Speech In Britain"
"Why I'm Writing This Anonymously And What That Says About Free Speech In Britain"
"Why I'm Writing This Anonymously And What That Says About Free Speech In Britain"
Authored by 'regular bloke' via dailysceptic.org,
I have wanted to write for the Daily Sceptic for a long time. It should be a straightforward ambition to fulfil. I have opinions, I support free speech and scepticism, and here is a publication built for exactly that. Instead, my first contribution arrives unsigned. I think the reason why is, in itself, the article.
Ann Widdecombe’s murder has reopened a question that surfaces from time to time: should politicians with ‘unfashionable’ views get extra protection? The investigation continues, so I won’t comment on that, but the fact that the question is even being asked in response to a 78 year-old woman being killed in her own home tells you something regardless of how the investigation concludes. We have been here before. Jo Cox in 2016. David Amess in 2021. A pattern is forming, whatever the final facts of this particular case turn out to be.
The debate this triggers is usually framed narrowly: what security do MPs need? I want to push it wider: what if politicians are not actually the group most exposed? They have protection officers, party machinery and a public profile that makes an attack on them a national story. I have none of that. Neither does anyone else who simply has an opinion and a job to protect.
I recently listened to Professor David Betz of King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, who argued that Britain may be entering a period of increasing internal conflict in which political violence becomes more likely.
Whether or not one accepts his analysis, it’s difficult to ignore the growing sense that our public discourse has become more hostile and less forgiving .
If expressing political disagreement increasingly carries the risk of intimidation or worse, the answer cannot simply be to provide more security for an ever-expanding list of public figures.
That treats the symptom rather than the disease.
The view from nowhere and a nobody in particular
I consider myself an ordinary person.
Thirty-plus years ago I would have considered myself slightly Left-leaning. I liked to think of myself as one of the good guys.
But somewhere in the last three decades the Overton window slid sideways , and views I’ve quietly held throughout – that mass immigration, legal and illegal, hasn’t obviously benefited the culture I grew up in, that free speech should mean everyone’s speech, including the people I disagree with – are now filed under ‘Right-wing’.
I don’t think I’m unusual. Look at the Brexit vote, which for many people was as much about sovereignty and control over immigration as it was about Brussels. Look at any poll on migration levels. There is a large, ordinary, non-extreme constituency that holds views broadly like mine. And a good number of them, I suspect, keep quiet for the same reason I’m staying anonymous here: weighing up whether speaking out is worth the risk. Silence can easily be mistaken for consensus, and I suspect that’s exactly what’s happening here.
Which raises a question I’ve had to sit with while writing this: am I a coward? Publishing anonymously, after all, is a way of having the argument without paying for it. But I don’t think cowardice is really what’s on display here. A coward stays silent. What I’m doing is closer to something else entirely: deciding that saying this at all matters more than saying it under my own name, while still not being willing to bet my livelihood on it. If that’s cowardice, then I suspect it’s shared by a very large, very quiet number of people who hold perfectly mainstream opinions and have simply done the same calculations that I have. That, in itself, might be the more troubling finding than anything else in this piece.
Fear arrives before the crackdown
This is the part I think gets missed in the security debate. We talk about authoritarianism as something that happens to you: a knock on the door, a lost job, a police caution for a tweet. But before any of that, there’s the version that happens inside your own head. You draft the post and delete it. You bite your tongue at the dinner table. You calculate what a client, a neighbour, or a local WhatsApp group might do with an honest opinion, and you decide it isn’t worth finding out.
That calculation isn’t paranoid. The variables feeding it are laid out in article after article in the Daily Sceptic . Prevent’s own material cites “cultural nationalism”, defined as the belief that Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by specific ethnic and cultural groups, as a sub-category of extreme Right-wing ideology. Two-tier policing is underpinned by the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Anti-Racism Commitment, which states that policing should not be “colour blind”, a principle many officers and members of the public have read as licence to treat people differently according to race. It is perhaps no coincidence that public trust in these institutions has been falling sharply. Gallup found that Britons’ confidence in the courts dropped 12 points in a single year to 57%, while confidence in local police fell 11 points to 64%, the largest year-on-year declines on record for either measure. When the referee looks like it’s picking sides, people stop trusting the game.
