Authored by Andrew Korybko,

He feels personally insulted by Putin rejecting his proposal to freeze the conflict in exchange for a resource-centric strategic partnership and also, whether one agrees with him or not, senses weakness after the US built a “cordon sanitaire” around Russia over the past year.

Trump signed the “G7 leaders’ statement on geopolitical issues” agreeing “to increase the delivery of air defence capacities, additional systems and interceptors, and long-range capabilities. We are also ready to consider extending to Ukraine the benefit of licenses to allow for an increase in Ukraine’s military production…we will strengthen our sanctions, including those on the oil and gas sectors.” This amounts to him preparing to “escalate to de-escalate” with Russia, the reason for which will now be explained.

From Trump’s perspective, which is an explanation but not an excuse in case anyone misinterprets the following, Putin wasted his time these nearly 18 months by talking about peace but rejecting Trump’s proposal to freeze the conflict in exchange for a resource-centric strategic partnership.

Likewise, from Putin’s perspective, Trump reneged on the reported “Spirit of Anchorage” by declining to coerce Zelensky into withdrawing from Donbass in exchange for Putin then declaring a full ceasefire.

Putin accordingly carried on with his special operation, albeit while still eschewing any escalation thereof due to his belief (no matter how outdated some of his supporters think that it’s since become) that Russians and Ukrainians are brothers, which Trump considered to be an insult.

It thus wasn’t the Europeans or Ukrainians who convinced him to renege on the reported “Spirit of Anchorage”, but his ego after he felt offended that Putin rejected his abovementioned proposal to his face in Anchorage.

In retrospect, Trump already had his eyes on Venezuela and Iran once again too, which is why he held off on “escalating to de-escalate” till both of those were wrapped up.

Meanwhile, he implemented his Neo-Reagan Doctrine of rolling back Russian influence worldwide with a focus on Russia’s entire southern periphery in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, which completed Russia’s strategic encirclement. A “cordon sanitaire” has now been established around the entire country.

This US-organized geostrategic construct was built in the Arctic-Baltic through UK-led efforts, Central Europe through Polish-led efforts, along its entire southern periphery through Turkish-led efforts, and Northeast Asia through Japanese-led efforts. Trump was therefore almost certainly advised by the deep state that now is the perfect moment to intensify pressure on Russia so as to coerce it into unilateral concessions for ending the Ukrainian Conflict and consequently alleviating some of this pressure.

Whether or not Putin will comply remains a matter of debate, but the aforesaid uncertainty doesn’t mean that Trump wasn’t convinced that now is the perfect time to “escalate to de-escalate” upon sensing what he truly believes to be weakness.

The risk is that Putin finally abandons his belief in the brotherhood of Russians and Ukrainians to reciprocally escalate, possibly even going as far as limited conventional strikes against NATO members to call what he might believe is the big bluff about Article 5.

Unless Russia either capitulates to the US’ demands or there’s a diplomatic breakthrough whereby a balance of interests is reached through a series of mutual compromises, the first of which is improbable while the latter is possible even if unlikely, then a major escalation in NATO-Russian tensions is expected.

Trump ultimately settled for less than he demanded from Iran despite earlier threatening to destroy its civilization if it didn’t unconditionally surrender so he might once again “chicken out” and cut a deal.

When it comes to Helium-3, the biggest cost divide is between Earth and the Moon. Potential sources range from tritium decay and terrestrial helium wells on Earth to lunar regolith on the Moon. Today, Earth-based sources remain far easier and cheaper to access.

This graphic, created by Visual Capitalist’s Cody Good in partnership with Pulsar Helium, compares major potential sources of Helium-3 by cost, scalability, and accessibility. It’s part three of four in the Helium 3: From Theory to Opportunity series, delivering key He-3 insights for investors tracking deep tech, critical minerals, and advanced computing.

The Extraction Cost of Helium-3

Looking at cost alone, Earth-based sources currently have a major advantage over Moon-based He-3.

