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

First it was Finland which lifted its ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons, declaring its willingness to host NATO's arsenal (which is largely provided by the US), and now Lithuania has become the latest European country to move to do the same.

Lithuania, which has been a NATO member state since 2004, has newly declared its willingness to be part of the alliance's nuclear sharing program. "We would like to be the integral part of this nuclear deterrence," Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said at a conference in Berlin on Friday, according to AFP.

"A few days ago, I initiated a constitutional amendment to remove the existing restriction on the possible deployment of nuclear weapons in Lithuania," Nauseda added.

Soon on the heels of this speech, a group of 50 Lithuanian lawmakers submitted an amendment, but which is still expected to be formally presented before parliament.

Nauseda touted that there is "practically unanimous" support among lawmakers for repealing the ban outlined in Article 137 of Lithuania's Constitution.

“Almost all parliamentary faction leaders expressed the view that Article 137 has become obsolete and should not merely be amended but removed,” Nauseda said.

As for the current constitutional prohibition in question: 

Article 137 of Lithuania’s Constitution currently states that weapons of mass destruction and foreign military bases may not be located on Lithuanian territory.

Finland's parliament has already voted on its own reversal last month, after which Russia moved to secure more border areas with NATO countries.

This is expected to further severely impact trade and worsen official relations with these countries:

Russia has closed seven railway border checkpoints with Finland, Estonia and Latvia, according to a government decree published Tuesday.

The suspension, which takes effect July 1, halts the movement of individuals, vehicles and cargo through the designated rail crossings. Five of the shuttered checkpoints are located on the Finnish border, while Estonia and Latvia each have one crossing affected.

Officials have not disclosed the reasons for the closures or when the checkpoints might reopen.

In Estonia, the Ivangorod freight and passenger crossing will remain open, and in Latvia, the Sebezh crossing will also stay open. However, the closures leave Finland with no open railway crossings with Russia, which normally exports fertilizer to Finland by rail.

Finland shut its eastern vehicle and pedestrian border crossings with Russia indefinitely in December 2023 following an influx of asylum seekers.

Since the Ukraine war began, and in context of ratcheting tensions with NATO over its military support to Kiev, Moscow has steadily militarized its border regions with Baltic and Scandinavian states.

The most significant source of NATO's nuclear-sharing program remains the United States. But lately France has expressed a desire to station some of its atomic arsenal in partner countries, and this could include in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and others.

Via Remix News,

For the first time in European history, an EU party alliance could be outright banned in the European Parliament, which would mark a major blow to democracy and rule of law.

The Europe of Sovereign Nations Group (ESN), which includes nine right-wing European parties, has been relentlessly attacked by the EU establishment since its founding in 2024. The ESN’s largest party member, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), has also been the target of efforts for an outright ban at the national level in Germany. While left-wing and establishment parties are struggling to implement a ban on the AfD in Germany, at the European federal level, democratic checks and balances and the rule of law are far weaker.

Now, the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (APPF) is seeking to de-register the ESN, which would strip it of all its funding and de facto lead to the end of the party.

German MEP Alexander Sell of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is a founding member of the ESN and has since become the president of the Sovereignty Foundation (SF), the foundation formally associated with the ESN. He said he is speaking as the president of the SF and discussed the efforts his party is taking to fight this de-registration, how much of the APPF’s actions are an extension of the political warfare being waged against the AfD at the national level, and even touches on his own personal motivations for participating in politics as an AfD member despite the massive degree of personal attacks and even physical threats.

There is a lot of discussion about your party facing a potential ban from this European watchdog [Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (APPF)], but how realistic is it that your party will actually be banned in the near future?

It’s a realistic scenario because the authority — the European Authority for Political Parties and Foundations (APPF) — has the power to de-register parties. They register European parties and they also have the authority to de-register a European party, and that is what they are planning to do.They have a couple of accusations against us. They have a 300-page dossier on our party.

So they will start the investigation, but they will give us the chance to answer the accusations. And then they have the authority to ban our party.

And do you have any idea of what the political leanings of the people in this watchdog are? Does your party view a negative outcome as already a foregone conclusion?

Well, there are some indications that this is a political maneuver, because the director of this authority, [Pascal Schonard,] is German and he used to work for the CDU.  He was a member of Klaus Welle’s cabinet. For almost a decade, Klaus Welle was Secretary-General of the European People’s Party and the EPP–ED group in the European Parliament.