Campaigners have logged tens of thousands of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ a year, the great majority of them originating from something someone posted online. And after events like the Southport riots, an entire category of people were branded ‘far-Right thugs’ as a matter of editorial habit. None of this needs to end in a prosecution for it to work. Its function is to make you flinch before you speak, not after. And it’s working: a YouGov poll found that 57% of Britons admit to sometimes holding back their views for fear of a negative reaction, and research published earlier this year found the same pattern setting in even among teenagers, with around one in five saying they hide their political opinions at school to avoid being ‘cancelled’. Self-censorship of this kind isn’t a fringe habit. It’s now closer to a majority experience.
Nothing dramatic has happened to me. Nobody has knocked on my door. I have not been arrested, cautioned or sacked. I have simply chosen, before any of that could happen, to leave my name off this piece. That is precisely the point. Fear doesn’t need to become reality to change behaviour. The anticipation of it is enough.
That’s the self-censorship no one puts a number on, and I think it’s doing more to shrink public debate than any single policy or piece of legislation. Its success isn’t measured by how many people it punishes, but by how many quietly change their behaviour hoping never to be punished at all.
What the Free Speech Union can’t do
I say this as a member and supporter, not a critic: the Free Speech Union does something genuinely valuable. It represents people who get victimised for exercising their right to free speech, such as those facing job losses, disciplinary action or no-platforming for holding a lawful opinion. It lobbies against bad policy before it’s enacted or written into law. Both of those are real, useful functions.
But none of it reaches the moment someone decides to act with their fists rather than a complaint form. If an opinion gets you followed home, or attacked in the street, the Free Speech Union cannot stand between you and that. Nothing currently can, if you’re not a high profile figure with a protection detail. I don’t say that to be alarmist. I say it because it’s the honest answer to ‘What happens if this goes further?’, and I don’t think we’ve collectively worked out what we do about it.
It’s worth adding: this isn’t only a problem for people like me. Journalists and broadcasters who’ve been pushed out of mainstream outlets over their views have, in plenty of cases, faced worse, genuine, sustained threats, and some have built independent platforms only because staying inside the mainstream tent stopped being an option. I don’t want to suggest their situation is easy. But for many at least, it is a chosen fight, with an audience and often an income attached to it. Mine isn’t. I have a job, clients and neighbours, and none of them signed up for my opinions to become their problem.
So, anonymously
Which brings me back to where I started. I am not a public figure. I have no security detail, no platform to defend and no appetite for becoming a story.
What I have is an opinion that used to be unremarkable and now apparently isn’t, and a reasonable fear that saying so under my own name could cost me clients, friction with neighbours or worse.
So I’m saying it without my name attached, in a publication built specifically to defend my right to say it with my name attached.
If that strikes you as a contradiction, it should.
I think it’s the clearest evidence I can offer that something in this country’s relationship with free expression isn’t working: not a theory about it, but a person quietly acting on the fear of it, in real time, in this very article.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 07:00 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000 Forget Beef. This Protein Is Way Cheaper
Forget Beef. This Protein Is Way Cheaper
Building on Bank of America's latest note, which cited Oklahoma State University agricultural economist Derrell Peel's warning that the US cattle cycle is unlikely to improve anytime soon, b
Read more.....
Forget Beef. This Protein Is Way Cheaper
Building on Bank of America's latest note, which cited Oklahoma State University agricultural economist Derrell Peel's warning that the US cattle cycle is unlikely to improve anytime soon, beef prices are poised to remain elevated through at least next year. But two competitively priced proteins that consumers can switch to today remain largely overlooked.
