Category: Ukraine


  • U.S. and Ukrainian armies attend the opening ceremony of the “RAPID TRIDENT-2021” military exercises.

    President Biden began his State of the Union speech with an impassioned warning that failing to pass his $61 billion dollar weapons package for Ukraine “will put Ukraine at risk, Europe at risk, the free world at risk.” But even if the president’s request were suddenly passed, it would only prolong, and dangerously escalate, the brutal war that is destroying Ukraine.

    The assumption of the U.S. political elite that Biden had a viable plan to defeat Russia and restore Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders has proven to be one more triumphalist American dream that has turned into a nightmare. Ukraine has joined North Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Gaza, as another shattered monument to America’s military madness.

    This could have been one of the shortest wars in history, if President Biden had just supported a peace and neutrality agreement negotiated in Turkey in March and April 2022 that already had champagne corks popping in Kyiv, according to Ukrainian negotiator Oleksiy Arestovych. Instead, the U.S. and NATO chose to prolong and escalate the war as a means to try to defeat and weaken Russia.

    Two days before Biden’s State of the Union speech, Secretary of State Blinken announced the early retirement of Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, one of the officials most responsible for a decade of disastrous U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

    Two weeks before the announcement of Nuland’s retirement at the age of 62, she acknowledged in a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that the war in Ukraine had degenerated into a war of attrition that she compared to the First World War, and she admitted that the Biden administration had no Plan B for Ukraine if Congress doesn’t cough up $61 billion for more weapons.

    We don’t know whether Nuland was forced out, or perhaps quit in protest over a policy that she fought for and lost. Either way, her ride into the sunset opens the door for others to fashion a badly needed Plan B for Ukraine.

    The imperative must be to chart a path back from this hopeless but ever-escalating war of attrition to the negotiating table that the U.S. and Britain upended in April 2022 – or at least to new negotiations on the basis that President Zelenskyy defined on March 27, 2022, when he told his people, “Our goal is obvious: peace and the restoration of normal life in our native state as soon as possible.”

    Instead, on February 26, in a very worrying sign of where NATO’s current policy is leading, French President Emmanuel Macron revealed that European leaders meeting in Paris discussed sending larger numbers of Western ground troops to Ukraine.

    Macron pointed out that NATO members have steadily increased their support to levels unthinkable when the war began. He highlighted the example of Germany, which offered Ukraine only helmets and sleeping bags at the outset of the conflict and is now saying Ukraine needs more missiles and tanks. “The people that said “never ever” today were the same ones who said never ever planes, never ever long-range missiles, never ever trucks. They said all that two years ago,” Macron recalled. “We have to be humble and realize that we (have) always been six to eight months late.”

    Macron implied that, as the war escalates, NATO countries may eventually have to deploy their own forces to Ukraine, and he argued that they should do so sooner rather than later if they want to recover the initiative in the war.

      The mere suggestion of Western troops fighting in Ukraine elicited an outcry both within France–from extreme right National Rally to leftist La France Insoumise–and from other NATO countries. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz insisted that participants in the meeting were “unanimous” in their opposition to deploying troops. Russian officials warned that such a step would mean war between Russia and NATO.

    But as Poland’s president and prime minister headed to Washington for a White House meeting on February 12, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Polish parliament that sending NATO troops into Ukraine “is not unthinkable.”

    Macron’s intention may have been precisely to bring this debate out into the open and put an end to the secrecy surrounding the undeclared policy of gradual escalation toward full-scale war with Russia that the West has pursued for two years.

    Macron failed to mention publicly that, under current policy, NATO forces are already deeply involved in the war. Among many lies that President Biden told in his State of the Union speech, he insisted that “there are no American soldiers at war in Ukraine.”

    However, the trove of Pentagon documents leaked in March 2023 included an assessment that there were already at least 97 NATO special forces troops operating in Ukraine, including 50 British, 14 Americans and 15 French. Admiral John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesman, has also acknowledged a “small U.S. military presence” based in the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv to try to keep track of thousands of tons of U.S. weapons as they arrive in Ukraine.

    But many more U.S. forces, whether inside or outside Ukraine, are involved in planning Ukrainian military operations; providing satellite intelligence; and play essential roles in the targeting of U.S. weapons. A Ukrainian official told the Washington Post that Ukrainian forces hardly ever fire HIMARS rockets without precise targeting data provided by U.S. forces in Europe.

    All these U.S. and NATO forces are most definitely “at war in Ukraine.” To be at war in a country with only small numbers of “boots on the ground” has been a hallmark of 21st Century U.S. war-making, as any Navy pilot on an aircraft-carrier or drone operator in Nevada can attest. It is precisely this doctrine of “limited” and proxy war that is at risk of spinning out of control in Ukraine, unleashing the World War III that President Biden has vowed to avoid.

    The United States and NATO have tried to keep the escalation of the war under control by deliberate, incremental escalation of the types of weapons they provide and cautious, covert expansion of their own involvement. This has been compared to “boiling a frog,” turning up the heat gradually to avoid any sudden move that might cross a Russian “red line” and trigger a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. But as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned in December 2022, “If things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong.”

    We have long been puzzled by these glaring contradictions at the heart of U.S. and NATO policy. On one hand, we believe President Biden when he says he does not want to start World War III. On the other hand, that is what his policy of incremental escalation is inexorably leading towards.

    U.S. preparations for war with Russia are already at odds with the existential imperative of containing the conflict. In November 2022, the Reed-Inhofe Amendment to the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) invoked wartime emergency powers to authorize an extraordinary shopping-list of weapons like the ones sent to Ukraine, and approved billion-dollar, multi-year no-bid contracts with weapons manufacturers to buy 10 to 20 times the quantities of weapons that the United States had actually shipped to Ukraine.

    Retired Marine Colonel Mark Cancian, the former chief of the Force Structure and Investment Division in the Office of Management and Budget, explained, “This isn’t replacing what we’ve given [Ukraine]. It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war [with Russia] in the future.”

    So the United States is preparing to fight a major ground war with Russia, but the weapons to fight that war will take years to produce, and, with or without them, that could quickly escalate into a nuclear war. Nuland’s early retirement could be the result of Biden and his foreign policy team finally starting to come to grips with the existential dangers of the aggressive policies she championed.

    Meanwhile, Russia’s escalation from its original limited “Special Military Operation” to its current commitment of 7% of its GDP to the war and weapons production has outpaced the West’s escalations, not just in weapons production but in manpower and actual military capability.

    One could say that Russia is winning the war, but that depends what its real war goals are. There is a yawning gulf between the rhetoric from Biden and other Western leaders about Russian ambitions to invade other countries in Europe and what Russia was ready to settle for at the talks in Turkey in 2022, when it agreed to withdraw to its pre-war positions in return for a simple commitment to Ukrainian neutrality.

    Despite Ukraine’s extremely weak position after its failed 2023 offensive and its costly defense and loss of Avdiivka, Russian forces are not racing toward Kyiv, or even Kharkiv, Odesa or the natural boundary of the Dnipro River.

    Reuters Moscow Bureau reported that Russia spent months trying to open new negotiations with the United States in late 2023, but that, in January 2024, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan slammed that door shut with a flat refusal to negotiate over Ukraine.

    The only way to find out what Russia really wants, or what it will settle for, is to return to the negotiating table. All sides have demonized each other and staked out maximalist positions, but that is what nations at war do in order to justify the sacrifices they demand of their people and their rejection of diplomatic alternatives.

    Serious diplomatic negotiations are now essential to get down to the nitty-gritty of what it will take to bring peace to Ukraine. We are sure there are wiser heads within the U.S., French and other NATO governments who are saying this too, behind closed doors, and that may be precisely why Nuland is out and why Macron is talking so openly about where the current policy is heading. We fervently hope that is the case, and that Biden’s Plan B will lead back to the negotiating table, and then forward to peace in Ukraine.

    The post Are We Stumbling into World War III in Ukraine? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • WATCH Russia deploy ‘game changer’ weapon against Ukraine©  Telegram / mod_russia

    Russia’s Defense Ministry has released footage of an Su-34 bomber dropping FAB-500 glide munitions, which have been hailed as a game-changer in the Ukraine conflict for their destructive potential and deployment range of up to 80km.

    In a video that appears to be shot from a camera attached to the side of an aircraft, several bombs can be seen dropping and then deploying their wings shortly thereafter.

    The bombs are equipped with a unified planning and correction module (UMPC), which turns regular free-falling bombs into guided glide munitions. The high-explosive aerial FAB-500 bombs seen in the video each carry a 300-kilogram payload.

    The UMPC system has also been used on other older Soviet aerial gravity bombs such as the FAB-1500 – a 1.5-tonne weapon, nearly half of which consists of high explosives – to turn them into highly destructive and effective glide munitions.

    These modernized bombs have proven to be “dramatically” effective against Ukrainian forces, as noted by Western experts and media outlets such as the Washington Post and CNN, because Kiev’s troops cannot effectively defend against such munitions.

    With their ability to traverse long distances with accuracy, the UMPC-fitted bombs can be fired from Russian jets well outside the effective range of Kiev’s existing aerial defense systems, leaving Ukrainian forces unable to defend against them.

    Ukrainian commanders have also noted the “very high destructive power” of these munitions. Dmitry Lykhoviy, a Ukrainian military spokesman, told the Post that the Russian bombs are capable of completely demolishing houses and foundations that are used for defense fortifications.

    “These bombs completely destroy any position. All buildings and structures simply turn into a pit after the arrival of just one,” recalled one fighter of a Ukrainian assault brigade operating near the stronghold town of Avdeevka, which was captured by Russian forces last month.

    Russia has reportedly “significantly” increased the rate at which these  bombs have been used on Ukrainian positions, particularly around Avdeevka, leading to heavy casualties.

    According to the Russian Defense Ministry’s latest estimates, Ukraine’s losses of military personnel since the start of the conflict in 2022 have surpassed 444,000 people.

    The post Russia Deploys “Game Changer” Weapon against Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Andrija Mandic, the pro-Russian head of the New Serbian Democracy party, will continue to serve as the speaker of the Montenegrin parliament after surviving a no-confidence vote.