Source: Pulsar Helium; CRS R41419 (Shea & Morgan, 2010); Niechciał et al., Energies (2020); Thunder Said Energy; NASA OIG; CLPS contract data; USGS Keszthelyi et al. (2023); Smith‑Vaniz et al. (2026); Interlune..

Values reflect order‑of‑magnitude estimates from market pricing (tritium), thermodynamic separation floors (Pulsar), and CLPS‑based transport floors (lunar), using simplified assumptions for grade, throughput, and infrastructure.

Tritium decay is an existing Earth-based source, tied to nuclear weapons stockpiles. The tritium used in warheads decays into He-3 and is recovered during processing; however, supply is limited by nuclear stockpiles and government control. 

Lunar regolith refers to the Moon’s surface material, where He-3 is believed to have accumulated from solar wind particles over time. Extracting He-3 would involve mining the Moon’s surface material, processing it to release gases, separating the He-3, and then returning it to Earth.

Pulsar sits between these two extremes by accessing Earth-based helium deposits using similar drilling technology as used for natural gas wells. The cost estimate is based only on the theoretical energy needed to separate He-3 from a gas stream, and excludes capex, labour, and other operating costs.

Comparing Source Scalability

Cost is only one part of the He-3 supply story. Each source also has a very different path to scale.

• Tritium Decay: Low scalability, because supply is capped by nuclear stockpiles.
• Pulsar Helium: Moderate scalability, with the potential to scale through terrestrial wells.
• Lunar Regolith: High theoretical scalability, based on a large inferred resource on the Moon.

For tritium, without government subsidies, the price grows significantly further reducing scalability and accessibility.

How Easy is Helium-3 to Access?

Accessibility is the other major difference between Earth and lunar sources.

• Tritium Decay: Moderate accessibility through existing infrastructure, but largely government-controlled.
• Pulsar Helium: Moderate accessibility, with earth-based sourcing.
• Lunar Regolith: Very low accessibility, with no current mining or return logistics.

Lunar He-3 may become more competitive over time, but for now, the only sources available are Earth-based.

Helium 3: From Theory to Opportunity

The rising demand for He-3 is putting new pressure on supply. Though lunar mining may one day become part of the long-term story, the near-term opportunity is much closer to home.

For investors, the key question is not just how much He-3 exists, but how realistically it can be produced and delivered. Scalability and accessibility shape how quickly a resource can move from concept to market.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Pentagon said on June 16 that it was restoring the name U.S. Pacific Command, reversing a 2018 decision that rebranded the command as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to reflect the growing strategic importance of India and the Indian Ocean in U.S. defense policy.

The Department of War said in a statement that the command, known as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) since 2018, would officially revert to its previous designation, U.S. Pacific Command, or USPACOM, a name it carried for more than seven decades before the change.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth highlighted the move on social media, writing, “U.S. Pacific Command…is back.”

The Pentagon said the decision was intended to restore the command’s historical identity and military heritage rather than to signal any change in mission, geographic scope, or strategic priorities.

“Restoring the legacy USPACOM designation honors the command’s deep historical roots, fostering a sense of pride and collective spirit among all who serve in the Pacific,” the department said in a statement.

The Pentagon further clarified that the command’s area of responsibility, stretching from the waters off the U.S. West Coast to the western border of India, remains unchanged, as does its commitment to maintaining a “free and open theater alongside regional allies and partners.”

The move restores the name under which the command operated from its establishment in 1947 until May 2018.

The Pentagon did not provide a detailed explanation for the decision beyond citing the command’s historical legacy.

The name change quickly drew scrutiny in India.

Nirupama Rao, India’s former foreign secretary and ambassador to Washington, said in a post on X that the key question raised by the decision was whether the United States still viewed India as a “co-architect of regional order or simply as one useful actor among many in advancing American objectives.”

The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) is the largest of the Department of War’s six geographic joint combatant commands, with an area of operation that stretches from its Pearl Harbor headquarters west across two oceans to the Arabian Sea. Department of War/Epoch Times Screenshot

Rao said the renaming came amid a series of recent developments, such as “cooler optics” at the G7 summit in France and the deaths of three Indian sailors in a U.S. strike on an oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. military said the vessel had violated its blockade on Iranian ports.