That overlooked protein is ground pork, with an average of $4.81 a pound in mid-June, compared with $7.95 for ground beef, while pork chops cost roughly one-third as much as beef steak, according to Bloomberg , citing NielsenIQ data.
Still, beef consumption is forecast at a 15-year high, underscoring how stubborn consumers are and how unwilling they are to trade down for their meats.
Processors including Smithfield Foods are responding with precut, marinated and ground-pork products designed to improve convenience and compete with beef and chicken.
Industry insiders see ground pork as the category's biggest opportunity, though ground beef's $17 billion in annual sales suggests any shift will be gradual.
"People don't want to risk something not tasting great when it comes down to it," said Reba Hatcher, chief commercial officer at meat subscription company ButcherBox, who the outlet cited. "Even if it's cheaper when you go to the checkout, it's not cheaper if you end up throwing it away or people end up hating it at the dinner table."
For readers wondering just how long beef prices will remain elevated, the BofA note provides a timeline for when the cattle cycle could turn upward. Spoiler alert: not anytime soon. Read report.
With beef prices unlikely to meaningfully ease anytime soon, the Beck Ranch Carnivore Trio in ZeroHedge Store lets readers stock the freezer with more affordable and premium chicken and pork while still keeping premium ground beef in the mix.
Get yours here.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/25/2026 - 06:00 Close
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 03:25:00 +0000 The 'Projects' That Could Ignite The Next World War
The 'Projects' That Could Ignite The Next World War
The 'Projects' That Could Ignite The Next World War
Authored by Madge Waggy,
The Military, Industrial and Strategic Programs Reshaping the World in 2026
The most dangerous geopolitical developments of 2026 are not necessarily the weapons that have already been fired, but the systems being constructed in anticipation of the next crisis. Across Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, governments are committing extraordinary resources to military production, strategic infrastructure, weapons procurement and long-term defence planning, creating a global security environment in which preparation for war has itself become one of the defining features of international politics. The official justification is almost always deterrence: stronger armies are supposed to prevent aggression, larger stockpiles are supposed to make adversaries think twice and new military infrastructure is supposed to close the gaps that might otherwise invite attack. Yet deterrence has an inherent paradox. Every military capability built by one state is examined by another as a potential threat, and every response can then be used to justify another round of preparation. What emerges is not necessarily an organized march toward a single global conflict, but something more unstable: a collection of increasingly sophisticated military projects operating simultaneously across several regions, each designed to prevent war while potentially making the consequences of miscalculation far more severe.
The scale of this transformation is no longer a matter of speculation. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military expenditure reached approximately $2.887 trillion in 2025 , marking the eleventh consecutive year of growth. European military spending increased by 14% to approximately $864 billion , while military expenditure in Asia and Oceania rose by 8.1% to around $681 billion . The United States remained the world's largest military spender at approximately $954 billion , followed by China at $336 billion and Russia at $190 billion . Together, those three countries accounted for roughly 51% of global military expenditure . SIPRI also reported that European NATO members increased spending sharply, while China's military expenditure continued a decades-long upward trajectory and Taiwan increased its own military spending by approximately 14% in 2025. These figures do not prove that a world war is approaching, but they reveal an international system in which the largest military powers are simultaneously expanding or restructuring their strategic capabilities.
THE GLOBAL REARMAMENT MAP
The "Editorial risk assessment" is an analytical classification based on escalation potential, proximity of military forces, strategic importance and likelihood of involvement by major powers. It is not an official probability forecast. Data on military expenditure: SIPRI. Current developments in Taiwan Strait and the Middle East: Reuters and AP.
The most important feature of this table is not any individual number, but the simultaneous concentration of military pressure across several theatres. Europe is rebuilding defence capacity at a pace unseen in decades, China is continuing its military modernization while applying pressure around Taiwan, Russia remains heavily committed to wartime spending, and the United States is attempting to maintain strategic commitments across Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. This creates a geopolitical environment in which a crisis in one region could consume resources, attention and military capacity that are simultaneously required elsewhere. The risk is therefore not simply that one country decides to start a global war; it is that several regional crises could interact with one another at precisely the moment when governments have fewer diplomatic and military resources available to contain them.