    In a secret ballot, 44 lawmakers voted for Mandic to remain at the helm of parliament, while 27 voted for his dismissal. There are 81 legislators in the Montenegrin parliament.

    Mandic’s dismissal was sought by the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), which accused him of abusing the assembly for “party, nationalist, and anti-European interests.”

    DPS, the biggest opposition party, was outraged after Mandic received Milorad Dodik, the pro-Russian president of the Bosnian Serb entity on February 27.

    Dodik visited Montenegro immediately after meetings with the authoritarian presidents of Russia and Belarus, Vladimir Putin, and Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The visit triggered violent protests in Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina, prompting the latter to send a note of protest to the Montenegrin authorities.

    The note highlighted that only the flag of the Bosnian Serb entity, Republika Srpska, was displayed behind Dodik at the press conference and not Bosnia’s. Dodik has called for the seccession of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska from Bosnia. A quarter of Montenegro’s population is ethnic Serb.

    “Mandic is a representative of those who implement national-chauvinist politics, a promoter of Greater Serbian nationalism. For him, (Radovan) Karadzic and (Ratko) Mladic are his heroes,” DPS deputy Ivan Vukovic said in explaining the request for Mandic’s dismissal.

    Karadzic and Mladic are Bosnian Serbs who were convicted of war crimes, including genocide, during the Yugoslav wars.

    The DPS criticized Mandic for visiting the election headquarters of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’s party on the day of the parliamentary elections in Serbia. They also criticized him for placing a tricolor flag identical to the official national flag of Serbia in his cabinet. Montenegro declared its independence from Serbia in 2006.

    The DPS called Mandic a “weight on the neck” of European Montenegro and claimed that Western ambassadors bypass the Montenegrin parliament because of his leadership role.

    Mandic did not directly respond to the accusations and criticism, emphasizing instead that te public is primarily interested in the results delivered by the parliamentary majority.

    “In response to claims by political opponents that I am a hindrance to European integration, I defer to [EU Enlargement Commissioner] Oliver Varhelyi and others in Brussels with whom I have engaged. They appreciate the efforts of the parliament and me,” Mandic said.

    Mandic received support from his own party as well as members of the ruling coalition, which includes the Europe Now Movement (PES) led by Prime Minister Milojko Spajic, the Democrats led by Deputy Prime Minister Aleksa Becic, and the Socialist People’s Party.

    However, during the parliamentary session, no member of the Europe Now Movement voiced support for Mandic, despite not voting for his dismissal.

    Mandic was the leader of the former pro-Russian Democratic Front, which until 2020 was the main opposition to the DPS, which subsequently lost power.

    The program guidelines of the Democratic Front included the withdrawal of recognition of Kosovo’s independence, the lifting of sanctions against Russia introduced in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea, and the withdrawal of Montenegro from NATO.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Andrija Mandic, the pro-Russian head of the New Serbian Democracy party, will continue to serve as the speaker of the Montenegrin parliament after surviving a no-confidence vote.

    In a secret ballot, 44 lawmakers voted for Mandic to remain at the helm of parliament, while 27 voted for his dismissal. There are 81 legislators in the Montenegrin parliament.

    Mandic’s dismissal was sought by the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), which accused him of abusing the assembly for “party, nationalist, and anti-European interests.”

    DPS, the biggest opposition party, was outraged after Mandic received Milorad Dodik, the pro-Russian president of the Bosnian Serb entity on February 27.

    Dodik visited Montenegro immediately after meetings with the authoritarian presidents of Russia and Belarus, Vladimir Putin, and Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The visit triggered violent protests in Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina, prompting the latter to send a note of protest to the Montenegrin authorities.

    The note highlighted that only the flag of the Bosnian Serb entity, Republika Srpska, was displayed behind Dodik at the press conference and not Bosnia’s. Dodik has called for the seccession of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska from Bosnia. A quarter of Montenegro’s population is ethnic Serb.

    “Mandic is a representative of those who implement national-chauvinist politics, a promoter of Greater Serbian nationalism. For him, (Radovan) Karadzic and (Ratko) Mladic are his heroes,” DPS deputy Ivan Vukovic said in explaining the request for Mandic’s dismissal.

    Karadzic and Mladic are Bosnian Serbs who were convicted of war crimes, including genocide, during the Yugoslav wars.

    The DPS criticized Mandic for visiting the election headquarters of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’s party on the day of the parliamentary elections in Serbia. They also criticized him for placing a tricolor flag identical to the official national flag of Serbia in his cabinet. Montenegro declared its independence from Serbia in 2006.

    The DPS called Mandic a “weight on the neck” of European Montenegro and claimed that Western ambassadors bypass the Montenegrin parliament because of his leadership role.

    Mandic did not directly respond to the accusations and criticism, emphasizing instead that te public is primarily interested in the results delivered by the parliamentary majority.

    “In response to claims by political opponents that I am a hindrance to European integration, I defer to [EU Enlargement Commissioner] Oliver Varhelyi and others in Brussels with whom I have engaged. They appreciate the efforts of the parliament and me,” Mandic said.

    Mandic received support from his own party as well as members of the ruling coalition, which includes the Europe Now Movement (PES) led by Prime Minister Milojko Spajic, the Democrats led by Deputy Prime Minister Aleksa Becic, and the Socialist People’s Party.

    However, during the parliamentary session, no member of the Europe Now Movement voiced support for Mandic, despite not voting for his dismissal.

    Mandic was the leader of the former pro-Russian Democratic Front, which until 2020 was the main opposition to the DPS, which subsequently lost power.

    The program guidelines of the Democratic Front included the withdrawal of recognition of Kosovo’s independence, the lifting of sanctions against Russia introduced in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea, and the withdrawal of Montenegro from NATO.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Andrija Mandic, the pro-Russian head of the New Serbian Democracy party, will continue to serve as the speaker of the Montenegrin parliament after surviving a no-confidence vote.

    In a secret ballot, 44 lawmakers voted for Mandic to remain at the helm of parliament, while 27 voted for his dismissal. There are 81 legislators in the Montenegrin parliament.

    Mandic’s dismissal was sought by the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), which accused him of abusing the assembly for “party, nationalist, and anti-European interests.”

    DPS, the biggest opposition party, was outraged after Mandic received Milorad Dodik, the pro-Russian president of the Bosnian Serb entity on February 27.

    Dodik visited Montenegro immediately after meetings with the authoritarian presidents of Russia and Belarus, Vladimir Putin, and Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The visit triggered violent protests in Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina, prompting the latter to send a note of protest to the Montenegrin authorities.

    The note highlighted that only the flag of the Bosnian Serb entity, Republika Srpska, was displayed behind Dodik at the press conference and not Bosnia’s. Dodik has called for the seccession of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska from Bosnia. A quarter of Montenegro’s population is ethnic Serb.

    “Mandic is a representative of those who implement national-chauvinist politics, a promoter of Greater Serbian nationalism. For him, (Radovan) Karadzic and (Ratko) Mladic are his heroes,” DPS deputy Ivan Vukovic said in explaining the request for Mandic’s dismissal.

    Karadzic and Mladic are Bosnian Serbs who were convicted of war crimes, including genocide, during the Yugoslav wars.

    The DPS criticized Mandic for visiting the election headquarters of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’s party on the day of the parliamentary elections in Serbia. They also criticized him for placing a tricolor flag identical to the official national flag of Serbia in his cabinet. Montenegro declared its independence from Serbia in 2006.

    The DPS called Mandic a “weight on the neck” of European Montenegro and claimed that Western ambassadors bypass the Montenegrin parliament because of his leadership role.

    Mandic did not directly respond to the accusations and criticism, emphasizing instead that te public is primarily interested in the results delivered by the parliamentary majority.

    “In response to claims by political opponents that I am a hindrance to European integration, I defer to [EU Enlargement Commissioner] Oliver Varhelyi and others in Brussels with whom I have engaged. They appreciate the efforts of the parliament and me,” Mandic said.

    Mandic received support from his own party as well as members of the ruling coalition, which includes the Europe Now Movement (PES) led by Prime Minister Milojko Spajic, the Democrats led by Deputy Prime Minister Aleksa Becic, and the Socialist People’s Party.

    However, during the parliamentary session, no member of the Europe Now Movement voiced support for Mandic, despite not voting for his dismissal.

    Mandic was the leader of the former pro-Russian Democratic Front, which until 2020 was the main opposition to the DPS, which subsequently lost power.

    The program guidelines of the Democratic Front included the withdrawal of recognition of Kosovo’s independence, the lifting of sanctions against Russia introduced in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea, and the withdrawal of Montenegro from NATO.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ukraine and its regional allies on March 10 assailed reported comments by Pope Francis in which the pontiff suggested opening negotiations with Moscow and used the term “white flag,” while the Vatican later appeared to back off some of the remarks, saying Francis was not speaking about “capitulation.”

    Francis was quoted on March 9 in a partially released interview suggesting Ukraine, facing possible defeat, should have the “courage” to sit down with Russia for peace negotiations, saying there is no shame in waving the “white flag.”

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hit out in a Telegram post and in his nightly video address, saying — without mentioning the pope — that “the church should be among the people. And not 2,500 kilometers away, somewhere, to mediate virtually between someone who wants to live and someone who wants to destroy you.”

    Earlier, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba reacted more directly on social media, saying, “When it comes to the ‘white flag,’ we know this Vatican strategy from the first half of the 20th century.”

    Many historians have been critical of the Vatican during World War II, saying Pope Pius XII remained silent as the Holocaust raged. The Vatican has long argued that, at the time, it couldn’t verify diplomatic reports of Nazi atrocities and therefore could not denounce them.

    Kuleba, in his social media post, wrote: “I urge the avoidance of repeating the mistakes of the past and to support Ukraine and its people in their just struggle for their lives.

    “The strongest is the one who, in the battle between good and evil, stands on the side of good rather than attempting to put them on the same footing and call it ‘negotiations,’” Kuleba said.

    “Our flag is a yellow-and-blue one. This is the flag by which we live, die, and prevail. We shall never raise any other flags,” added Kuleba, who also thanked Francis for his “constant prayers for peace” and said he hoped the pontiff will visit Ukraine, home of some 1 million Catholics.

