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

Authored by Larry C. Johnson via SonarIntelligence (Sonar21),

In mid-September, the Kremlin was signaling that negotiations could resume. Putin had said the trilateral talks with the United States and Ukraine would be unlikely before the State Duma elections, but that Russia would be ready to resume contacts after them. The elections ended on September 20. Within a week, both Putin and Lavrov had shifted from conditional openness to a set of positions that make a negotiated end to the war harder to reach than at any point this year.

The trigger: September 20

The turning point was Ukraine's drone campaign on election day. Putin said more than 1,600 drones entered the Moscow area that night, with strikes on polling stations, including one in a school he said was virtually destroyed. The chair of a territorial election commission was killed when her home was hit. Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin called the raid unprecedented. According to RT, two civilians were killed in the suburbs and an oil refinery was damaged. Whatever one makes of Russian accounts of the damage, the political effect in Moscow was plain.

Putin: from "ready after the elections" to "we will think twice"

At his press conference in St. Petersburg on September 25, Putin recast the whole negotiating track. He listed a series of Ukrainian escalations: the strike on St. Petersburg's port during the June economic forum, a campaign against Russian refineries, an attempted blockade of Russia's Black Sea coast that he said damaged more than 100 vessels, and strikes on commercial warehouses. He said Russia had answered each one, so effectively that Kyiv is now seeking partial ceasefires in the energy sector and the air.

Putin didn't treat those requests as an opening. He treated them as proof that Russian pressure is working. His message to Kyiv was that no provocation or escalation will get it what it wants, and that it is only making its own situation worse. Then came the key passage. The proposals, he said, remain on the table, but after everything Ukraine has done, Russia "will think twice" about how to respond. Any decision, including whether to resume the negotiations, will be based on Russia's interests.

That is a marked change from ten days earlier. Putin didn't close the door to talks, but he removed the implied commitment to resume them after the elections, and made any resumption depend on Russia's own assessment of what it has to gain.

Lavrov at the Security Council: no pause "in any format"

Lavrov made the position explicit in New York on September 23. Speaking to a Security Council meeting on Ukraine, he said: "Having learned from bitter experience, we will not pause the special military operation for the period of negotiations in any format." He said European countries wanted a pause to buy time to replenish Ukraine's depleted arsenals. He dismissed a pre-agreement ceasefire as not serious and insisted that the goal is a long-term settlement.

The timing made it a direct rebuff. That same day, Ukraine and 51 supporters released a statement demanding that Russia accept an immediate and unconditional ceasefire so talks could begin. Its signatories included the EU and its member states, the UK, Canada and Australia. Ukraine's foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, noted that 14 of the 15 Security Council members had backed ceasefire proposals in one form or another, leaving Russia alone.

Lavrov went further than ceasefire mechanics. He said Ukraine would have kept its 1991 borders if the Europeans had not "engaged in their shenanigans." That frames the loss of Ukrainian territory as permanent and places the blame on Europe. It is not the language of a government preparing to negotiate over the lines of control.

Lavrov at the General Assembly: Europe as the enemy

In his General Assembly speech on September 26, Lavrov made Europe the central threat. He said the EU is militarizing for war with Russia, and that a buildup on that scale could eventually lead to a conflict. He suggested Germany's pursuit of military primacy could be seen as an attempt to create a "Fourth Reich." At his press conference afterward, he argued that a European buildup must eventually be used, "because we are not planning to" attack. He called European war preparations a possible "self-fulfilling prophecy."

The effect is to rule Europe out as a negotiating party. Lavrov has told the Europeans that they are the ones preparing a war, that their calls for a ceasefire are a device to rearm Ukraine, and that they destroyed the chance of a settlement on Ukraine's 1991 borders. Moscow now treats only the United States as a legitimate interlocutor.

Even the U.S. channel produced nothing

After meeting Lavrov in New York, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said both Russia and Ukraine had shown interest in a limited ceasefire covering energy infrastructure and grain shipping, but admitted an agreement would not be easy. The Russian Foreign Ministry did not confirm any agreement, and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there were currently no conditions for moving toward a peace track, although Russia remained open to talks.