So I think there are political intentions behind this attempt to de-register our party. But still, I don’t think it is 100% guaranteed, because in the end you have to acknowledge that on the European level there are many parties like ours. There is a shift to the right all over Europe.You have governments — for example in Italy, the Czech Republic or Slovakia — that are led by patriotic forces. So I don’t think it will be that easy.

The majorities in the European Parliament are also shifting to the right because that is what voters want.They want patriotic, realistic and more free-market-oriented policies, and that is what we are seeing on the European level. We want to get rid of bureaucracy, we want to get rid of climate policy, we want to secure our borders — and we have majorities for that.

So I think this attempt to ban our party will not be easy, because European voters are demanding something else.I mean, you have to take into account that the AfD is the strongest political party in Germany, polling at around 29%, which is a large margin ahead of the CDU. So I think it will be very controversial to ban our European party.

But what real checks and balances are there if they move forward with a ban? Would you appeal?

Yes, we will appeal the decision by the authority. Definitely. And I think we have good reasons to appeal, because what they are accusing us of is that we are not respecting European values. Well, I don’t agree with that. We are very democratic — the AfD is very democratic. Our partner parties from other countries are very democratic. We would never come up with the idea of banning political competition. That is not how we work. We are working for democratic majorities.

So I think we are respecting European values of democracy in a more serious manner than other parties. Also, talking about the rule of law: we have always criticised the European Union for breaking its own laws. For example, in the attempt to rescue the euro and in the migration crisis, they violated the laws that the EU itself had decided on — and that is what we have criticised from the beginning.

So I would say that we are actually the defenders of the rule of law within the European Union, and those are the arguments we will bring forward in court if we have to appeal the decision by the European authorities.

So, during this appeal process, would your grouping be banned right away or would it continue to exist during the appeal?

The authority has the right to ban or de-register a party. So from the moment the authority takes a decision, our party is banned.

The efforts at EU level almost seem to mirror what is happening in Germany itself. Do you feel that this is simply an extension of what is already happening in Germany?

Yes, definitely. I think this is the easier route for them than banning the AfD at national level. There is less attention on the European political party, and in Germany they would need a decision by the Constitutional Court, which is harder to obtain than a decision by the APPF. So I think they chose to attack us at the European level.

There is also still no money for an AfD political foundation, even though this is normally standard for any political party of our size in the Bundestag, right?

Talking about the political foundations, just to give you an idea of the amounts involved: around 700 million euros per year is distributed to the political foundations of the CDU, SPD, the Greens, the liberals and the Communist party (editor’s note: Left Party).

These are incredible figures. They use that money, for example, to recruit in the universities. That is something we are not able to do, because they are denying us those funds and they keep changing the rules on how to obtain the money. It used to be available after two terms in parliament, and they changed it. They are still denying us that money, which puts us at a huge disadvantage, because we would have access to 60 to 70 million euros that we could use for scholarships in universities or to fund research.It is a really important instrument in the political debate, and we are being denied it on an unlawful basis.

That is the situation. You have to understand: they are still talking about banning the most successful party in Germany, according to the polls. We are the strongest party in the polls by a large margin, and the losing parties are seriously considering prohibiting our party and calling it “protecting democracy” while actually prohibiting democracy. That is the situation in Germany.

I think it is an unprecedented case, and it shows that true democracy is still not very well established in Germany, unfortunately.

[Chancellor Friedrich] Merz has already said that he did not want to ban the AfD because it “stinks of attacking a political rival.” There would also be electoral consequences for the CDU, since knocking out the AfD could create a huge vacuum that the left would fill. The CDU could then be sidelined. Do you think it is realistic that the CDU will go along with this?

I think at national level they will not, because there is also international attention on this case. The Americans and others around the world are watching what is happening in Germany. It would be a huge scandal, and I think it would seriously weaken Friedrich Merz’s position internationally if he ended up abolishing democracy in Germany. So I don’t think they will go that far.

But at European level it is a different story. I think the CDU itself — or at least a majority within the CDU delegation in the European Parliament — would very much go along with it. On the other hand, I see that the EPP is not united on this.

You have to remember that some members of the EPP, such as Forza Italia and the Partido Popular in Spain, are already in coalition with right-wing parties — members of the Patriots for Europe or the ECR. So the so-called cordon sanitaire, the firewall as it is called in Germany, is not working at European level.