    Zelenskiy has remained firm in not speaking directly to Russia unless terms of his “peace formula” are reached.

    Ukraine’s terms call for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine, restoring the country’s 1991 post-Soviet borders, and holding Russia accountable for its actions. The Kremlin has rejected such conditions.

    Following criticism of the pope’s reported comments, the head of the Vatican press service, Matteo Bruni, explained that with his words regarding Ukraine, Francis intended to “call for a cease-fire and restore the courage of negotiations,” but did not mean capitulation.

    “The pope uses the image of the white flag proposed by the interviewer to imply an end to hostilities, a truce that is achieved through the courage to begin negotiations,” Bruni said.

    “Elsewhere in the interview…referring to any situation of war, the pope clearly stated: ‘Negotiations are never capitulations,’” Bruni added.

    The head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk, said Ukraine was “wounded but unconquered.”

    “Believe me, no one would think of giving up. Even where hostilities are taking place today; listen to our people in Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Odesa, Kharkiv, Sumy! Because we know that if Ukraine, God forbid, was at least partially conquered, the line of death would spread,” Shevchuk said at St. George’s Church in New York.

    Andriy Yurash, Ukraine’s ambassador to the Vatican, told RAI News that “you don’t negotiate with terrorists, with those who are recognized as criminals,” referring to the Russian leadership and President Vladimir Putin. “No one tried to put Hitler at ease.”

    Ukraine’s regional allies also expressed anger about the pope’s remarks.

    “How about, for balance, encouraging Putin to have the courage to withdraw his army from Ukraine? Peace would immediately ensue without the need for negotiations,” Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on social media.

    Lithuanian President Edgars Rinkevichs wrote on social media: “My Sunday morning conclusion: You can’t capitulate to evil, you have to fight it and defeat it, so that evil raises the white flag and surrenders.”

    Alexandra Valkenburg, ambassador and head of the EU Delegation to the Holy See, wrote “Russia…can end this war immediately by respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. EU supports Ukraine and its peace plan.”

    With reporting by RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on International Rescue Committee and was authored by International Rescue Committee.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ukraine and its regional allies on March 10 assailed reported comments by Pope Francis in which the pontiff suggested opening negotiations with Moscow and used the term “white flag,” while the Vatican later appeared to back off some of the remarks, saying Francis was not speaking about “capitulation.”

    Francis was quoted on March 9 in a partially released interview suggesting Ukraine, facing possible defeat, should have the “courage” to sit down with Russia for peace negotiations, saying there is no shame in waving the “white flag.”

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hit out in a Telegram post and in his nightly video address, saying — without mentioning the pope — that “the church should be among the people. And not 2,500 kilometers away, somewhere, to mediate virtually between someone who wants to live and someone who wants to destroy you.”

    Earlier, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba reacted more directly on social media, saying, “When it comes to the ‘white flag,’ we know this Vatican strategy from the first half of the 20th century.”

    Many historians have been critical of the Vatican during World War II, saying Pope Pius XII remained silent as the Holocaust raged. The Vatican has long argued that, at the time, it couldn’t verify diplomatic reports of Nazi atrocities and therefore could not denounce them.

    Kuleba, in his social media post, wrote: “I urge the avoidance of repeating the mistakes of the past and to support Ukraine and its people in their just struggle for their lives.

    “The strongest is the one who, in the battle between good and evil, stands on the side of good rather than attempting to put them on the same footing and call it ‘negotiations,’” Kuleba said.

    “Our flag is a yellow-and-blue one. This is the flag by which we live, die, and prevail. We shall never raise any other flags,” added Kuleba, who also thanked Francis for his “constant prayers for peace” and said he hoped the pontiff will visit Ukraine, home of some 1 million Catholics.

    Zelenskiy has remained firm in not speaking directly to Russia unless terms of his “peace formula” are reached.

    Ukraine’s terms call for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine, restoring the country’s 1991 post-Soviet borders, and holding Russia accountable for its actions. The Kremlin has rejected such conditions.

    Following criticism of the pope’s reported comments, the head of the Vatican press service, Matteo Bruni, explained that with his words regarding Ukraine, Francis intended to “call for a cease-fire and restore the courage of negotiations,” but did not mean capitulation.

    “The pope uses the image of the white flag proposed by the interviewer to imply an end to hostilities, a truce that is achieved through the courage to begin negotiations,” Bruni said.

    “Elsewhere in the interview…referring to any situation of war, the pope clearly stated: ‘Negotiations are never capitulations,’” Bruni added.

    The head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk, said Ukraine was “wounded but unconquered.”

    “Believe me, no one would think of giving up. Even where hostilities are taking place today; listen to our people in Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Odesa, Kharkiv, Sumy! Because we know that if Ukraine, God forbid, was at least partially conquered, the line of death would spread,” Shevchuk said at St. George’s Church in New York.

    Andriy Yurash, Ukraine’s ambassador to the Vatican, told RAI News that “you don’t negotiate with terrorists, with those who are recognized as criminals,” referring to the Russian leadership and President Vladimir Putin. “No one tried to put Hitler at ease.”

    Ukraine’s regional allies also expressed anger about the pope’s remarks.

    “How about, for balance, encouraging Putin to have the courage to withdraw his army from Ukraine? Peace would immediately ensue without the need for negotiations,” Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on social media.

    Lithuanian President Edgars Rinkevichs wrote on social media: “My Sunday morning conclusion: You can’t capitulate to evil, you have to fight it and defeat it, so that evil raises the white flag and surrenders.”

    Alexandra Valkenburg, ambassador and head of the EU Delegation to the Holy See, wrote “Russia…can end this war immediately by respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. EU supports Ukraine and its peace plan.”

    With reporting by RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ukraine and its regional allies on March 10 assailed reported comments by Pope Francis in which the pontiff suggested opening negotiations with Moscow and used the term “white flag,” while the Vatican later appeared to back off some of the remarks, saying Francis was not speaking about “capitulation.”

    Francis was quoted on March 9 in a partially released interview suggesting Ukraine, facing possible defeat, should have the “courage” to sit down with Russia for peace negotiations, saying there is no shame in waving the “white flag.”

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hit out in a Telegram post and in his nightly video address, saying — without mentioning the pope — that “the church should be among the people. And not 2,500 kilometers away, somewhere, to mediate virtually between someone who wants to live and someone who wants to destroy you.”

    Earlier, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba reacted more directly on social media, saying, “When it comes to the ‘white flag,’ we know this Vatican strategy from the first half of the 20th century.”

    Many historians have been critical of the Vatican during World War II, saying Pope Pius XII remained silent as the Holocaust raged. The Vatican has long argued that, at the time, it couldn’t verify diplomatic reports of Nazi atrocities and therefore could not denounce them.

    Kuleba, in his social media post, wrote: “I urge the avoidance of repeating the mistakes of the past and to support Ukraine and its people in their just struggle for their lives.

    “The strongest is the one who, in the battle between good and evil, stands on the side of good rather than attempting to put them on the same footing and call it ‘negotiations,’” Kuleba said.

    “Our flag is a yellow-and-blue one. This is the flag by which we live, die, and prevail. We shall never raise any other flags,” added Kuleba, who also thanked Francis for his “constant prayers for peace” and said he hoped the pontiff will visit Ukraine, home of some 1 million Catholics.

    Zelenskiy has remained firm in not speaking directly to Russia unless terms of his “peace formula” are reached.

    Ukraine’s terms call for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine, restoring the country’s 1991 post-Soviet borders, and holding Russia accountable for its actions. The Kremlin has rejected such conditions.

    Following criticism of the pope’s reported comments, the head of the Vatican press service, Matteo Bruni, explained that with his words regarding Ukraine, Francis intended to “call for a cease-fire and restore the courage of negotiations,” but did not mean capitulation.

    “The pope uses the image of the white flag proposed by the interviewer to imply an end to hostilities, a truce that is achieved through the courage to begin negotiations,” Bruni said.

    “Elsewhere in the interview…referring to any situation of war, the pope clearly stated: ‘Negotiations are never capitulations,’” Bruni added.

    The head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk, said Ukraine was “wounded but unconquered.”

    “Believe me, no one would think of giving up. Even where hostilities are taking place today; listen to our people in Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Odesa, Kharkiv, Sumy! Because we know that if Ukraine, God forbid, was at least partially conquered, the line of death would spread,” Shevchuk said at St. George’s Church in New York.

    Andriy Yurash, Ukraine’s ambassador to the Vatican, told RAI News that “you don’t negotiate with terrorists, with those who are recognized as criminals,” referring to the Russian leadership and President Vladimir Putin. “No one tried to put Hitler at ease.”

    Ukraine’s regional allies also expressed anger about the pope’s remarks.

    “How about, for balance, encouraging Putin to have the courage to withdraw his army from Ukraine? Peace would immediately ensue without the need for negotiations,” Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on social media.

    Lithuanian President Edgars Rinkevichs wrote on social media: “My Sunday morning conclusion: You can’t capitulate to evil, you have to fight it and defeat it, so that evil raises the white flag and surrenders.”

    Alexandra Valkenburg, ambassador and head of the EU Delegation to the Holy See, wrote “Russia…can end this war immediately by respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. EU supports Ukraine and its peace plan.”

    With reporting by RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Iranian government “bears responsibility” for the physical violence that led to the death of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Iranian-Kurdish woman who died in police custody in 2022, and for the brutal crackdown on largely peaceful street protests that followed, a report by a United Nations fact-finding mission says.

    The report, issued on March 8 by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the mission “has established the existence of evidence of trauma to Ms. Amini’s body, inflicted while in the custody of the morality police.”

    It said the mission found the “physical violence in custody led to Ms. Amini’s unlawful death…. On that basis, the state bears responsibility for her unlawful death.”

    Amini was arrested in Tehran on September 13, 2022, while visiting the Iranian capital with her family. She was detained by Iran’s so-called “morality police” for allegedly improperly wearing her hijab, or hair-covering head scarf. Within hours of her detention, she was hospitalized in a coma and died on September 16.

    Her family has denied that Amini suffered from a preexisting health condition that may have contributed to her death, as claimed by the Iranian authorities, and her father has cited eyewitnesses as saying she was beaten while en route to a detention facility.