Putin's own assessment of the U.S. relationship was cool. He welcomed the Trump-Xi talks in Washington, but said Russia's relations with the United States had been reduced almost to zero, contrasting that with $240 billion in annual trade with China.

Pressure at sea, in the air and on the ground

The diplomatic hardening is matched by rising military pressure on three fronts at once. Moscow is not waiting for talks. It is using the interval to raise the cost to Ukraine of refusing Russia's terms.

At sea, Russia has reimposed a de facto blockade of Ukraine's Black Sea ports. It has not brought its warships back to Ukraine's coast as it did in 2022; it has used missiles and drones against ports and merchant ships instead. After strikes in mid-July, including the sinking of the bulk carrier Golden Leo, shipowners and insurers pulled back, and traffic through Odesa, Chornomorsk and Pivdennyi collapsed. On September 12, Russia hit the Odesa region with cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and 129 drones, and said it struck two cargo ships at Chornomorsk that it claimed were delivering weapons. Ukraine's acting foreign minister has accused Moscow of trying to turn the Black Sea into a "second Strait of Hormuz." In St. Petersburg, Putin listed the lifting of the blockade among the concessions Kyiv is seeking, and made clear he is in no hurry to grant it.

In the air, Russia has intensified strikes on Kyiv and other major cities, aimed at transport, production, power, water and communications. On September 23, the day Lavrov spoke at the Security Council, hours of drone attacks on Kyiv hit railway infrastructure, warehouses and fuel stations, killing at least two people and injuring more than 30. Zelensky said Russia used large numbers of drones, including faster jet-powered models. Strikes have also hit power, water and internet networks, partially suspending water service on Kyiv's left bank. Earlier in September, Russia struck Kyiv and southern and eastern Ukraine six nights in a row. With winter approaching, the grid is becoming a front of its own. Zelensky raised an energy-infrastructure truce with Trump at the UN; Moscow has not accepted it.

On the ground, Russian forces are attacking along the entire line of contact, and Russia is advancing while Ukraine gives ground. Ukraine's own General Staff reported 277 combat engagements on September 24, from the Sloviansk and Kramatorsk sectors in northern Donetsk to Huliaipole in the south, with the heaviest assaults around Kostiantynivka and Pokrovsk. Russian forces took Shirokoe and Shevchenkovo in the Kharkiv region and Novoandreevka in the Zaporizhzhia region on September 14, and Olkhovatka in the Kharkiv region, within an encirclement, the next day. Every day of stalled diplomacy is another day of this pressure.

What this adds up to

Taken together, the statements of the past ten days set out a harder Russian position:

• Talks resume only on Moscow's timetable and on its judgment of its own interests, not as the promised follow-up to the elections.
• No ceasefire of any kind during negotiations, including the unconditional ceasefire backed by more than 50 countries.
• Ukraine's requests for partial truces are treated as evidence that Russian pressure is working, not as openings.
• Europe is cast as the aggressor, excluded as a partner, and blamed for the loss of Ukraine's territory.
• Military pressure rising on every axis: a de facto blockade of Ukraine's ports, intensified strikes on Kyiv's infrastructure, and assaults along the entire front.

The direction is clear. In mid-September, Moscow was talking about when negotiations would resume. By September 26, it was talking about whether it wanted them at all, and on what terms

I discussed prospects for a Russia - NATO war with Lena Petrova:

Nima and I discuss Iran's latest strikes on ships in the Strait of Hormuz:

Sulaiman and I discuss, among other things, confirmation that the reports of additional US Navy and Marine casualties were the result of Iranian strikes on US vessels:

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from one of the term's most important cases: Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County.

As I have previously discussed, the case involving the liability of energy companies for nuisance actions tied to climate change could have sweeping implications for the country. Justice Alito should be commended for avoiding even the appearance of a personal interest or a conflict in the case. However, the controversy should prompt the Court to explore a longstanding problem for justices in holding financial interests that can conflict with their duties. The solution is simple: justices need to use blind trusts.

Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris released a letter revealing that Alito decided he "will not continue to participate" in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County.