Taken together, these and other developments could suggest a shift toward a more transactional phase in U.S.–India relations, she suggested.

“None of these individually proves a strategic rupture,” Rao wrote. “But collectively they suggest that the exuberant phase of India–US relations may be ending. The relationship is becoming more normal, more transactional, and perhaps more difficult.”

Shashi Tharoor, an Indian member of Parliament and former minister of state, questioned whether the move was a “nail in the coffin” for the Quad, the four-country grouping made up of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.

The Pentagon has given no indication that the change reflects any downgrading of ties with India.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore on May 30, 2026. Edgar Su/Reuters

In remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last month, Hegseth described India as “a critical anchor to hold the line” and praised the country’s military modernization efforts and growing defense-industrial cooperation with the United States.

“We’ve also committed to pursuing co-production with India to advance capabilities like Javelin anti-tank guided munitions,” Hegseth said, describing the moves as among a number of “real tangible steps to improve the collective readiness” of U.S. forces.

While the practical implications of the name change seem limited, the decision reverses what was widely seen as a visible symbolic shift in U.S. regional strategy rather than a mere bureaucratic adjustment when the 2018 switch was made.

Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced the change during a command transition ceremony in Hawaii, saying it reflected the “increasing connectivity” between the Indian and Pacific oceans and underscored Washington’s commitment to the broader Indo-Pacific region.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense General Jim Mattis speaks at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York on Sept. 9, 2019. Gary He/Reuters

At the time, Mattis described the Indo-Pacific as a region stretching “from Hollywood to Bollywood” and highlighted the growing importance of the Indian Ocean to U.S. strategic planning.

Describing the 2018 National Defense Strategy as a “roadmap for the American military,” Mattis said at the time that the strategy “acknowledges the Pacific challenges and signals America’s resolve and lasting commitment to the Indo-Pacific.”

The Trump administration’s 2026 National Defense Strategy repeatedly refers to the “Indo-Pacific” and identifies deterring China in the region as one of the military’s primary objectives. The document describes the Indo-Pacific as the world’s largest and most dynamic economic area and calls for maintaining a favorable balance of power there.

Buildings and structures sit on an artificial island built by China in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea on Oct. 25, 2022. Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

“We will deter China in the Indo-Pacific through strength, not confrontation,” Hegseth wrote in the document, which further states that the U.S. military would act to support “strategic stability” with Beijing while focusing on “deconfliction and de-escalation.”

“But we will also be clear-eyed and realistic about the speed, scale, and quality of China’s historic military buildup,” the 2026 strategy states. “Our goal in doing so is not to dominate China; nor is it to strangle or humiliate them. Rather, our goal is simple: To prevent anyone, including China, from being able to dominate us or our allies.”

American craft brewers produced roughly 22 million barrels of beer in 2025, the equivalent of more than 7 billion 12-ounce cans. That output is concentrated in a few key states.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, shows the barrels of craft beer produced in every U.S. state in 2025, based on data from the Brewers Association.

Figures reflect the association’s June 2026 revision and cover all 50 states plus Washington, D.C.

To count as craft, a brewery must produce no more than 6 million barrels per year and be less than 25% owned by a large alcohol company. One barrel equals 31 gallons, or roughly 330 twelve-ounce cans.

California Brews Nearly One in Every Six U.S. Craft Beers

California tops the nation with 3.45 million barrels of craft beer brewed in 2025. The state’s 939 craft breweries are also the most in the country, well ahead of second-place Pennsylvania’s 538.

Pennsylvania ranks second in volume at 2.0 million barrels, with much of that total coming from Yuengling, America’s oldest operating brewery, founded in 1829, and its largest craft brewer by volume.

The data table below shows each state’s total production of craft beer in 2025 in barrels:

In total, seven states: California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New York, Florida, and Oregon, each brewed more than 1 million barrels in 2025. Together, they accounted for 53% of all U.S. craft beer production.