I think the same will apply to this decision to ban us: they will not have all their EPP members on side. Many of them, especially outside Germany, realize that voters want different policies and that we are driving these new policies. They understand that cooperation will eventually be necessary — and they are already seeing this in Italy, Spain and France.

You had the deportation regulation, where a French MEP worked together with one of our MEPs. So to go so far as to prohibit, for the first time in history, a European political party would create tensions inside the EPP — and rightly so. I hope there are still some democrats left within the EPP.

The APPF even cited the term “remigration” as a basis for this ban. But this term is also being used by the Patriots for Europe grouping. How long before that party is targeted in the same way?

Well, we could talk about a lot of comments. If you look at the left, the way they talk about Israel and the right of the state of Israel to exist, you could also argue that this goes against the idea of human dignity. The same applies to slogans like “From the river to the sea.” It is not as if accusations could not also be made against other parties.

These terms are so vague that you could find something against almost any party. They researched statements by members of our national member parties long before we even founded the ESN. So they are holding us responsible for comments made years ago, when the ESN did not even exist.It is the same for all the other European parties — including the EPP and the Social Democrats.

You will always find some member somewhere, perhaps in Spain or Slovakia, who has said something that could be argued to go against “European values.” It is simply a question of resources. This authority has the resources to produce a 300-page dossier, and we do not. But it would be easy to produce a similar report on any other European political party.

I understand that your grouping wants to give its members freedom of speech and that there are probably differing views among the parties in your grouping. But how much can this watchdog punish the entire party for comments made in the past by individual politicians?

Well, that is exactly what we are doing. I do accept that, as a European political party — and this is also in our statutes — we have to ensure that our national member parties adhere to so-called European values. I also share these values: the rule of law, democracy and respect for human dignity.I think we need better methods to ensure we can sanction members who contradict these values, so that our national parties respect them.

That is what we are doing. We changed our statutes last Friday at a general assembly. For example, we expanded the board. Until now we did not have a representative from each member party on the board. Now we will have representatives of every national member party on the ESN board. So if something controversial is said or published in one of our member states, we will have a contact person we can talk to — someone who is also responsible for taking corrective measures.

We have implemented these changes because we recognize our responsibility for all our national member parties, and the new structure will allow us to intervene more effectively when necessary.

Just a personal question. AfD members and politicians face a constant stream of attacks, and this potential ban could be seen as an extension of that. In Eastern Europe, even parties considered more right-wing operate in a more right-leaning environment without a large Antifa scene that wants to set your car on fire. As an AfD politician, how do you deal with the psychological pressure of facing extremely high levels of personal attacks and even the threat of physical attacks on an almost constant basis?

One of the main characteristics of the German mindset is conformism — a conformism that can even extend to violence against non-conformists. That is what we are seeing now. They burn our cars, they attack our houses. They try to debank us. We are still looking for a bank account for the foundation.

For foreigners it is sometimes hard to understand how this can happen in Germany. Germany is a very conformist society: you are not supposed to step out of line. The AfD is stepping out of line because too many things are going wrong in Germany. It started with migration, well, actually it started with the euro crisis, I recently saw figures from UBS in Switzerland on average wealth distribution in Europe. Germany is behind Greece and far behind Spain, Italy and France — yet we remain the biggest net contributor to the European Union, even though we are significantly poorer than those countries.

If you travel to Italy, Spain or France, you can see there is more wealth there. But people are not allowed to say this.

The same applies to migration. The problems are obvious if you look at German cities, but we are not allowed to point them out. This is due to the very strong conformism in Germany. You are supposed to support the European Union, open borders and migration. You are supposed to support Ukraine against Russia. It is very hard for Germans to object to any of this.

This differentiates us from countries like France, which has a history of revolution, or the Anglo-Saxon world, which has a tradition of healthy mistrust towards government. Germans have very high trust in their government. They do not dare to criticize those in power.

That is one of the reasons I can live with the attacks and the social ostracism. I am convinced that we have the better arguments. People are suffering, and eventually the suffering will become so great that they will realize they have been betrayed by their government. They will understand that we were right from the beginning — and we are already seeing this in the polls.

In some eastern German states we are polling at around 42%, at least above 40%.This is also because East Germans have already experienced one government collapsing. They saw socialism fail and they saw that all the propaganda produced by the socialist regime was a lie. That is why they do not believe the propaganda of the current German government, and they are voting for the opposition — which is us.

Read more here...

