CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Lawrence Franklin via The Gatestone Institute,

The widened scope and quickened pace of the Islamic State's military operations in the Sahel region -- just below North Africa, roughly from Senegal to Sudan -- threatens to alter the strategic orientation of the African continent. Efforts at countering terrorist operations in the Sahel, such as they were, have evidently failed. As all roads to Mali's capital of Bamoko are now blocked, that country might be the first state to "go under."

On April 25, during a coordinated attack on several Malian cities, Muslim terrorists killed the country's Minister of Defense. The terrorists then drove the Malian Army and its allied Russian mercenaries out of the country's north.

The military juntas ruling Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have proven themselves as ineffective at combatting Islamic terrorist operations as the democracies that they overthrew. The increasing terrorist assaults across the Sahel and the jihadists's determined efforts to take over Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have eroded the sovereignty of these states.

The combat successes of the jihadists in the Sahel in March 2022 precipitated their elevation to the status of "Islamic State Sahel Province" within the hierarchy of the IS, and several other factors have facilitated the growth of the jihadist advance in the Sahel.

The cooling of the once global counterterrorist crusade — following an apparent shift in focus by the world's great power rivalries, as well as fewer resources directed against the terrorist problem — left a vacuum that was adroitly filled by jihadist groups, which has reduced the pressure on Islamic State and Al Qaeda regional affiliates.

Another situation that might have impacted negatively upon the Sahel's overall security is the monumental migratory flow of Africans from sub-Saharan countries who pass through the Sahel to the Mediterranean, and the consequent stress this puts on the Sahel economies.

A third force eroding state sovereignty of Sahel countries is warfare waged by Al Qaeda terrorist affiliates that are rivals of the Islamic State, such as the Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM). JNIM also coordinates attacks with the Malian anti-government militia known as the Azawad Liberation Front.

Jihadist violence has become ubiquitous in the Sahel, and recently expanded to include fighting between Islamic State and Al Qaeda. On April 2, a notable clash between these two rival terrorist networks occurred in western Niger.

The Sahel now appears to be the epicenter of global terrorist violence. Sahel's terrorist groups might also be acquiring confidence that they can achieve permanent and more ambitious goals in the near future.

Islamic State units have also been exploiting the deteriorating security situation in the Sahel and in Nigeria's northeastern states, which are already governed under Islamic sharia law. Islamic State probably feels buoyed by its easy success in recent battles with the Nigerian Army.

On April 25, Al Qaeda terrorists conducted simultaneous attacks against several Malian urban areas. Their success might well tempt jihadist fighters to move into major urban areas in northern Nigeria and elsewhere in the Sahel.

An additional worrisome trend indicates that terrorist violence is moving westward to Africa's Atlantic coast.

State control increasingly is being eroded in the Sahel region, despite multilateral efforts to sustain the sovereignty of several states in the Sahel, such as the Multi-National Joint Task Force (MNJTF) consisting of Chad, Nigeria, Benin, Cameroon, and, until last year, Niger. The MNJTF had made significant strides in halting the advance of the Al Qaeda-affiliated Boko Haram terrorist group, particularly in Chad, but recently the overall scorecard is less conclusive.

The MNJTF is sustained mostly by the continent-wide Organization of the African Union (OAU). While the MNJTF originally planned to field a 10,000-member OAU army, insufficient air cover, poor communications, and logistical problems have reduced the organization's effectiveness.

Another multinational group — the "G5 Sahel" of Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, and Niger — proved ineffective after its 2014 launch. Beset by bureaucratic problems, military coups, and lack of adequate commitment by member states, it dissolved in December 2023.

France, the former colonial "mother country" of several Sahel states, has also made a valiant effort to contain the region's Islamist threat. Acting on behalf of a Malian request for military support, France in 2013 dispatched troops to northern Mali in "Operation Serval."

After substantial success, France, along with UN political support, launched "Operation Barkhane" in 2014 to combat Islamist terrorist activity in the Sahel region. The mission ended in 2022, however, when, following military coups, three Sahelian states asked the French to leave. Later, these same three states invited assistance from Russian mercenaries, which has not resulted in any permanent progress on the battlefield.

With the advance of Islamic terrorist control over ever wider swaths of the Sahel, in recent years, US Special Forces teams have been operating in Niger. On October 4, 2017, this deployment resulted in the killing of four US soldiers and a score of Nigerien soldiers in an ambush staged by "Islamic State in the Greater Sahara." More recently, US national security priorities elsewhere seem to have resulted in a diminution of American military involvement in the Sahel.

The steady advance of Islamic terrorist control over territory in the Sahel could soon threaten the sovereignty of West African states on the continent's Atlantic Coast -- just across the ocean from Latin America and the United States.