    The fact-finding report said the action “emphasizes the arbitrary character of Ms. Amini’s arrest and detention, which were based on laws and policies governing the mandatory hijab, which fundamentally discriminate against women and girls and are not permissible under international human rights law.”

    “Those laws and policies violate the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, and the autonomy of women and girls. Ms. Amini’s arrest and detention, preceding her death in custody, constituted a violation of her right to liberty of person,” it said.

    The New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran hailed the findings and said they represented clear signs of “crimes against humanity.”

    “The Islamic republic’s violent repression of peaceful dissent and severe discrimination against women and girls in Iran has been confirmed as constituting nothing short of crimes against humanity,” said Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the center.

    “The government’s brutal crackdown on the Women, Life, Freedom protests has seen a litany of atrocities that include extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape. These violations disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in society, women, children, and minority groups,” he added.

    The report also said the Iranian government failed to “comply with its duty” to investigate the woman’s death promptly.

    “Most notably, judicial harassment and intimidation were aimed at her family in order to silence them and preempt them from seeking legal redress. Some family members faced arbitrary arrest, while the family’s lawyer, Saleh Nikbaht, and three journalists, Niloofar Hamedi, Elahe Mohammadi, and Nazila Maroufian, who reported on Ms. Amini’s death were arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to imprisonment,” it added.

    Amini’s death sparked mass protests, beginning in her home town of Saghez, then spreading around the country, and ultimately posed one of the biggest threats to Iran’s clerical establishment since the foundation of the Islamic republic in 1979. At least 500 people were reported killed in the government’s crackdown on demonstrators.

    The UN report said “violations and crimes” under international law committed in the context of the Women, Life, Freedom protests include “extrajudicial and unlawful killings and murder, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and gender persecution.

    “The violent repression of peaceful protests and pervasive institutional discrimination against women and girls has led to serious human rights violations by the government of Iran, many amounting to crimes against humanity,” the report said.

    The UN mission acknowledged that some state security forces were killed and injured during the demonstrations, but said it found that the majority of protests were peaceful.

    The mission stems from the UN Human Rights Council’s mandate to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran on November 24, 2022, to investigate alleged human rights violations in Iran related to the protests that followed Amini’s death.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Iranian government “bears responsibility” for the physical violence that led to the death of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Iranian-Kurdish woman who died in police custody in 2022, and for the brutal crackdown on largely peaceful street protests that followed, a report by a United Nations fact-finding mission says.

    The report, issued on March 8 by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the mission “has established the existence of evidence of trauma to Ms. Amini’s body, inflicted while in the custody of the morality police.”

    It said the mission found the “physical violence in custody led to Ms. Amini’s unlawful death…. On that basis, the state bears responsibility for her unlawful death.”

    Amini was arrested in Tehran on September 13, 2022, while visiting the Iranian capital with her family. She was detained by Iran’s so-called “morality police” for allegedly improperly wearing her hijab, or hair-covering head scarf. Within hours of her detention, she was hospitalized in a coma and died on September 16.

    Her family has denied that Amini suffered from a preexisting health condition that may have contributed to her death, as claimed by the Iranian authorities, and her father has cited eyewitnesses as saying she was beaten while en route to a detention facility.

    The fact-finding report said the action “emphasizes the arbitrary character of Ms. Amini’s arrest and detention, which were based on laws and policies governing the mandatory hijab, which fundamentally discriminate against women and girls and are not permissible under international human rights law.”

    “Those laws and policies violate the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, and the autonomy of women and girls. Ms. Amini’s arrest and detention, preceding her death in custody, constituted a violation of her right to liberty of person,” it said.

    The New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran hailed the findings and said they represented clear signs of “crimes against humanity.”

    “The Islamic republic’s violent repression of peaceful dissent and severe discrimination against women and girls in Iran has been confirmed as constituting nothing short of crimes against humanity,” said Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the center.

    “The government’s brutal crackdown on the Women, Life, Freedom protests has seen a litany of atrocities that include extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape. These violations disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in society, women, children, and minority groups,” he added.

    The report also said the Iranian government failed to “comply with its duty” to investigate the woman’s death promptly.

    “Most notably, judicial harassment and intimidation were aimed at her family in order to silence them and preempt them from seeking legal redress. Some family members faced arbitrary arrest, while the family’s lawyer, Saleh Nikbaht, and three journalists, Niloofar Hamedi, Elahe Mohammadi, and Nazila Maroufian, who reported on Ms. Amini’s death were arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to imprisonment,” it added.

    Amini’s death sparked mass protests, beginning in her home town of Saghez, then spreading around the country, and ultimately posed one of the biggest threats to Iran’s clerical establishment since the foundation of the Islamic republic in 1979. At least 500 people were reported killed in the government’s crackdown on demonstrators.

    The UN report said “violations and crimes” under international law committed in the context of the Women, Life, Freedom protests include “extrajudicial and unlawful killings and murder, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and gender persecution.

    “The violent repression of peaceful protests and pervasive institutional discrimination against women and girls has led to serious human rights violations by the government of Iran, many amounting to crimes against humanity,” the report said.

    The UN mission acknowledged that some state security forces were killed and injured during the demonstrations, but said it found that the majority of protests were peaceful.

    The mission stems from the UN Human Rights Council’s mandate to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran on November 24, 2022, to investigate alleged human rights violations in Iran related to the protests that followed Amini’s death.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Military strategists, foreign policy experts, and Russian dissidents have analyzed the Russian invasion of Ukraine for Western audiences. How accurate are pundits who always introduce a slight slant to please a specific audience? Read between the lines, choose the best fit and two years of Putin’s “special military operation” looks like this…to me.

    Initially, Russia sought to extend its borders to the Dnipro River, a natural dividing line, that would have incorporated Kyiv, Kharkiv, and possibly Odessa into the motherland.

    The initial thrust brought a caravan of Russian tanks to the gates of Kyiv. Special forces entered Kyiv and Kharkiv to ascertain defensive strengths and civilian and military resistance to invasion. Moscow learned that the urban street-to-street fighting would be merciless. Unlike Mariupol, which is a heavily industrialized city with some Russian cultural artifacts, Kyiv and Kharkiv are associated with Russia’s cultural heritage and historical founding. Capturing the cities, as seen later from the fighting in Mariupol, would destroy the cities and inflict excessive casualties on both sides. Administrating the area would be difficult. The predicted number of casualties did not warrant the onslaught. Putin and his general staff took a step back and developed an alternative strategy — surround both cities, move in slowly, infiltrate, and hope that a starving and isolated population would eventually capitulate. Out in the open and facing deadly attacks, Russian soldiers died and began to surrender. Extending Russia to the Dnipro was not viable. The Russian forces retreated.

    Technically, the Russians did not retreat; they realized an offensive was futile and stopped it at an incipient stage. Their forces vacated and moved to a strategic position — behind the lines of the Donbas battles and close to Russian territory. With the new strategy came a new goal — liberating the entire Donbas region, uniting southeastern Ukraine from Crimea to Zaporhizhia, and incorporating the Azov Sea coast from Rostov to Crimea. Most of those objectives had been accomplished before Ukraine started a counteroffensive that regained Kherson and halted the Russian advance in the south.

    The Russian military built a defensive perimeter that allowed recapture of limited territory, stalled the Ukraine counteroffensive, caused heavy casualties to the Ukrainian military, and decisively injured the morale of Ukraine soldiers and civilian population.

    Forming a defensive line requires more cooperation from military units than does starting an offensive. A stalled offense in one area may not affect an offensive in another area. Any weakness in the defenses affects the total defense. Prigozhin’s mercenary army’s offensive move and intent to occupy ground with troops rather than with mines endangered the defense line. Gen. Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff, acted decisively and removed the mercenary army from the battlefront.

    With Ukraine weakened by its failed offense, Russia seized the offensive and made minor gains in the Donbass. Ukraine withdrew its forces from Avdivka and the Kremlin claimed control of the city. Its Defense Ministry said, “Capturing Avdivka would push the front line of the war farther from Donetsk city, making it more difficult for Ukraine to stage attempts to reclaim the regional capital.”

    Summarizing the two years after Russian forces invaded Ukraine and we have:

    (1)    Russia has almost accomplished the objectives of its secondary strategy.

    (2)    Both nations realize that huge offensives to gain large territory are no longer feasible.

    (3)    Sanctions against Russia have failed to stifle the economy or diminish Putin’s willingness to continue the war. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts Russia’s Gross domestic product to rise by 2.6 percent in 2024.

    (4)    Ukraine’s ability to mount another offensive and regain territory is doubtful.

    (5)    Civilian populations seem tired of the war and are operating as if there is no war.

    The Future

    The aggressive war with mass casualties has ended. The Russians want a little more of the Donetsk region and will extend their reach only if they know the battle will be successful and not incur excessive casualties. All is not quiet on the Eastern Front, but the war has a virtual armistice in which invisible lines are set by invisible contestants. Each side knows where it can walk without being challenged. Only the stubbornness of the leaders of the two nations prevents a formal armistice. Putin can claim victory and will remain President of Russia; not so, with President Volodymyr Zelensky. The war made Zelensky an internationally admired figure and brought attention to Ukraine. Zelensky has worn out his appearance, and without a war, he cannot lead. Expect his replacement in the near future.

    The undeclared armistice will continue until the two nations realize that an undeclared armistice allows their soldiers and civilians to remain open to attack. Better to have a formal armistice and end hostilities. Several years later, a new Ukraine government will sense it is better to bite the bullet than face the bullet. The present battle lines will become territorial lines and Ukraine will pledge neutrality.

    The nuclear threat will subside and the world will breathe easier until the next intrusion upon the free-loving people of the universe.

    The post Is the War in Ukraine over? first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dan Lieberman.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • WASHINGTON — In a high-profile televised address, U.S. President Joe Biden ripped his likely Republican challenger Donald Trump for “bowing down” to Russian President Vladimir Putin and urged Congress to pass aid for Ukraine, warning that democracy around the world was under threat.

    In the annual State of the Union address, Biden came out swinging from the get-go against Putin and Trump — whom he called “my predecessor” without mentioning him by name — and on behalf of Ukraine, as he sought to win over undecided voters ahead of November’s election.