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The CIA has investigated thousands of personnel and contractors for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new lawsuit.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden imposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal employees and contractors. Shortly after, the CIA’s chief operating officer directed the CIA’s Counter Espionage Department to investigate all unvaccinated contractors and workers within the agency, plaintiffs said in the suit, which was filed on June 30 in federal court in Virginia.

“Any employee or contractor who refused the vaccine was treated by the Agency as a threat to the United States government and ordered to be investigated as the same,” the suit reads.

A cross-agency group established by former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard learned in 2025 from a whistleblower of the order and asked for confirmation from the CIA. The CIA responded by confirming the investigation of thousands of employees and contractors, according to the legal complaint. The CIA declined to cite an authority for the investigation order.

James Erdman III, one of the unvaccinated employees, formally asked the CIA to remove all material from the investigations and information in employee files that stemmed from the probes, lawyers representing unvaccinated CIA employees said. The agency never responded, leading to the lawsuit.

Erdman, who worked with Gabbard’s group, recently testified to the Senate about the CIA spying on the group as it worked on a number of matters, including the CIA’s change in its assessment of the origins of COVID-19.

The suit seeks certification of a class of employees who did not take a vaccine and were investigated. Plaintiffs also want the court to declare the order from the chief operating officer illegal and force the CIA to remove any information yielded from the investigation from employee and contractor files.

The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.

None of the workers affected by the investigations has been fired.

“The fact that the investigation occurred in the first instance, and the fact that there has been no assurances that anything stemming from that investigation has been essentially wiped clean, it does, unfortunately, set conditions—precedent—for where if there is any reason or need to investigate any of these individuals at any future date, this could be used as a basis to do so,” Carol Thompson, one of the lawyers representing the officers, told The Epoch Times.

“So it kind of unfortunately puts them in—the employees and contractors—in a precarious situation where they otherwise never should have been.”

Feds for Freedom, a group cofounded by Erdman, is supporting the lawsuit.

“Federal employees serving at the highest levels of our national security apparatus should never face counterespionage investigations simply for exercising a personal medical choice,” said Olivia Degenkolb, vice president of the organization, in a statement.

“These officers were targeted solely for their vaccination status. That is unacceptable. We are seeking justice in federal court to protect their rights and ensure our government upholds the rule of law.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that the decisive phase of Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shifted from land and sea to the air, making the battle in the sky the determining factor of the war - at a moment Russia has begun to experience a fuel shortage crisis in many locales due to vital energy infrastructure having been struck again and again by inbound suicide drones.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Zelensky emphasized that the question of seizing territory now holds far less significance because Ukraine has entered the aerial sphere and has unleashed serious damage on Russian territory. The Kremlin has all the while maintained that its forces are advancing in the east, but Zelensky is suggesting this doesn't matter anymore as Ukraine has pivoted to asymmetric warfare.

"Today I believe victory in this war belongs to whoever is smarter. If you stop the enemy on the battlefield, if you stop the war on land, and if you deny him dominance at sea – as we did with our naval drones, driving the Russian fleet away – then the next battlefield becomes the sky," he said in the FT interview, published Monday.

Zelensky described that "it matters far less whose territory is larger" and that "we have moved into the air domain. And in the air, we are already competitive." Russia is in the meantime close to achieving its goal of pacifying the four eastern annexed territories.

The remarks are clearly timed to appeal to Ukraine's 'successes' against Russia during the same week the major annual NATO summit kicks off in Turkey, with President Trump and other world leaders expected.

Zelensky, who will also be on the ground in Ankara, further told FT:

"If our partners do not abandon Ukraine financially, if our soldiers continue holding the front, if every kilometer of Russian advance continues to cost them tens of thousands – and sometimes hundreds of thousands – of personnel, then the decisive struggle will take place in the skies.

Because the skies will determine the outcome of this war."

President Trump has meanwhile newly claimed that that the end of the Ukraine war is closer than most people think. However, the two sides are not even close to getting representatives at the same table.

The president was questioned Monday on why Russia's Putin doesn't feel more pressure when the two talk, to which Trump replied: "I think he really feels pressure... he wants to put an end to this, and Ukraine wants to put an end to this. We are negotiating and we'll see if we can put an end to it."