Suncor Energy, Boulder sued energy companies under "theories of public and private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, claiming that they knowingly contributed to climate change while misleading the public about its impacts." The Colorado Supreme Court ruled for the city and the county in finding that such lawsuits are not barred by federal preemption. If such lawsuits are allowed to go forward, it would expose companies to potentially thousands of climate change lawsuits. Oral agument is set for Oct. 5,

The recusal is a blow for challengers who believe that the opinion could be close and Alito was believed to be on the side of barring such actions. It is now down to 8, so a single loss of another conservative could result in a 4-4 tie - leaving the lower court decision unchanged.

While the letter did not give a reason, critics had called for Alito's recusal due to his financial interest in energy companies which could benefit from the decision.

That included 30 organizations which jointly asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate his involvement in the case. Notably, the court responded to media inquiries by declaring that Alito had no financial interest in any party to the case and that legal counsel had told him that there is no need to recuse himself.

Yet, the standard is whether a reasonable person could question his impartiality and, while he had no interest in the parties, he appears to have investments in other energy companies. Justice Alito previously withdrew shortly before arguments in a separate oil industry case earlier this year.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) established financial disclosure reporting requirements for many high-level government officials and employees, including the Justices of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices file publicly available financial disclosure statements that report certain financial transactions. However, they are not required to put their investments into a blind trust.

Justices should be able to have investment portfolios, but they can hold such investments in blind trust or qualified blind trust.

In a blind trust the justice will "have no control over, will receive no communications about, and will (eventually as existing assets are sold and new ones obtained by the trustee) have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets held in the trust. As such, once a blind trust is established and new assets obtained, an official will not need to (and will not be able to) identify the particular assets 13 5 C.F.R. § 2635.403(b)."

Other federal officials must use such trusts and there is no reason why justices should be exempt, in my view.

This has been a continual and embarrassing problem. Years ago, the Court affirmed an appellate ruling in a major case involving a $400 billion lawsuit in American Isuzu Motors v. Ntsebeza (2008) without a hearing after four justices had to recuse themselves (Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito Jr).

The business interests of justices should not interfere with the business of the Court. You should either be an active investor in the markets or a justice, not both. The public has a reasonable expectation that, in seeking this high office, justices are willing to set aside certain privileges or interests. This is one of them.

This is not to cast aspersions on the justices. These recusals show that members, including Justice Alito, are cognizant and committed to avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Moreover, some judges and justices resolve this question by using diversified mutual funds or ETFs where the justice does not control the micro-allocations within the fund. However, there is still knowledge of financial interests in given areas.

This is not a costless obligation for justices. Blind trusts add costs (which Congress may want to consider defraying) and can be complex. However, the business of the Court is too important to be routinely compromised or complicated by these financial interests.

While legislation has been introduced along these lines, it would be simpler for justices to voluntarily adopt this practice.

Consider it is the price of being one of nine. If you want to sit on this Court, you have to do justice which is only fully possible if your investments, like justice itself, are blind.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor who teaches a class on the Constitution and the Supreme Court and is the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Authored by Frank Fang and Jan Jekielek via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration is taking steps to prevent Chinese nationals from exploiting a visa-free travel program to the Northern Mariana Islands, according to White House border czar Tom Homan.

Speaking to Epoch Times senior editor Jan Jekielek in an "American Thought Leaders" interview aired on Sept. 26, Homan called birth tourism a "driver of illegal immigration."

When asked specifically about Chinese travelers utilizing the U.S. territory's visa-free entry to give birth on U.S. soil, Homan confirmed that federal authorities are moving to close the channel.

"We're on it," Homan said. "It's being addressed."

The push to close the U.S. territory's visa loophole comes amid an ongoing legal battle over U.S. citizenship.

After the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors as violating the 14th Amendment, the president issued two narrower orders, including one banning birth tourism.

On Sept. 2, a federal judge in Maryland blocked enforcement of the new order restricting who qualifies for citizenship at birth.

Birth tourism refers to foreign nationals' traveling to the United States, often on a temporary visa, to give birth so their child can automatically obtain U.S. citizenship.

Currently, Chinese citizens can visit the U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands visa-free for up to 14 days under the program.

Homan called China and Russia the "two biggest abusers" of birth tourism in the United States. He warned that children of the two nations will eventually have the legal right to vote and run for public office.