    The March 7 address to a joint session of Congress this year carried greater significance for the 81-year-old Biden as he faces a tough reelection in November, mostly likely against Trump. The president, who is dogged by questions about his physical and mental fitness for the job, showed a more feisty side during his hourlong speech, drawing a sharp contrast between himself and Trump on a host of key foreign and domestic issues.

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    Biden denounced Trump for recent remarks about NATO, the U.S.-led defense alliance that will mark its 75th anniversary this year, and compared him unfavorably to former Republican President Ronald Reagan.

    “Bowing down to a Russian leader, it is outrageous, dangerous, and unacceptable,” Biden said, referring to Trump, as he recalled how Reagan — who is fondly remembered by older Republicans — stood up to the Kremlin during the Cold War.

    At a campaign rally last month, Trump said that while serving in office he warned a NATO ally he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to alliance members who are “delinquent” in meeting defense-spending goals.

    The remark raised fears that Trump could try to pull the United States out of NATO should he win the election in November.

    Biden described NATO as “stronger than ever” as he recognized Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in the audience. Earlier in the day, Sweden officially became the 32nd member of NATO, ending 200 years of nonalignment. Sweden applied to join the defense alliance after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Finland became a NATO member last year.

    Biden called on Congress to pass a Ukraine aid bill to help the country fend off a two-year-old Russian invasion. He warned that should Russia win, Putin will not stop at Ukraine’s border with NATO.

    A group of right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives have for months been holding up a bill that would allocate some $60 billion in critical military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as it defends its territory from Russian invaders.

    The gridlock in Washington has starved Ukrainian forces of U.S. ammunition and weapons, allowing Russia to regain the initiative in the war. Russia last month seized the eastern city of Avdiyivka, its first victory in more than a year.

    “Ukraine can stop Putin if we stand with Ukraine and provide the weapons it needs to defend itself,” Biden said.

    “My message to President Putin…is simple. We will not walk away. We will not bow down. I will not bow down,” Biden said.

    Trump, who has expressed admiration for Putin, has questioned U.S. aid to Ukraine, though he recently supported the idea of loans to the country.

    Biden also criticized Trump for the former president’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, saying those efforts had posed a grave threat to democracy at home.

    “You can’t love your country only when you win,” he said, referring not just to Trump but Republicans in Congress who back the former president’s claim that the 2020 election was rigged.

    Biden “really strove to distinguish his policies from those of Donald Trump,” said Kathryn Stoner, a political-science professor at Stanford University and director of its Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

    By referencing Reagan, Biden was seeking “to appeal to moderate Republicans and independents to remind them that this is what your party was — standing up to Russia,” she told RFE/RL.

    The State of the Union address may be the biggest opportunity Biden has to reach American voters before the election. More than 27 million people watched Biden’s speech last year, equivalent to about 17 percent of eligible voters.

    Biden’s address this year carries greater importance as he faces reelection in November, most likely against Trump. The speech may be the biggest opportunity he has to reach American voters before the election.

    Trump won 14 of 15 primary races on March 5, all but wrapping up the Republican nomination for president. Biden beat Trump in 2020 but faces a tough reelection bid amid low ratings.

    A Pew Research poll published in January showed that just 33 percent of Americans approve of Biden’s job performance, while 65 percent disapprove. Biden’s job-approval rating has remained below 40 percent over the past two years as Americans feel the pinch of high inflation and interest rates.

    Biden, the oldest U.S. president in history, has been dogged by worries over his age. Two thirds of voters say he is too old to effectively serve another term, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.

    Last month, a special counsel report raised questions about his memory, intensifying concerns over his mental capacity to run the country for four more years.

    As a result, Biden’s physical performance during the address was under close watch. Biden was animated during the speech and avoided any major gaffes.

    “I thought he sounded really strong, very determined and very clear,” Stoner said.

    Instead of avoiding the subject of his age, Biden took it head on, saying the issue facing our nation “isn’t how old we are, it’s how old our ideas are.

    He warned Trump was trying to take the country back to a darker period.

    “Some other people my age see a different story: an American story of resentment, revenge, and retribution,” Biden said, referring to the 77-year-old Trump.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russia is increasing its cooperation with China in 5G and satellite technology and this could facilitate Moscow’s military aggression against Ukraine, a report by the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) security think tank warns.

    The report, published on March 1, says that although battlefield integration of 5G networks may face domestic hurdles in Russia, infrastructure for Chinese aid to Russian satellite systems already exists and can “facilitate Russian military action in Ukraine.”

    China, which maintains close ties with Moscow, has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and offered economic support to Russia that has helped the Kremlin survive waves of sweeping Western sanctions.

    Beijing has said that it does not sell lethal weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, but Western governments have repeatedly accused China of aiding in the flow of technology to Russia’s war effort despite Western sanctions.

    The RUSI report details how the cooperation between Russia and China in 5G and satellite technology can also help Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

    “Extensive deployment of drones and advanced telecommunications equipment have been crucial on all fronts in Ukraine, from intelligence collection to air-strike campaigns,” the report says.

    “These technologies, though critical, require steady connectivity and geospatial support, making cooperation with China a potential solution to Moscow’s desire for a military breakthrough.”

    According to the report, 5G network development has gained particular significance in Russo-Chinese strategic relations in recent years, resulting in a sequence of agreements between Chinese technology giant Huawei and Russian companies MTS and Beeline, both under sanctions by Canada for being linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex.

    5G is a technology standard for cellular networks, which allows a higher speed of data transfer than its predecessor, 4G. According to the RUSI’s report, 5G “has the potential to reshape the battlefield” through enhanced tracking of military objects, faster transferring and real-time processing of large sensor datasets and enhanced communications.

    These are “precisely the features that could render Russo-Chinese 5G cooperation extremely useful in a wartime context — and therefore create a heightened risk for Ukraine,” the report adds.

    Although the report says that there are currently “operational and institutional constraints” to Russia’s battlefield integration of 5G technology, it has advantages which make it an “appealing priority” for Moscow, Jack Crawford, a research analyst at RUSI and one of the authors of the report, said.

    “As Russia continues to seek battlefield advantages over Ukraine, recent improvements in 5G against jamming technologies make 5G communications — both on the ground and with aerial weapons and vehicles — an even more appealing priority,” Crawford told RFE/RL in an e-mailed response.

    Satellite technology, however, is already the focus of the collaboration between China and Russia, the report says, pointing to recent major developments in the collaboration between the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS and its Chinese equivalent, Beidou.

    In 2018, Russia and China agreed on the joint application of GLONASS/Beidou and in 2022 decided to build three Russian monitoring stations in China and three Chinese stations in Russia — in the city of Obninsk, about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow, the Siberian city of Irkutsk, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia’s Far East.

    Satellite technology can collect imagery, weather and terrain data, improve logistics management, track troop movements, and enhance precision in the identification and elimination of ground targets.

    According to the report, GLONASS has already enabled Russian missile and drone strikes in Ukraine through satellite correction and supported communications between Russian troops.

    The anticipated construction of Beidou’s Obninsk monitoring station, the closest of the three Chinese stations to Ukraine, would allow Russia to increasingly leverage satellite cooperation with China against Ukraine, the report warns.

    In 2022, the Russian company Racurs, which provides software solutions for photogrammetry, GIS, and remote sensing, signed satellite data-sharing agreements with two Chinese companies. The deals were aimed at replacing contracts with Western satellite companies that suspended data supply in Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    The two companies — HEAD Aerospace and Spacety — are both under sanctions by the United States for supplying satellite imagery of locations in Ukraine to entities affiliated with the Wagner mercenary group.

    “For the time being, we cannot trace how exactly these shared data have informed specific decisions on the front line,” Roman Kolodii, a security expert at Charles University in Prague and one of the authors of the report, told RFE/RL.

    “However, since Racurs is a partner of the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is highly likely that such data might end up strengthening Russia’s geospatial capabilities in the military domain, too.”

    “Ultimately, such dynamic interactions with Chinese companies may improve Russian military logistics, reconnaissance capabilities, geospatial intelligence, and drone deployment in Ukraine,” the report says.

    The report comes as Western governments are stepping up efforts to counter Russia’s attempt to evade sanctions imposed as a response to its military aggression against Ukraine.

    On February 23, on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the United States imposed sanctions on nearly 100 entities that are helping Russia evade trade sanctions and “providing backdoor support for Russia’s war machine.”

    The list includes Chinese companies, accused of supporting “Russia’s military-industrial base.”

    With reporting by Merhat Sharpizhanov


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russia is increasing its cooperation with China in 5G and satellite technology and this could facilitate Moscow’s military aggression against Ukraine, a report by the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) security think tank warns.

    The report, published on March 1, says that although battlefield integration of 5G networks may face domestic hurdles in Russia, infrastructure for Chinese aid to Russian satellite systems already exists and can “facilitate Russian military action in Ukraine.”

    China, which maintains close ties with Moscow, has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and offered economic support to Russia that has helped the Kremlin survive waves of sweeping Western sanctions.

    Beijing has said that it does not sell lethal weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, but Western governments have repeatedly accused China of aiding in the flow of technology to Russia’s war effort despite Western sanctions.

    The RUSI report details how the cooperation between Russia and China in 5G and satellite technology can also help Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

    “Extensive deployment of drones and advanced telecommunications equipment have been crucial on all fronts in Ukraine, from intelligence collection to air-strike campaigns,” the report says.

    “These technologies, though critical, require steady connectivity and geospatial support, making cooperation with China a potential solution to Moscow’s desire for a military breakthrough.”

    According to the report, 5G network development has gained particular significance in Russo-Chinese strategic relations in recent years, resulting in a sequence of agreements between Chinese technology giant Huawei and Russian companies MTS and Beeline, both under sanctions by Canada for being linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex.

    5G is a technology standard for cellular networks, which allows a higher speed of data transfer than its predecessor, 4G. According to the RUSI’s report, 5G “has the potential to reshape the battlefield” through enhanced tracking of military objects, faster transferring and real-time processing of large sensor datasets and enhanced communications.