It is past time for the US to take action to protect not only the vast natural resources in the area, but also to stop even more of Africa from being swallowed up by this expanding jihadist takeover.

On Monday President Vladimir Putin signed a law that effectively wipes clean up to 10 million rubles (approximately $140,000) in unpaid debt for new military recruits and their spouses, at a moment Russia needs more manpower to keep up its grinding 'special military operation' in Ukraine.

The debt exemption applies to any Russian citizen who signs a minimum one-year contract with the military to serve in Ukraine after May 1, 2026. The economic amnesty explicitly extends to an enlisted member's spouse as well - making it more attractive to struggling families.

The bill smoothly cleared Russia's parliament earlier this month prior to going to Putin's desk for final authorization. It represents the newest addition to a series of economic incentives designed to keep boots on the ground without triggering a domestic political crisis.

While an official death toll has not been issued or publicly maintained by the Kremlin, estimates commonly suggest deaths in the hundreds of thousands, or else a conservative estimate of high tens of thousands - after well over four-years of the tragic war.

Similar figures are often offered on the Ukrainian side, which even more obviously suffers from a severe manpower crisis, leading to forcible recruitment often through officers nabbing eligible men off the streets.

This fresh Kremlin debt forgiveness policy represents a new, softer and more incentive-based approach to military recruitment inside Russia. Prior 'partial' mobilizations have been deeply unpopular.

Within the opening years of the war, there were reports that hundreds of thousands of draft-age Russian men fled across international borders in order to escape these mobilization waves.

The pro-NATO Atlantic Council has meanwhile highlighted that Russia's military also fills manpower through controversial foreign recruitment methods:

The Kremlin plans to recruit at least 18,500 foreigners to fight in the Russian army in 2026, Ukrainian military intelligence officials claimed in late April. This figure represents a sharp rise in the annual recruitment of foreign nationals as Moscow seeks to continue the invasion of Ukraine amid heavy battlefield losses and domestic mobilization concerns.

Russia’s efforts to enlist foreigners in the country’s military are not new. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began more than four years ago, at least 27,000 foreign nationals from more than 130 countries have signed up for service in the Russian army, according to a new report prepared jointly by Truth Hounds, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and regional partners.

The vast majority of these recruits have been drawn from economically deprived regions of the Global South.

In some instances, this happens through deceptive means, such as foreign nationals responding to a job posting in Russia, only to find themselves thrown into Russian boot camp once they sign papers for what they think is another, legitimate occupation or job training.

The conflict and front lines continue to be largely stalemated, with peace talks seemingly no where on the horizon, but Moscow's strategy seems to be based on consistently enduring and making slow gains in this 'war of attrition'.

Authored by Rainer Zitelmann via American Greatness,

When we talk about the future of mankind in space, we should learn from history.

Squatters played a crucial role in the settlement and economic development of the American West. Long before government institutions were firmly established, settlers moved onto unclaimed land, built homes, cultivated farms, and created entire communities without initially possessing formal legal title to the land they occupied.

In many cases, these settlers were the true pioneers of westward expansion. They established the foundations of economic life—farms, towns, trade networks, and local infrastructure—while the state often arrived only later. The expansion of the American frontier was driven less by central planning in Washington than by millions of individuals acting on their own initiative.

What made the squatters especially important was that they created facts before the law recognized them. They settled the land first and expected legalization afterward. Over time, American lawmakers accepted this reality and introduced legislation allowing settlers to obtain formal ownership of the land they had improved and cultivated.

The squatters embodied a distinctly American idea: that those who productively use land should have the right to own it. This belief stood in sharp contrast to the European tradition of aristocratic landownership and became deeply connected to the American ideal of the independent entrepreneur and pioneer.

Their activities transformed vast territories into economically productive regions. By cultivating land, building businesses, and creating communities, squatters helped turn the frontier into one of the most dynamic areas of economic growth in the nineteenth century.

Some economic historians view the squatters as an early example of how property rights emerge from below—through use, investment, and social recognition—before they are formally recognized by the state.

What we need in the future are space squatters. The crucial difference from the historical squatters of the American West is this: on other celestial bodies, there is currently no ownership at all. The land belongs to nobody. And unlike in the settlement of the American frontier, there is no indigenous population whose rights could be violated.

According to Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, states are prohibited from appropriating celestial bodies or territory in outer space. Whether this prohibition also applies to private individuals and private companies remains controversial among space lawyers.

The treaty says nothing explicitly about whether private individuals are permitted or prohibited from owning celestial bodies or land on celestial bodies. At the time, nobody imagined that entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos might one day finance private space exploration with their own fortunes.