Another record strike by Ukraine's long-range drone arsenal:

Record-distance strike: Ukraine hit Omsk oil refinery — the largest in Russia — located 2,700 km from Ukrainian territory. pic.twitter.com/HiicAABzos

— Clash Report (@clashreport) July 6, 2026

"I think we are much closer than people think," Trump continued. "President Putin wants this to end. I’ll tell you that very firmly. And President Zelensky really wants this to end now." He added: "We will succeed" - while affirming that this will be high on the agenda at the NATO summit.

The White House has been signaling a possible pivot back to a head-on diplomatic push to find an end to the conflict in Ukraine, which is now it its fifth year. The Iran ceasefire in the meantime appears to be holding, for now.

A U.S. Air Force engineer charged with allegedly destroying a series of AI-powered license plate surveillance cameras has become an unlikely cause célèbre among privacy advocates, drawing thousands of dollars in donations to help fund his legal defense, according to Yahoo News.

Jeffrey Sovern, a 41-year-old Air Force engineer and mechanic from Virginia, is accused of cutting down multiple Flock Safety license plate reader cameras. He now faces 13 counts of destruction of property, along with six counts each of petit larceny and possession of burglary tools.

The case comes as Flock Safety's automated license plate reader network continues to spread rapidly across the country. Supporters say the cameras help police solve crimes, while critics argue they create a growing surveillance network that tracks the movements of ordinary Americans and raises serious privacy concerns.

Yahoo News writes that opposition to the systems has intensified in some communities, with vandals reportedly using everything from spray paint and garbage bags to chainsaws to disable or destroy the cameras.

Sovern has made no secret of his views. In a GoFundMe campaign created to cover his legal expenses, he framed the case as a fight over privacy rights.

"My name is Jeff and I appreciate my privacy. I appreciate everyone's right to privacy, enshrined in the fourth amendment," Sovern wrote.

He said the criminal case has taken a significant emotional toll on him and those close to him, adding that the encouragement he has received online prompted him to launch the fundraiser.

Originally seeking $8,500, the campaign has gained momentum as news of the case has spread. It has now brought in more than $15,000 from over 400 contributors, far surpassing its initial goal.

In a recent update following a preliminary hearing, Sovern thanked supporters for helping bring attention to the issue.

"Thank you to those that had the time to show support this week!" he wrote. "We have seen a huge uptick in awareness of the system and this case."

He also urged supporters to continue advocating against what he called an expanding surveillance network, encouraging people to "reach out to the local governments and demand that these systems are taken down."

A retired Northern California couple is speaking out after scammers allegedly drained nearly $18,000 from their checking account through a combination of counterfeit checks and unauthorized online payments, setting off a weeks-long battle to recover their money, according to ABC 7.

The couple first realized something was wrong after stopping at an ATM and noticing that their account balance was far lower than expected. A review of their bank records uncovered three checks they say they never wrote, along with 17 electronic transactions they did not authorize. The fake checks totaled more than $6,500, while the online payments added another roughly $11,400 in losses.

According to the couple, many of the payments were directed to accounts with Verizon, Capital One, and Wells Fargo that had no connection to them.

The report says that they immediately reported the fraud to Chase and closed the compromised checking account. The bank quickly reimbursed the counterfeit checks, but the dispute over the electronic payments proved much more difficult. The couple says they were initially asked to provide documentation showing they did not own the recipient accounts, a process that became frustrating because the other financial institutions could not discuss accounts belonging to other customers.

After filing a report with the local sheriff's office, they were informed their fraud claim had been denied due to insufficient evidence.

The case eventually drew the attention of a local consumer advocacy news team, which contacted Chase on the couple's behalf. After reviewing the matter again, the bank reversed course and refunded the remaining disputed funds, stating that it was able to credit the full amount after receiving the appropriate documentation.

Although the exact source of the breach remains unclear, the couple believes the fraud may have originated after they ordered new checks from a third-party printing company that required them to mail in a voided check. They suspect someone obtained their account and routing numbers during that process and used the information to produce counterfeit checks and submit fraudulent bill payments. The incident highlights how easily criminals can exploit the banking information printed on a paper check if it falls into the wrong hands.

The United Arab Emirates raised ?its crude output to near record highs above 3.8 million barrels per day in June, after the Gulf nation quit OPEC to escape production caps, Reuters reported citing two sources familiar with production data said on Monday. Bloomberg data showed even higher UAE exports, rising to 3.94mmb/d, just shy of the record hit in late 2025.

June's output was the highest since April ?2020, according to Reuters estimates, exceeding levels seen before the Iran war and providing an early ?vindication of the UAE's decision to leave OPEC and OPEC+ on May 1 ?to free production from quota restrictions.