    These are “precisely the features that could render Russo-Chinese 5G cooperation extremely useful in a wartime context — and therefore create a heightened risk for Ukraine,” the report adds.

    Although the report says that there are currently “operational and institutional constraints” to Russia’s battlefield integration of 5G technology, it has advantages which make it an “appealing priority” for Moscow, Jack Crawford, a research analyst at RUSI and one of the authors of the report, said.

    “As Russia continues to seek battlefield advantages over Ukraine, recent improvements in 5G against jamming technologies make 5G communications — both on the ground and with aerial weapons and vehicles — an even more appealing priority,” Crawford told RFE/RL in an e-mailed response.

    Satellite technology, however, is already the focus of the collaboration between China and Russia, the report says, pointing to recent major developments in the collaboration between the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS and its Chinese equivalent, Beidou.

    In 2018, Russia and China agreed on the joint application of GLONASS/Beidou and in 2022 decided to build three Russian monitoring stations in China and three Chinese stations in Russia — in the city of Obninsk, about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow, the Siberian city of Irkutsk, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia’s Far East.

    Satellite technology can collect imagery, weather and terrain data, improve logistics management, track troop movements, and enhance precision in the identification and elimination of ground targets.

    According to the report, GLONASS has already enabled Russian missile and drone strikes in Ukraine through satellite correction and supported communications between Russian troops.

    The anticipated construction of Beidou’s Obninsk monitoring station, the closest of the three Chinese stations to Ukraine, would allow Russia to increasingly leverage satellite cooperation with China against Ukraine, the report warns.

    In 2022, the Russian company Racurs, which provides software solutions for photogrammetry, GIS, and remote sensing, signed satellite data-sharing agreements with two Chinese companies. The deals were aimed at replacing contracts with Western satellite companies that suspended data supply in Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    The two companies — HEAD Aerospace and Spacety — are both under sanctions by the United States for supplying satellite imagery of locations in Ukraine to entities affiliated with the Wagner mercenary group.

    “For the time being, we cannot trace how exactly these shared data have informed specific decisions on the front line,” Roman Kolodii, a security expert at Charles University in Prague and one of the authors of the report, told RFE/RL.

    “However, since Racurs is a partner of the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is highly likely that such data might end up strengthening Russia’s geospatial capabilities in the military domain, too.”

    “Ultimately, such dynamic interactions with Chinese companies may improve Russian military logistics, reconnaissance capabilities, geospatial intelligence, and drone deployment in Ukraine,” the report says.

    The report comes as Western governments are stepping up efforts to counter Russia’s attempt to evade sanctions imposed as a response to its military aggression against Ukraine.

    On February 23, on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the United States imposed sanctions on nearly 100 entities that are helping Russia evade trade sanctions and “providing backdoor support for Russia’s war machine.”

    The list includes Chinese companies, accused of supporting “Russia’s military-industrial base.”

    With reporting by Merhat Sharpizhanov


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russia is increasing its cooperation with China in 5G and satellite technology and this could facilitate Moscow’s military aggression against Ukraine, a report by the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) security think tank warns.

    The report, published on March 1, says that although battlefield integration of 5G networks may face domestic hurdles in Russia, infrastructure for Chinese aid to Russian satellite systems already exists and can “facilitate Russian military action in Ukraine.”

    China, which maintains close ties with Moscow, has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and offered economic support to Russia that has helped the Kremlin survive waves of sweeping Western sanctions.

    Beijing has said that it does not sell lethal weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, but Western governments have repeatedly accused China of aiding in the flow of technology to Russia’s war effort despite Western sanctions.

    The RUSI report details how the cooperation between Russia and China in 5G and satellite technology can also help Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

    “Extensive deployment of drones and advanced telecommunications equipment have been crucial on all fronts in Ukraine, from intelligence collection to air-strike campaigns,” the report says.

    “These technologies, though critical, require steady connectivity and geospatial support, making cooperation with China a potential solution to Moscow’s desire for a military breakthrough.”

    According to the report, 5G network development has gained particular significance in Russo-Chinese strategic relations in recent years, resulting in a sequence of agreements between Chinese technology giant Huawei and Russian companies MTS and Beeline, both under sanctions by Canada for being linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex.

    5G is a technology standard for cellular networks, which allows a higher speed of data transfer than its predecessor, 4G. According to the RUSI’s report, 5G “has the potential to reshape the battlefield” through enhanced tracking of military objects, faster transferring and real-time processing of large sensor datasets and enhanced communications.

    These are “precisely the features that could render Russo-Chinese 5G cooperation extremely useful in a wartime context — and therefore create a heightened risk for Ukraine,” the report adds.

    Although the report says that there are currently “operational and institutional constraints” to Russia’s battlefield integration of 5G technology, it has advantages which make it an “appealing priority” for Moscow, Jack Crawford, a research analyst at RUSI and one of the authors of the report, said.

    “As Russia continues to seek battlefield advantages over Ukraine, recent improvements in 5G against jamming technologies make 5G communications — both on the ground and with aerial weapons and vehicles — an even more appealing priority,” Crawford told RFE/RL in an e-mailed response.

    Satellite technology, however, is already the focus of the collaboration between China and Russia, the report says, pointing to recent major developments in the collaboration between the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS and its Chinese equivalent, Beidou.

    In 2018, Russia and China agreed on the joint application of GLONASS/Beidou and in 2022 decided to build three Russian monitoring stations in China and three Chinese stations in Russia — in the city of Obninsk, about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow, the Siberian city of Irkutsk, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia’s Far East.

    Satellite technology can collect imagery, weather and terrain data, improve logistics management, track troop movements, and enhance precision in the identification and elimination of ground targets.

    According to the report, GLONASS has already enabled Russian missile and drone strikes in Ukraine through satellite correction and supported communications between Russian troops.

    The anticipated construction of Beidou’s Obninsk monitoring station, the closest of the three Chinese stations to Ukraine, would allow Russia to increasingly leverage satellite cooperation with China against Ukraine, the report warns.

    In 2022, the Russian company Racurs, which provides software solutions for photogrammetry, GIS, and remote sensing, signed satellite data-sharing agreements with two Chinese companies. The deals were aimed at replacing contracts with Western satellite companies that suspended data supply in Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    The two companies — HEAD Aerospace and Spacety — are both under sanctions by the United States for supplying satellite imagery of locations in Ukraine to entities affiliated with the Wagner mercenary group.

    “For the time being, we cannot trace how exactly these shared data have informed specific decisions on the front line,” Roman Kolodii, a security expert at Charles University in Prague and one of the authors of the report, told RFE/RL.

    “However, since Racurs is a partner of the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is highly likely that such data might end up strengthening Russia’s geospatial capabilities in the military domain, too.”

    “Ultimately, such dynamic interactions with Chinese companies may improve Russian military logistics, reconnaissance capabilities, geospatial intelligence, and drone deployment in Ukraine,” the report says.

    The report comes as Western governments are stepping up efforts to counter Russia’s attempt to evade sanctions imposed as a response to its military aggression against Ukraine.

    On February 23, on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the United States imposed sanctions on nearly 100 entities that are helping Russia evade trade sanctions and “providing backdoor support for Russia’s war machine.”

    The list includes Chinese companies, accused of supporting “Russia’s military-industrial base.”

    With reporting by Merhat Sharpizhanov


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • WASHINGTON — U.S. semiconductor firms must strengthen oversight of their foreign partners and work more closely with the government and investigative groups, a group of experts told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, saying the outsourcing of production overseas has made tracking chip sales more difficult, enabling sanctions evasion by Russia and other adversaries.

    U.S. semiconductor firms largely produce their chips in China and other Asian countries from where they are further distributed around the world, making it difficult to ascertain who exactly is buying their products, the experts told the committee at a hearing in Washington on February 27.

    The United States and the European Union imposed sweeping technology sanctions on Russia to weaken its ability to wage war following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Russia’s military industrial complex is heavily reliant on Western technology, including semiconductors, for the production of sophisticated weapons.

    “Western companies design chips made by specialized plants in other countries, and they sell them by the millions, with little visibility over the supply chain of their products beyond one or two layers of distribution,” Damien Spleeters, deputy director of operations at Conflict Armament Research, told senators.

    He added that, if manufacturers required point-of-sale data from distributors, it would vastly improve their ability to trace the path of semiconductors recovered from Russian weapons and thereby identify sanctions-busting supply networks.

    The banned Western chips are said to be flowing to Russia via networks in China, Turkey, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.

    Spleeters said he discovered a Chinese company diverting millions of dollars of components to sanctioned Russian companies by working with U.S. companies whose chips were found in Russian weapons.

    That company was sanctioned earlier this month by the United States.

    ‘It’s Going To Be Whack-A-Mole’

    The committee is scrutinizing several U.S. chip firms whose products have turned up in Russian weapons, Senator Richard Blumenthal (Democrat-Connecticut) said, adding “these companies know or should know where their components are going.”

    Spleeters threw cold water on the idea that Russia is acquiring chips from household appliances such as washing machines or from major online retail websites.

    “We have seen no evidence of chips being ripped off and then repurposed for this,” he said.

    “It makes little sense that Russia would buy a $500 washing machine for a $1 part that they could obtain more easily,” Spleeters added.

    In his opening statement, Senator Ron Johnson (Republican-Wisconsin) said he doubted whether any of the solutions proposed by the experts would work, noting that Russia was ramping up weapons production despite sweeping sanctions.

    “You plug one hole, another hole is gonna be opening up, it’s gonna be whack-a-mole. So it’s a reality we have to face,” said Johnson.

    Russia last year imported $1.7 billion worth of foreign-made microchips despite international sanctions, Bloomberg reported last month, citing classified Russian customs service data.

    Johnson also expressed concern that sanctions would hurt Western nations and companies.

    “My guess is they’re just going to get more and more sophisticated evading the sanctions and finding components, or potentially finding other suppliers…like Huawei,” Johnson said.

    Huawei is a leading Chinese technology company that produces chips among other products.

    James Byrne, the founder and director of the open-source intelligence and analysis group at the Royal United Services Institute, said that officials and companies should not give up trying to track the chips just because it is difficult.