EUROPE'S REARMAMENT PROJECT
Europe's rearmament is perhaps the clearest example of a strategic project that is simultaneously defensive in intention and potentially destabilizing in perception. The transformation began with the recognition that the continent had allowed its conventional military capabilities to decline after the Cold War, but the war in Ukraine fundamentally altered that calculation. Governments that had spent years treating defence as a secondary budgetary priority are now rebuilding ammunition reserves, expanding weapons production, ordering new aircraft and missile systems, strengthening military logistics and investing in the infrastructure required to move large numbers of troops and equipment across the continent. NATO has committed its members to a long-term target of spending 5% of GDP annually on defence and defence-related security requirements by 2035, while the alliance reported in July 2026 that European allies and Canada had already increased core defence expenditure by nearly 20% in 2025 compared with 2024. NATO is also explicitly working with industry to expand production capacity, including ammunition stockpiles and other military capabilities.
The economic dimension of this transformation is significant because military production cannot be expanded overnight. A government can announce a larger defence budget in a single parliamentary session, but factories, skilled labour, supply chains and production lines require years to develop. Once those systems are established, they create their own momentum. Defence companies receive long-term contracts, governments become dependent on domestic production capacity and military planners begin designing strategies around weapons that may remain in service for decades. The result is a structural transformation rather than a temporary response to a single crisis. Europe is not simply buying more weapons; it is rebuilding an industrial ecosystem capable of producing them at scale.
From Moscow's perspective, the same transformation can be interpreted very differently. European governments describe their military expansion as a response to Russian aggression and a means of preventing future conflict. Russia, however, is likely to view the growth of European military capabilities, expanded NATO production and increased strategic infrastructure as evidence that the continent is preparing for a prolonged confrontation. This is the classic security dilemma, and it is one of the most persistent mechanisms behind arms races throughout modern history. The fundamental problem is that two governments can simultaneously believe they are acting defensively while interpreting the other's defensive actions as preparation for aggression.
The danger becomes greater when military infrastructure acquires permanence. A temporary deployment can be withdrawn relatively quickly; a factory built to produce ammunition for decades, a new logistics corridor or a permanent military installation creates a different strategic reality. These projects establish capabilities that remain available long after the political circumstances that originally justified them have changed. The result is a continent increasingly structured around the possibility of prolonged confrontation, with defence spending becoming not merely a reaction to war but an enduring component of economic and industrial policy. That does not make a European war inevitable, but it does mean that the physical and industrial capacity required for one is expanding substantially.
THE TAIWAN STRAIT: THE MOST DANGEROUS CONVERGENCE OF MILITARY POWER AND GLOBAL ECONOMICS
The Taiwan Strait represents a different kind of danger because it combines territorial sovereignty, national identity, military competition and the technological foundations of the global economy. China claims Taiwan as part of its territory, while Taiwan maintains its own democratic government and rejects Beijing's sovereignty claims. The United States remains deeply involved in the island's security through arms sales and strategic commitments, making any serious military confrontation potentially capable of drawing the world's two largest military powers into direct conflict.
The latest developments demonstrate how quickly the military environment can change. On July 23, 2026, China began two days of live-fire drills in sections of the Taiwan Strait near the coast of Fujian province, following high-level discussions between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in which Taiwan was a major issue. The exercises followed earlier large-scale Chinese military drills and came amid continuing concerns over the expansion of military activity surrounding Taiwan.
China's military modernization is central to this strategic equation. SIPRI estimates that Chinese military expenditure reached approximately $336 billion in 2025, representing a 7.4% increase and the thirty-first consecutive year of annual growth. Taiwan, meanwhile, increased its own military expenditure by approximately 14% to $18.2 billion, while Japan's spending rose by 9.7% to $62.2 billion. The pattern is unmistakable: China is expanding its military capabilities, while countries that fear the consequences of Chinese regional dominance are simultaneously strengthening their own. The result is an increasingly dense military environment in which naval vessels, aircraft, missiles, intelligence systems and surveillance platforms operate in close proximity to one another.