The UAE told OPEC it pumped 2.11 million bpd of crude in May at the height of the conflict shut-ins, down from about 3.40 million bpd in February. The International Energy Agency, however, assessed a much higher production level for ?both months, seeing May ?output at 2.8 million ?bpd and February at 3.64 million.

Underscoring the supply surge, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) has been selling crude through tenders at discounted prices, traders told Reuters. The rebound has outpaced that of ?other Gulf producers, many of whom have restored exports through the Strait ?of Hormuz but ?remain well below pre-conflict production levels.

Abu Dhabi has argued that years of investment in production capacity ?justified greater freedom to produce oil, with Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei saying at the time of the OPEC exit that the UAE owed it to investors to supply what global markets required "without restrictions".

The jump in output comes as oil markets ?have shifted from concerns over severe supply disruptions during the Iran war, to worries about surplus supply. Brent crude, which hit a four-year high above $126 in late April, was trading at about $72 a barrel on Monday, ?around levels ?seen before the outbreak of the Iran war in late February.

Other Gulf nations also saw a surge in output: combined crude and condensate exports from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, ?Iraq and Iran rose by more than 3.5 million bpd from May to 10.07 million bpd, Kpler ?data shows. Vortexa, another cargo analytics company, estimated June flows at 10.2 million bpd, up from 7 million bpd in ?May but still way short of the 16.5 million bpd a year earlier.

Saudi crude exports averaged 4.32 million bpd in June, according to Vortexa data, around 3 million bpd below February levels.
Kuwaiti output rose to 1.65 million bpd in June, roughly triple ?May levels ?but still nearly 1 million bpd short of pre-conflict production.
Iraq, ?OPEC's second-largest producer, exported about 780,000 bpd in June, roughly one-fifth of volumes shipped before the conflict, Vortexa data showed.

Since the June 17 agreement between the U.S. and Iran to halt the conflict and restore shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the backlog of crude stranded in the ?Gulf cleared more quickly, leaving about 23 million barrels still to transit the waterway, said Kpler analyst Johannes ?Rauball.

Meanwhile, in a curious twist, Sparta senior oil market analyst June Goh said that Chinese teapot refineries have emerged as buyers in Adnoc’s latest oil tender, drawn by wider discounts amid a short-term glut. Adnoc sold about 18 million barrels of crude via in fifth tender for loading through August; Upper Zakum was the main grade sold, while some Das also changed hands.  

The observation in this tender is that the Chinese teapots are now out buying, whereas in previous tenders they were not even in the buyer list, indicating that the current discounts are now at a level that competes with Iranian and Russian alternatives.

According to Sparta, the current ‘mini-glut’ reflects mismatch of prompt availability vs usual trading window two months ahead, where Mideast barrels should now be trading for September loading instead. However, unless Asian buyers pile up to refill empty SPRs, these extra barrels will need to first fill up commercial storage and then relieve the pressure in arbitrage trades to the West.

It wasn't just China: California is also buying UAE oil - some cargoes of Adnoc grades moved to US buyers via private negotiations, with likely destinations to US West Coast refineries.

Brent-Dubai EFS doesn’t necessarily need to widen that much more because diving crude differentials are doing most of the heavy lifting to keep the arbs open into northwest Europe

The World Cup is turning into a major ratings boom for US broadcasters, with Fox Sports, Telemundo and Peacock drawing record audiences.

The US Men's National Team (USMNT) is currently 1-0 down against Belgium in a Round 16 match, a game that could mark a breakthrough moment for soccer in America.

About a month into the 39-day tournament, top matches featuring the US, Mexico, England, France and Argentina have helped drive viewership levels rarely seen outside NFL games, according to Fox Sports analytics chief Michael Mulvihill.

"The U.S. matches have out-delivered expectations, but what's been more surprising is some of these matches that are between nations where the American sports fan doesn't know a lot of players and they don't even have that much familiarity with the country itself. A lot of those matches have done really well," Mulvihill said, who was quoted by Variety.

The tournament's broadening appeal has been a boon for advertisers, with unusually strong multi-generational viewing.

The question now is whether the USMNT can secure another win and continue the momentum.

Even before tonight's USMNT results, UBS analyst Robert Krankowski believes that the breakthrough moment has already arrived.

America's youth appears to be highly engaged in the sport.

It appears that moment has already arrived.