    ‘Shocking’ Dependency On Western Technology

    He said that the West has leverage because Russia is so dependent on Western technology for its arms industry.

    “Modern weapons platforms cannot work without these things. They are the brains of almost all modern weapons platforms,” Byrne said.

    “These semiconductors vary in sophistication and importance, but it is fair to say that without them Russia … would not have been able to sustain their war effort,” he said.

    Byrne said the depth of the dependency on Western technology — which goes beyond semiconductors to include carbon fiber, polymers, lenses, and cameras — was “really quite shocking” considering the Kremlin’s rhetoric about import substitution and independence.

    Elina Ribakova, a Russia expert and economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said an analysis of 2,800 components taken from Russian weapons collected in Ukraine showed that 95 percent came from countries allied with Ukraine, with the vast majority coming from the United States. The sample, however, may not be representative of the actual distribution of component origin.

    Ribakova warned that Russia has been accelerating imports of semiconductor machine components in case the United States imposes such export controls on China.

    China can legally buy advanced Western components for semiconductor manufacturing equipment and use them to manufacture and sell advanced semiconductors to Russia, Senator Margaret Hassan (Democrat-New Hampshire) said.

    Ribakova said the manufacturing components would potentially allow Russia to “insulate themselves for somewhat longer.”

    Ribakova said technology companies are hesitant to beef up their compliance divisions because it can be costly. She recommended that the United States toughen punishment for noncompliance as the effects would be felt beyond helping Ukraine.

    “It is also about the credibility of our whole system of economic statecraft. Malign actors worldwide are watching whether they will be credible or it’s just words that were put on paper,” she said.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • If a direct war would erupt between the United States and Russia, it is not going to be conventional and would surely involve NATO via article 5, and maybe China, Japan, Australia, North Korea, South Korea, Iran, and Israel. Arguments attributing to Russia the responsibility for the evolving mess because it intervened in Ukraine do not hold up. Background, facts, and conflict timeline irrefutably point to the United States. If war comes, it is going to be another American war—no more and no less.

    On the specific issue of the U.S. domination of NATO and its war decisions, consider the following arguments. Currently, NATO has 31 members including the United States. If we remove the United States from the count, could NATO’s remaining 30 members opt for war with Russia to resolve the Ukrainian Question? The answer is no.

    First, it is assumed that a war involving any NATO member would automatically trigger Article 5 above. Most importantly, even if NATO-minus-USA has the means to wage war, it cannot do that—technically, as much as politically. NATO’s inability to act independently from the United States is not due to lack of military capabilities or willpower (e.g., Britain and France are nuclear powers with hardened animosity toward Russia). The reason, therefore, lies elsewhere—the United States holds all political, military, and financial cards, as well as decision- making processes.

    Alternatively, could the United States go to war without the backing of NATO-minus-USA? Yes, it can. But the premise is false. First, the United States will not take high risks without minor actors doing the legwork. Second, it needs other participants for cover-up and sharing of consequences. This explains why the United States chained up NATO members to the Collective Defense Obligation tool.

    Now, because Russia has not attacked the United States, and because Ukraine is not a NATO state, could an alliance member refuse joining U.S. war projects? Technically, the answer should be yes because Article 5 does not apply to the situation. In reality though, the United States, experienced at creating pretexts and rationales, could invent favorable conditions to ease involvement by reluctant states, or simply enforce Article 5 without appeal.

    For the record, discussing statute and obligations by NATO members is Byzantine. Based on NATO’s history, the treaty was written with one thing in mind: upholding the interests and views of the largest powers–especially the United States. What matters at the end are two interchangeable facts: (1) the U.S. has the power to impose its will on NATO, and (2) NATO is subservient to the United States. Proving this assertion is the U.S.-NATO’s bombing of Serbia, Libya, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq—especially knowing that none of these countries had attacked the United States or any other NATO member. Did these facts stop the U.S. and NATO from invoking Article 5 as an alibi for all subsequent U.S. imperialist wars?

    Is the assertion that NATO is an appendage to and a foot soldier for U.S. global agendas and military objectives verifiable? Yes. The United States is the boss of the group—politically, diplomatically, and militarily.

    With over 22%  (as per the British-imperialist BBC) and 70% (as per the hyper-imperialist SCIS of Anthony Cordesman) of  the organization’s costs paid for by the United States, and with about 85,000 U.S. troops stationed on European soil, the United States is, de facto, the occupying power of Europe and decision maker inside NATO. (Also read, “Number of active-duty United States military personnel in Europe in 2022, by country”. For the record, Cordesman’s talk about percentages and billions spent is meant to confound the issues of the U.S. super role within NATO. He justified it under the rubric that the United States must spend all that money to keep its status as a superpower)

    Confirming the assertion that NATO is a U.S. tool to control Europe is uncomplicated. A 42-word passage in the Department of Defense’s Military Construction Program (fiscal year 2023) provides an authoritative clue. Under the heading: United States (U.S.) Interests in NATO, the authors of the program put it this way:

    The United States has an abiding national security interest in a stable, integrated European region. The political and military presence of the U.S. and of NATO fosters the conditions necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region.

    Reading between the Lines

    • The sentence, “Abiding national security interest” is a self-centered claim that the U.S. looks at Europe as a useful accessory to ensure its own “security” schemes—abiding is the keyword. Accordingly, NATO is a U.S. pawn.
    • The sentence, “In a stable, integrated European region” is code for the U.S. implying that Europe is no more than an unstable area thus NATO is going to be the means by which the United States would put it under its control and command. Besides, recalling the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Balkan wars, hegemonic U.S.A. is the direct cause for Europe’s instability. Meaning, U.S. rulers create conditions of instability, and thereafter use them as a pretext for expanded management and control.
    • The sentence, “Necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region”, is a code for implementing subaltern economic systems to ensure their lasting submission to the U.S. financial interests and control. As for the diction “democratic based-institution”, this is rubish. Europe has been always a theater for great social changes and differing forms of government. For the record, U.S. ruling circles have gutted the word “democracy” from any intelligent meaning while keeping the veneer—voting—visible.

    Special Comment on NATO’s NSIP (NATO Security Investment Programme): the statement thatNSIP programming and authorization decisions are based on consensus decision-making among the 30 Allied nations” is a brazen lie. Does anyone really think that Albania, Montenegro, or Romania have the audacity to dissent from whatever the U.S. wants?
    Pay attention to how the U.S. is using the so-called defensive alliance to further its imperialistic objectives. Article (a) of “The most essential NSIP CPP [Cultural Property Protection] Categories” spells out U.S. basic plans with the following deceptive wording:

    “Alliance Operations and Missions: Infrastructure to support ongoing military operations and missions, including Iraq and Kosovo.”

    REMARK: after 25 years of the United States and vassals occupying Kosovo, and after 21 years of continuing occupation of Iraq with NATO’s participation under the guise of “coalition of the willing”, the United States is imposing or involving NATO states to continue with the occupation of both regions. By itself, this shows NATO’s collective will to impose U.S. imperialist order on the world. As a curiosity, what missions are these? Who ordered them and under which rulings and authority? What is their scope? Do they have expiration date?

    Through the U.S. conceived structure of NATO, the United States not only declared its military occupation of Europe as a vital matter for its “national security”, but also established its paramount leading role within the organization. A Wall Street Journal article (“The U.S. Controls NATO”) confirms my arguments and conclusion on NATO right from the opening paragraph:

    “Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been primarily concerned with serving American political and military interests. That has been its problem. It has been the Greek gift that just keeps on giving, enabling America to maintain bases and a large contingent of military manpower in Europe.”

    When They Talk about War with Russia

    For decades, a war with Russia has been a fixture on the minds of U.S. ruling circles. Still, thinking of war is something, preparing for it is something else. In the latter case, it is a tangible process whereby rationales and program act as one entity. In concrete terms, it means building all required political, cultural, and military structures, and then coalesce them by ideology to implement that goal. Oddly, the dismantlement of the USSR did not end U.S. preparation process—it only accelerated it. Explanation: U.S. fanaticized project to subjugate Russia and rule it by proxy remained unchanged.

    Now, given that a direct military confrontation is possible, it is extraordinary that something so important is consistently missing from the conversations about war. I am alluding to the loss of life on both sides. With regard to potential civilian loss, have a look at the following figures from WWII and compare it to what might happen today—while keeping in mind that advancement in modern military technology make any comparison with the old data incongruous.

    For instance, the United States—protected by two oceans—had lost only six civilians due to a Japanese balloon attack. During the same war, the Soviet Union lost 19 million civilians, Italy: over 150,000 civilians, Japan: 337,000 civilian by firebombing plus 165,000 by Truman’s nuclear holocaust, Germany: 410,000 civilians were killed by British and American bombing. (For further reading: Casualties of World War II)

    Discussion: when countless Americans clamor for war with any country that opposes the dictatorial unipolarism of the Zionist “exceptional nation”, the scenario of what would happen if equally powerful opponents hit back is rarely mentioned in the daily conversations. Regardless, where is the logic that the mostly uninformed American society is blasé to the consequences of war with Russia?

    On top of all that, we have to deal with warmongering morons dispensing sermons on how to confront Russia and win. Is that hot air or pathetic figures of speech? Further, because elliptical thinking, deceptive speaking patterns, and convoluted semantics are dominant, untangling what we hear and read is a challenge. Recalling that the linguistics of imperialism is not something to be taken too lightly— it hides ideology, political determinism, and plan for action—, can we, for once, decode what western politicians are saying when they talk about Russia?

    The Cloaked Languages of War

    Asserting that Western politicians are practitioners of doublespeak, circular thinking, and elliptical verbiage is easy to demonstrate. Consider the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. On June 30, 2023, he stated, “We are not a party to what is happening in Russia, our goal is not a regime change in Russia. Instead, Berlin seeks to continue to help Ukraine in its fight against Moscow”.

    Scholz introduces his goal for a protracted war with Russia via Ukraine with a lie. He stated that Germany is “Not a party to what is happening in Russia”. He was referring to the Wagner Group’s rebellion episode, which, of course, is an internal Russian affair. Face value, this appears to be correct—we have no knowledge of occurred collusion between the group and external forces fighting Russia by proxy. However, the fact that Germany has been attacking Russia tenaciously through Ukraine for the past two years makes Germany a party to the conflict.