This is where the Taiwan problem becomes larger than the island itself. Any major conflict would immediately threaten one of the world's most important technological and commercial regions, with consequences extending into semiconductor manufacturing, maritime trade, financial markets and global supply chains. A military crisis in the Taiwan Strait could therefore produce economic consequences before the conflict had even developed into a full-scale war. The strategic importance of the region means that the international community has a strong incentive to prevent escalation, but it also means that the number of actors with something to lose is exceptionally large.
The most dangerous scenario may not necessarily be a carefully planned invasion. A crisis could emerge from an accident, an unexpected military incident or a political decision made under extreme pressure. As military exercises become more frequent and forces operate closer together, the distinction between signalling and provocation becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. The immediate challenge is therefore not simply to determine whether Beijing intends to use force against Taiwan, but whether the military systems being constructed by China, Taiwan, the United States and their regional partners leave enough room for diplomacy when something goes wrong.
THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ
If Taiwan represents the possibility of a future great-power confrontation, the Middle East demonstrates what happens when escalation is already underway. The ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict has entered a dangerous phase in which military operations, attacks on infrastructure and disruption of maritime trade are becoming interconnected. According to AP reporting on July 23, U.S. forces carried out another night of airstrikes against Iran amid continuing tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran and allied forces threatened or attacked shipping and regional infrastructure. Reuters reported that the conflict had already cost the United States approximately $37.5 billion, with 18 American service members killed and more than 430 wounded, while the disruption to shipping through key regional chokepoints has created broader economic consequences.
The Strait of Hormuz is particularly dangerous because it transforms a regional military confrontation into a global economic problem. The waterway is a critical route for energy shipments, meaning that any prolonged disruption affects not only the countries fighting the war but also governments, industries and consumers thousands of kilometres away. Reuters reported on July 22 that the conflict had significantly worsened the outlook for the global oil market in 2026, with analysts projecting a global oil deficit of approximately 1.5 million barrels per day as disruptions continued to affect exports from the Gulf. The same report noted that Brent crude had risen sharply during the renewed escalation.
This is the point at which military escalation begins to acquire a life of its own. Once energy infrastructure, shipping lanes and civilian economic systems become part of a conflict, every military action produces consequences far beyond the battlefield. A strike against a port can affect insurance markets. An attack on a tanker can alter shipping routes. A threat against energy infrastructure can change oil prices before a single barrel is physically removed from the market. The conflict becomes a feedback loop in which military decisions generate economic pressure, economic pressure generates political pressure and political pressure encourages governments to adopt even more aggressive positions.
The latest developments in the Red Sea demonstrate the danger of geographic expansion. On July 23, AP reported that Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi movement claimed responsibility for attacks on two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, while U.S. forces continued strikes against Iranian targets. The involvement of additional maritime routes creates the possibility that the conflict could gradually spread across multiple strategic chokepoints, linking the Strait of Hormuz with the Bab el-Mandeb and the broader Red Sea shipping system.
THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL PROJECT THAT CONNECTS THEM ALL
The most consequential project underway may therefore be the expansion of military-industrial capacity itself. Europe is increasing production, NATO is seeking greater industrial output, China is continuing military modernization and countries across Asia are responding by increasing their own defence budgets. SIPRI's data show that global military expenditure reached its highest recorded level in 2025, while the sharpest increases were concentrated in regions already experiencing significant geopolitical tension. This does not establish a direct causal relationship between military spending and war, but it demonstrates that the international system is investing heavily in the capacity to sustain conflict at precisely the moment when diplomatic trust between major powers is weakening.