At the other end of the list, Mississippi brewed 18,262 barrels of craft beer in 2025, the least of any state.

Big States’ Beer Brewing and What Defines Craft

Population explains much of the order, as the four most populous states, California, Texas, Florida, and New York, all rank in the top six, but not all of it. Ohio’s 1.3 million barrels edge out far larger New York and Florida, while Illinois, the sixth-most populous state, ranks just 16th at 409,589 barrels.

Smaller states punch above their weight, too: Vermont, the second-smallest state by population, brewed 357,138 barrels in 2025, out-brewing far larger Virginia and Michigan, with Maine close behind at 338,405. Demand varies just as much as supply, with Americans’ alcohol spending per capita differing widely from state to state.

Because the Brewers Association’s definition hinges on independent ownership, state totals can shift when breweries change hands. Colorado’s New Belgium Brewing, in 2019, and Michigan’s Bell’s Brewery, in 2021, were both acquired by Lion, a subsidiary of Japan’s Kirin. This moved their volumes out of the craft column and dented both states’ totals.

That helps explain why Michigan’s 410 craft breweries produced just 268,660 barrels in 2025, ranking the state 21st by volume.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Which States Have the Most Breweries Per Person? on Voronoi.

Authored by Mark Harmsworth via The Washington Policy Center,

Washington state’s business climate continues to deteriorate under the weight of record tax increases and burdensome regulations.

A spring 2026 survey by the Association of Washington Business reveals alarming trends.

Nearly one in four employers (24 percent) are now actively considering relocating their businesses out of state, up sharply from 17 percent in the previous quarter and nearly triple the level from winter 2025.

Another 55 percent of business leaders are considering moving their personal residences elsewhere, citing the state’s escalating tax burden as the top challenge. This flight is no surprise. Washington’s business tax climate has plummeted from sixth-best in the nation in 2014 to near the bottom today, with the state now ranking among the worst for small-business survival.

Major tax hikes enacted in 2025 are now hitting businesses hard. Starting in late 2025 and accelerating into 2026, the state increased business & occupation tax rates for service businesses and introduced new surcharges. Large companies face a 0.5 percent surcharge on taxable income of more than $250 million, while advanced computing firms saw their surcharge jump dramatically. These changes, part of the largest tax increase in state history, are projected to reduce state gross domestic product growth by up to 0.5 percent in 2026 (nearly $4.5 billion) and cut wages by billions of dollars more.

Office vacancy rates reflect the pain. Although Seattle’s downtown vacancy rate remains among the nation’s highest (hovering between 28 percent and more than 35 percent in reports from the first quarter of 2026), the broader Puget Sound region and state face similar pressures from remote work shifts and corporate relocations. Companies such as Starbucks are shifting hundreds of jobs to lower-tax states such as Tennessee. Other firms have issued worker adjustment and retraining notification notices and moved operations to Idaho, Utah, and beyond.

High-profile exits and stalled expansions are mounting. Entrepreneurs report that Washington’s combination of high taxes, regulatory red tape, and hostile policies makes growth nearly impossible.

The bottom line is that as the high earners and companies leave the state, the revenue from increased taxes, including the new income tax, will dry up and politicians in Olympia will be left scrambling for new sources of tax revenue.

The $1 million threshold on the income tax will fall in the blink of an eye.

Politicians have to restore small-business owners’ confidence in the regulatory environment and keep the promises they are making.

Just three months after signing the income tax into law, lauding it as the way forward for the state, Gov. Bob Ferguson is now claiming that he will veto any change to the exemption threshold in order to garner support to keep the legislation in place.

History indicates that Ferguson’s claim might be a little “flexible,” and that’s the problem. There is no predictability for business owners.

Until leaders recognize that businesses vote with their feet, and their payrolls, the state’s economic outlook will remain clouded.

Washington can reverse course. Lowering the tax burden, simplifying regulations, and prioritizing a pro-growth environment would stem the exodus and restore prosperity.