"I just think it's a national security vulnerability, and we need to address it," Homan said.

Homan expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court's ruling, but he also said, "It's Congress's job."

A group of Republican lawmakers from both chambers of Congress introduced the One Nation, One Visa Policy (H.R.7780 and S.3857) earlier this year. The legislation would bar Chinese nationals from entering the United States and its territories without a valid visa, a measure intended to curb birth tourism by Chinese nationals.

"It's time to end this abuse by Communist China. America's laws must not be gamed, our generosity must not be exploited, and our national security must not be compromised," Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.), who introduced the House bill, said in a statement at the time.

In April, four Republican senators sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, urging them to end the 14-day visa-free program for Chinese nationals. They said the program "threatens America's national security and encourages illegal drug trafficking and birth tourism."

In May 2025, Fang Ye, a Chinese national, was sentenced to 25 years in prison in Saipan for conspiring to possess more than 500 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute.

According to prosecutors, Fang arrived in the Northern Mariana Islands from China in 2016 and overstayed his visa-free admission. He subsequently operated a birth tourism business in Saipan for three years, hosting more than 200 pregnant women and their families from China who traveled to the island to give birth. He later became involved in trafficking methamphetamine.

Fang's co-conspirator, Yang Liang, was sentenced to 55 months in prison in Saipan for trafficking methamphetamine in August 2025.

Beyond birth tourism, Homan said federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been working to track military-aged Chinese males entering the country, noting that the mass influx of these individuals does not occur "without the coordination of the Chinese government."

Homan also said that he expects Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests and deportations to reach record figures next year.

"You can't have strong national security if you don't have border security," Homan said. "We need to know who's coming in, what's coming in, where it's coming in, [and] why it's coming."

Authored by David E. Firester via RealClearDefense,

On May 1, 2026, the State Department released the 2024 edition of the Country Reports on Terrorism - a full year past the deadline in effect when the report came due, and months past even the more forgiving date Congress has since written into law.

No Annex of Statistical Information, the report's statistical backbone in years past, has been published with it.

And the report's own pages cite terrorism-incident rankings from the Global Terrorism Trends and Analysis Center, or GTTAC - the same data program whose funding the department allowed to lapse in March.

The report is not optional. Federal law - 22 U.S.C. § 2656f, on the books since 1987 - directs the secretary of state to transmit to Congress each year "a full and complete report" on terrorism worldwide, including, "to the extent practicable, complete statistical information" on those killed, injured, or kidnapped "by each terrorist group during the preceding calendar year."

For two decades, professionals met that statistical requirement: the National Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2011, the University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database from 2012 to 2017, and GTTAC's Record of Incident Database - GRID - from 2018 on. GRID was purpose-built for the statutory task. It applied the government's own definition of terrorism, named its sources, published its codebook, and put its methodology through peer review this year in the journal Democracy and Security.

In March, the funding stopped. The team behind GRID kept collecting for a time on its own; the public record now ends in mid-May. Ambassador Adam Blackwell, a GTTAC principal, told me that appeals to senior officials at the State Department, in Congress, and at the White House all failed, and that he finds the timing difficult to credit: the United States is engaged in active campaigns against Hamas, Ansar Allah, Hezbollah, and the IRGC, and has newly designated cartels and gangs from across the hemisphere - Venezuelan, Salvadoran, Mexican, and Haitian - as foreign terrorist organizations. This is the moment Washington chose to stop counting.

Note the statutory asymmetry. The report is mandated unconditionally; only the statistics carry the qualifier "to the extent practicable." Defund the sole mechanism that made the statistics practicable, and the qualifier becomes an exit. The 2024 report's own compliance chapter makes the gap explicit: it states that the statistical requirement "is satisfied through the inclusion of a statistical annex to the report" - an annex that has not been published. The 2025 edition will be worse still, because the incidents of 2025 are not being systematically collected by anyone charged with the task.

The reflex answer - use the alternative datasets - does not survive contact with the data. I spent my doctorate inside those datasets, and their custodians have been admirably candid about the limits. By its own founding director's account, the Global Terrorism Database's source-validity rule excluded 28 percent of otherwise-eligible cases worldwide in an early-2014 sample - and 76 percent in Syria, precisely where the fighting was.