There is an important distinction between preparing for war and wanting war. Governments may rationally conclude that the best way to prevent aggression is to possess overwhelming military capabilities, maintain large reserves and demonstrate the ability to respond immediately. From this perspective, rearmament is a tool of peace. The difficulty is that deterrence depends on interpretation. A military project that appears defensive to the country building it may appear offensive to the country observing it. This problem becomes especially severe when multiple states are rearming simultaneously, because each government can use the actions of others as evidence that its own expansion is justified.
The statistical trend is therefore less important as a prediction of war than as an indicator of strategic psychology. The world is spending more because governments increasingly believe that the future will be more dangerous. That belief itself influences policy, and policy then changes the environment that created the belief in the first place. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle in which insecurity generates military investment, military investment generates suspicion and suspicion generates further insecurity.
This is why the most important projects of 2026 are not necessarily individual weapons systems. They are the long-term structures being built around them: defence industries, military logistics, strategic alliances, naval infrastructure, ammunition stockpiles, surveillance networks and procurement programs designed to remain operational for decades. These systems are being constructed under the assumption that strategic competition will not disappear quickly. Once established, they will shape the calculations of governments long after today's political leaders have left office.
THE GEOPOLITICAL RISK MATRIX
Analytical assessment based on current military activity, strategic importance, involvement of major powers, economic interdependence and escalation pathways. This is an editorial framework, not an official forecast or probability model.
The matrix illustrates why the danger of 2026 cannot be reduced to identifying one country or one conflict as the source of the next major war. Europe presents a high-intensity military confrontation involving Russia and NATO. Taiwan represents the possibility of a direct clash between the United States and China. The Middle East has already demonstrated the ability of regional conflict to disrupt global energy markets and maritime trade. These theatres are geographically separate, but they are strategically connected through the allocation of military resources, energy markets, alliance commitments and global economic dependencies.
The most troubling scenario is therefore not necessarily a coordinated decision by several governments to launch a global war. It is the possibility that one crisis could destabilize another. A prolonged conflict in the Middle East could absorb American military resources while tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific. A European crisis could force governments to redirect weapons and ammunition away from other theatres. A major confrontation around Taiwan could disrupt global trade at precisely the moment when energy markets were already under pressure. In such circumstances, strategic calculations would become more complicated, not less, because every government would be forced to consider not only the immediate enemy in front of it but also the possibility that another adversary might exploit the distraction.
The modern international system is therefore becoming increasingly vulnerable to strategic overload. The United States, China, Russia and their respective partners are building military capabilities designed to operate in an environment of prolonged competition, while regional conflicts are becoming increasingly interconnected through energy, technology and trade. The danger is not that every military project inevitably leads to war; the danger is that the sheer number of simultaneous projects and crises increases the number of pathways through which an accident, miscalculation or deliberate escalation could become much larger than originally intended.
The world is consequently entering a period in which deterrence and escalation are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Europe is building the industrial capacity to defend itself, NATO is expanding its long-term military commitments, China is strengthening its ability to project power around Taiwan, Taiwan is increasing its own defences, and the Middle East is demonstrating how rapidly military conflict can spread from battlefields to shipping routes and global energy markets. Each of these developments has a rational strategic explanation when examined individually. The deeper danger emerges when they are viewed together.
What is being constructed in 2026 is not a single machine designed to start a world war. It is a network of military and industrial systems designed to ensure that governments are never again caught unprepared by one. Yet the more extensively those systems are built, the more the international order becomes dependent on accurate intelligence, disciplined decision-making and the ability of political leaders to distinguish between preparation and provocation. That dependency is fragile. The statistics show an extraordinary expansion in global military expenditure, the geopolitical map shows multiple simultaneous flashpoints and the latest events in Taiwan and the Middle East demonstrate how quickly military pressure can intensify.
The central risk of the present era is therefore not that war has become inevitable, but that the world is accumulating more weapons, more strategic infrastructure and more potential points of confrontation than it has diplomatic mechanisms capable of reliably controlling.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/24/2026 - 23:25 Close