The data are clear. Washington is losing the competition. It’s time to compete again.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

By Sebastian Obando of ConstructionDive

Amazon will invest $10 billion to build a data center campus in Montgomery County, Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe announced Monday. In addition to facility construction, the development includes roads and water infrastructure improvements, such as a new bridge over theNorfolk Southern Railway and a water system Amazon plans to transfer to the local utility after construction, according to the tech giant.

The announcement adds yet another multibillion-dollar data center project to the construction pipeline, a sign the data center construction boom has room to run.

The $10 billion Amazon investment highlights the growing role of hyperscale developers in overall U.S. construction activity. 

Once complete, the campus will support cloud computing infrastructure and generate hundreds of millions in property tax revenue for Montgomery County over the next 25 years, according to the release. Amazon also worked with Ameren Missouri, the local utility company, to ensure the project bears the full cost of connecting to the electric grid, the tech giant said.

The commitment also emphasizes how these builds often carry supplementary community projects. For example, Amazon plans over $7 million in community contributions as part of its investment, according to the company. That includes $3 million toward public safety infrastructure, as well as several roadway improvements and a new bridge.

“Projects like this create lasting benefits for local communities by supporting critical infrastructure improvements, generating tax revenue for schools and public services, and strengthening the foundation for future economic growth,” said Kehoe in the release.

In addition to the infrastructure upgrades in the area, Amazon will sponsor the community’s Montgomery County Fair. The company will commit over $1 million to build a new large-scale community gathering space at the fairgrounds, according to the governor’s release.

Amazon will also invest more than $3 million in community programs focused on STEM education, skills development, sustainability and support for local nonprofit organizations, the announcement said. 

“Amazon’s announcement in Montgomery County is a testament to what can be accomplished through strong collaboration and a shared commitment to growth,” said Michelle Hataway, director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development, in the release. “This project will help strengthen the region’s capacity for future development while reinforcing Missouri’s position as a destination for innovation and investment.”

Iran and the US have a peace deal? check (for 60 days, allegedly). 

Strait of Hormuz open? check (for 60 days, allegedly).

Ships transiting freely? check (not really)

Massive build up of Gulf oil desperate to reach Asian refiners? check.

All great news, which means that oil should now flow freely and in huge amounts, right?

Wrong: two of Asia’s largest refiners, PetroChina and Indian Oil, failed to secure very large crude carriers to lift Iraqi Basrah crude in late June, Reuters reported, while another Chinese major Sinochem is on the hunt for a ‌tanker.

The inquiries from the state energy firms followed an interim deal between the United States and Iran to end their war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. PetroChina had sought a VLCC (which can carry up to 2mm barrels) to load from Iraq’s Basrah Oil terminal between ​June 25 and 30. And while the Chinese major received at least six offers at worldscale ​points of 650 to 750, these rates were nearly triple those charged before the Iran war broke out in late February. The worldscale measure is used by the shipping industry to calculate freight rates.

“There are tankers available, but the problem is it’s too expensive and there is ​no guarantee you can exit the strait,” a PetroChina official said.

Indeed, a quick look at the latest gulf tanker rates shows that while not nearly as bad as when the war broke out, rates on tankers from the Gulf to various Asian destinations have doubled in the past weeks as buyers scramble to secure their shipments. Expect these prices to soar much higher in the coming days.

The punchline: securing supplies from the Gulf will remain complicated despite the peace deal, and not just due to the soaring tanker prices. 

“It’ll be ‌still ⁠difficult to fix a vessel due to the rate, and I assume that both parties need to agree to some special clause (in the contract for transiting the strait),” the source said.

On Thursday, another Chinese state major, Sinochem, sought a VLCC to load oil in the Gulf between June 20 and ​30 for Asia, ​the shipping sources said. ⁠It was not immediately clear if the company would succeed in finding a vessel.

Remarkably, as this was taking place, India’s giant oil company IOC did not receive any offers in a tender ​last week ⁠seeking a VLCC to lift oil from Iraq on June 22 and 23 and deliver to Paradip port on India’s east coast, a Reuters source said.

IOC, India’s largest ⁠refiner, subsequently ​issued a force majeure on the cargo.