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project, the other presumed substitute, measures political violence broadly and does some things well; it was never designed to be the statutory instrument. My dissertation documented what that costs. ACLED codes a suicide bombing only as a stand-alone event, never as part of a battle. Re-coding its Iraq narratives for 2016-2018 by hand, I found 860 suicide bombings where ACLED had coded 344 - and my recount landed within 1 percent of the Global Terrorism Database's independent tally, so the missing events were real. The same re-coding captured 48 percent more incidents than ACLED had coded in Afghanistan, and 111 percent more in Nigeria. ACLED's data are not without merit, as I wrote then. But extracting reliable answers from them requires heavy engineering that most consumers - congressional staff included - will never perform.

Methodology is not a technicality. Across 2018-2020, the years both instruments covered, GRID recorded 30 percent more incidents than the Global Terrorism Database and nearly twice the fatalities - and the two disagreed about whether global terrorism was rising or falling. The choice of instrument decides the trend line the government sees. Choose none, and there is no trend line at all.

There is precedent for the way back. When the Global Terrorism Database lost its State Department funding in 2018, allied governments - first Germany's foreign office, then Britain's - stepped in to keep collection alive, because the capability was too valuable to lose. GRID's case is stronger: the mandate is still on the books; the archive - public once again, and current through mid-May - and the trained pipeline still exist; and the gap to close is measured in weeks, not years. The cost of restarting collection is a rounding error against what the government spends to fight the groups it is no longer counting. The combatant commands consume this data. So do the insurers and reinsurers who price political-violence risk. So do the scholars and students who will train the next generation of analysts.

The 2024 report proves the mandate outlived the capability. The question Congress should be asking - and that any serious funder, public or private, should be answering - is who restores it. The threats were never in doubt. What remains in doubt is whether we intend to see them.

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

It's no wonder that California's infamous high-speed rail line has more than tripled in cost and been delayed by 20 years. The consultants working on the project have been killing time at a tiki bar, a nightclub, an escape room, a gym and more.

Their travel expenses add up to more than $2 million, including $592,000 that was "not allowable," per a Sept. 15 inspector general report.

Key facts:

The consultants are allowed to bill taxpayers for legitimate business expenses, but the state "routinely" allowed them to travel without advance approval, as required. State officials admitted they sometimes had no idea the consultants had taken trips until the invoices arrived.

Many travel expenses had no written justification, or had vague explanations like "typical travel" or "meetings."

Consultants booked first-class flights and premium services like Uber Black, which picks up riders in a luxury car. One consultant booked a premium Uber to travel 25 miles to a steakhouse, and another used the service for "repeated" trips to Planet Fitness gym locations around Sacramento. Another took a ride to a nightclub at 9:40 p.m. and booked his return trip at 2:30 a.m.

State employees said the absurd expenses were approved due to "the volume of travel expense claims, limited time to review them, and errors."

One legal consulting firm's contract allows employees to earn $570 per hour while traveling on a plane, plus the price of airfare. The consulting firm billed for more than 30 trips. Only three were approved in advance, and even those contained no "adequate explanations for why the travel was necessary."

When state officials tried to enforce their authority over travel approvals, they were "resisted or overridden," according to the report. Consultants argued that Ian Choudri, CEO of the California High Speed Rail Authority, had asked them to travel for in-person meetings, and so all their expenses were justified. Choudri has no authority to approve travel for consultants, according to the audit.

The audit reviewed four consulting firms, which are not identified by name.

The Rail Authority said it would only make some changes to its travel expense procedures, arguing that "state regulations do not require justification for each consultant trip."

Background:

The high-speed rail was supposed to be finished in 2020 at a cost of $40 billion. Barely any track has been laid, and the estimated completion date is now 2040 at a cost of $126 billion.

Last year, President Donald Trump rescinded federal funding and told reporters the project has "the worst overruns that there have ever been in the history of our country."

Summary:

Californians have lost billions of dollars and countless hours of taxpayer-funded labor waiting for their high-speed rail line to be built, but at least the contractors working on the project are enjoying themselves.