Some legal scholars, therefore, argue that national sovereignty ends where outer space begins. In their view, the treaty prohibits national appropriation of the Moon, Mars, or asteroids—but not private ownership. Their interpretation relies on a classic legal principle: expressio unius est exclusio alterius. If a treaty explicitly prohibits one category of actors—namely, states—then other actors not mentioned may remain unrestricted.

So who should have the right to acquire property in space? My answer in my book New Space Capitalism is straightforward: Those who have the financial means to get there, develop, and use the land. For instance, if SpaceX succeeds in reaching Mars and starts to build permanent settlements on the Red Planet, then the ownership of land should go to SpaceX first. Not of the entire planet, of course, but of a practicable area, for example, the size of Singapore. The surface area of Mars is 200,000 times that of Singapore, so SpaceX would initially only own 0.0005 percent of Mars. That would be enough to develop multiple settlements, but not so many that others would no longer have a chance.

SpaceX could fund its flight and development costs by listing the land on Mars in a real estate investment trust (REIT). The price would then be determined by the market. Most people would buy shares not to live there themselves, but in the hope of value appreciation. Future colonists could also receive preferential access to shares or land rights as an incentive to settle and remain on Mars for several years. In this way, private ownership would become a mechanism for attracting pioneers willing to take extraordinary risks.

We need private property in space. Without it, the conquest, settlement, and economic development of the Moon, Mars, and asteroids will remain impossible. More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle observed, “Property that is common to the greatest number receives the least attention.” The history of the twentieth century confirmed his insight. Every socialist experiment that abolished private property ultimately failed. Why should a system that repeatedly failed on Earth suddenly succeed on Mars?

No—what humanity needs are pioneers of space, space squatters, just as America once needed squatters to settle the frontier. The difference is that this time, no one will be displaced, because the celestial bodies belong to no one at all.

Rainer Zitelmann is the author of the book New Space Capitalism, which will be published by Skyhorse in early June.

In a brutal repudiation of the GOP old guard, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton crushed four-term incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican Senate runoff Tuesday night, winning by a commanding margin of roughly 63% to 37%.

The victory marks one of the biggest primary upsets in modern Texas political history. Cornyn, a powerful Senate insider and former Majority Whip, was unceremoniously dumped by his own party’s voters after more than two decades in Washington.

Paxton, the hard-charging conservative known for his fierce battles with the Biden administration and loyalty to Donald Trump, declared victory and wasted no time thanking the base.

“Texas has spoken loud and clear,” Paxton said in his victory speech. “We’re done with business as usual.”

Ken Paxton just kicked off his victory speech after defeating John Cornyn with a monumental line that will be remembered for decades.

PAXTON: “Wow. To the people in this room, to the people watching at home and to the people of the great state of Texas, tonight we just made… pic.twitter.com/MgFevD3pe7

— Overton (@overton_news) May 27, 2026

The race turned decisively after Trump endorsed Paxton just days before early voting ended. That seal of approval from the former president mobilized the MAGA base and proved once again that Trump remains the undisputed kingmaker in Republican primaries.

How It All Unfolded

Cornyn led the initial March 3 primary with about 42% of the vote, but failed to clear 50%, forcing a runoff against Paxton, who took 41%. The contest quickly turned into a bloodbath, with both sides dumping tens of millions into attack ads.

Paxton hammered Cornyn as out-of-touch with Texas values and too cozy with the Washington establishment. Cornyn fired back, portraying Paxton as ethically compromised and a liability heading into the general election.

But in the end, Texas Republicans chose the fighter over the dealmaker.

Other Key Results

The Paxton-Cornyn showdown wasn’t the only fireworks in Texas Tuesday night.

In the race to replace Paxton as Attorney General, conservative state Sen. Mayes Middleton defeated U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, setting up a strong favorite to hold the powerful post in November.

Democrats also saw some action, with state Rep. James Talarico emerging as their Senate nominee. He’ll now face the daunting task of trying to flip deep-red Texas in November against the polarizing Paxton.

What It Means

Paxton’s win is the latest sign that the Republican Party continues its sharp rightward shift. Traditional, institutional conservatives like Cornyn are increasingly being shown the door in favor of Trump-aligned warriors willing to fight the culture wars and challenge the status quo.

For national Republicans, the result is a double-edged sword. While the seat remains heavily favored to stay red in November, Paxton’s baggage and combative style could force the party to spend serious cash defending what should have been a safe hold.

Democrats are already licking their chops, viewing Paxton as far more beatable than the polished Cornyn. But in a state that hasn’t elected a statewide Democrat in nearly 30 years, their path to victory remains steep.