    This is how the reasoning goes. Dialectically, within the context of war between Russia and Ukraine, any event that could alter the course of war in either country is necessarily going to affect the sponsors of Ukraine including Germany. Meaning, radical changes in the internal affairs of Russia or Ukraine would have direct consequences not only on both countries, but also on the sponsors of Ukraine. To back up the assertion that Germany is a real party to what might happen in Russia can be argued along the following lines.

    When Germany applies across-the-board sanctions on Russia, when it declares it wants to freeze or takeover Russian assets in Germany, and when it declares that it wants Ukraine to win (defeat Russia), then the manifest purpose is evident. With their military supplies, training, political support, logistic, and financial contribution to the war against Russia, German politicians are counting on the theory that all such combined measures would provoke widespread domestic troubles inside Russia thus possibly leading to social and military unrest culminating in a revolt against the legitimate government of Vladimir Putin. By all tools of analysis, Scholz was indeed plotting for a regime change in Russia.

    (For the record, the United States has been applying this strategy to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran with the hope that coercion, sanctions, blockades, and selective military measures could induce national unrest in the targeted countries thus leading to “regime change”.)

    Second, who are “we” in the statement: Germany, the U.S., or collective NATO? Here is a clue: if the U.S. were to change course in Ukraine, Germany would, for sure, fold its bellicose tail and gag its mouth. Third, with billions of dollars in aid and advanced weapons to Ukraine, Germany is certainly a big party to the conflict. Fourth, with his allusion to regime change, Scholz insinuated that if Germany (the West] wants, it has the means to destabilize Russia. If so, he is deluding himself. Excluding the circumstances when Gorbachev and Yeltsin caved in to the United States, Russia’s traditional political structures are not prone to coups.

    Now, since neither Germany nor U.S.-led NATO has the ability to overthrow the president of a superpower [Russia] unless by a total direct war that ends with the defeat of Russia, why did Scholz bother to insinuate he could? Overall, what did Scholz say exactly?

    Aside from rhetorical boasting to hide failure, Scholz’ oblique meaning is transparent: Germany and NATO have the means and are capable to keep the fight in Ukraine going—and could even extend it to Russia proper, which they did. Is that what he meant with the phrase, “To help Ukraine in its fight against Moscow”? Deduction: Scholz, following in the footsteps of the U.S., is treating Russia’s military action in Donbass as aggression and trespass—that is why “he wants to punish it”. If so, are we to assume that he is upholding some sort of lofty Teutonic principles against interventions and aggressions?

    Let us now consider another German politician, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission. In a conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Von Der Leyen told Zelensky, “But what we can tell you is that you’ll have your European friends by your side as long as it takes”. She said that in February 2022 right after the intervention. Now, because what has started as a limited Russian operation has transformed into a protracted proxy war, the implication is apparent: Germany, U.S., and all other leaders of the European Union are taken over by the delusion that they can defeat Russia. (To inspect Von Der Leyen’s imperialist mindset on Russia, read the statement she made on behalf of the Commission in February 27, 2022.)

    As with Scholz, was Von Der Leyen trying to uphold “lofty” German principles? The wider question: has Germany ever applied those principles in other arenas? First, Germany was a party—in active support positions—to U.S.-led interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. Second, I never heard or read that post-WWII Germany supplied any sort of military aid to the Palestinians so they could fight the genocidal settler state of Israel that has been occupying their ancestral lands officially since 1948? What is reason for which Scholz and Von Der Leyen are so determined to help the Ukrainians but not the Palestinians?

    Conclusion: “noble” principles are not the motive for Scholz and Der Leyen’s declared enmity toward Russia. Fact: Germany is not a free country as it wishes to depict itself. Germany has lost its independent status since it lost WWII. With never-ending U.S. soft occupation (over 35,000 U.S. military personnel) even after its re-unification, Germany is technically a militarily occupied country.

    Further, Germany’s political and military servitude to the United States is not only about a great power that succumbed to the U.S. order, but also about the United States castrating it for good. Now, if mighty Germany has been reduced to a vassal status, then it would be easy to explain why weak NATO countries (including self-important France and Britain) have become vassals— and supporters for U.S. war against Russia.

    Based on how things work amidst U.S. system of center and periphery, there can be only one answer. Decisions taken by a single big power belonging to a club whose members share similar ideologies are more than what they appear. On the surface, those decisions give the idea to have been taken independently. In reality, they are (a) transnational by fact of membership and charters, and (b) they are always directed by the higher power that set the club’s policies.

    From ideology to practice, and from language of war to possible America-Russia war, how the U.S. enmity to Russia is debated, institutionalized, and adopted?

    Next: Part 6

    The post Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 5) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russia has expressed its gratitude to North Korea again for supporting its aggression against Ukraine in a show of solidarity as fresh claims of arms trading between the two authoritarian regimes emerged. 

    “We are pleased that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is standing with us at the forefront of this struggle,” the Russian Embassy in Pyongyang said in a Facebook post on Feb. 29, to update developments in Ukraine.

    The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is North Korea’s official name. 

    “The United States and its puppets are responsible for the bloodshed and destruction brought about by their policies of repression in Russia,” the embassy said, adding that “Russia will win and this will be a shared victory for all who adhere to the new world order.”

    North Korea has supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, calling it a “righteous struggle to defend its strategic security and interests.”

    The message from the Russian Embassy in Pyongyang came a few days after Seoul said North Korea has sent some 6,700 containers carrying more than three million artillery shells to Russia since August last year. 

    North Korea and Russia have been accused of engaging in arms trading, with the Ukrainians alleging that Russian forces have used North Korean missiles to attack them – a claim that both Pyongyang and Moscow have denied.

    South Korea’s defense minister Shin Won-sik told journalists on Tuesday that judging by the number of containers; he estimates that millions of rounds have been delivered to Russia, including more than three million 152mm artillery shells and more than half a million 122mm rocket launchers. 

    Shin noted that among the hundreds of munitions factories in North Korea, he estimates only about 30% are operational. However, those involved in Russian-related activities seem to be functioning at full capacity.

    Separately, South Korea’s National Intelligence Service said in November last year that Moscow has likely offered Pyongyang technological advice for its satellite launch, as it has received more than 1 million artillery shells from North Korea since early August.

    Edited by Elaine Chan and Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • This month marks the 10th anniversary of the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, which ousted President Viktor Yanukovych and in turn prompted the Russian seizure of Crimea and the Russian-backed secessionist movement in the Donbas. It also marks the second anniversary of the Russian invasion eight years later. Western anti-imperialists have correctly recognized a number of provocative actions and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In the winter of 2021-2, while figure skaters were competing in North America and Europe and preparing for the Beijing Winter Olympics, the tensions around Ukraine were building. NATO trained  Ukrainian troops were intensifying attacks on the border of  the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk provinces of eastern Ukraine.  Russia was building up its forces on the international border.  In December 2021, Russia proposed treaties with the US and NATO, only to be brushed aside. Neocons running US foreign policy seemed to be intentionally provoking Russia. Perhaps they wanted Russia to invade Ukraine and saw that as a way to defeat Putin and breakup Russia, just as the Soviet Union had broken up? As Hillary Clinton said, “Afghanistan is the model”.

    On February 7, three days into the Beijing Olympics and after the Russians had won the team skating event, news emerged that one of the Russian skaters had previously tested positive for a banned substance. It soon emerged that the skater in question was the brilliant young Kamila Valieva. The charges created one of the biggest international sport controversies of the past 50 years. A single positive test for a banned medication upended the 2022 Beijing Olympics and resulted in bitter accusations. Although the controversy started over two years ago,  the decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was only issued a few weeks ago in early February.

    The dispute over Valieva’s doping test is a reflection of  global political contention and the politicization of sports. In this article I will show how the CAS decision was biased and unfair. I will also show how western media has misreported the situation and how it is likely that US secret services intentionally created this situation to prevent Russian achievements at the Beijing Olympics and “unbalance” the adversary.

    Russia’s expected medal sweep in figure skating was intentionally sabotaged. The victim was Kamila Valieva. The target was Russia. Disrupting the first winter Olympics in China was a bonus.

    What Happened

    The key skating milestone are:

    30 October 2021 – In her debut as a senior, 15 year old Kamila Valieva wins first place at the Skate Canada International. Her performance leaves the audience and commentators in awe. Her urine sample is “clean” (no prohibited chemicals).

    27 November 2021 – Valieva wins the Rostelecom Cup (another event in the International Skating Union (ISU) Grand Prix). She posts the highest score ever recorded. Her urine sample is clean.

    25 December 2021 – Valieva wins the Russian national figure skating championship in St. Petersburg. Her urine sample is sent to a certified laboratory in Sweden.

    15 January 2022 – Valieva wins gold at the European Figure Skating Championship. Her urine test is clean.

    4 February 2022 – Olympic Games begin in Beijing China.

    6 February 2022 – Valieva performs skating short program flawlessly, earning first place.

    7 February 2022 – Valieva wows the audience in the free skate (long program), again winning first place. Urine sample is clean.

    7 February 2022 – Over a month late, Stockholm laboratory reports an “Adverse Analytic Finding” for Valieva’s sample which they received 6 weeks earlier. They report the presence of a tiny amount of trimetazadine (TMZ) in Valieva’s urine sample.

    8 -15 February 2022 – News of the positive doping test rapidly circulates and soon dominates the Olympics. Media and most western athletes assume Valieva’s guilt and urge her removal from the Games. Because she is a 15 year old minor, the Court for Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides that Valieva should be allowed to continue competing at the Beijing Olympics with the consequences of the positive test to be determined later.

    17 February 2022 – Under enormous pressure, Valieva falls apart in the free skate (long program). Team skating medal awards are postponed due to uncertainty whether Valieva will be disqualified. The US team which won 2nd place is angry over the postponement of the medal ceremony.

    13 January 2023 – After a long delay, the Russian Anti Doping Agency (RUSADA) determines that Valieva bore “no fault or negligence” for the single positive test.

    21 February 2023 – World Anti Doping Agency (WADA)  and International Skating Union (ISU), both western dominated organizations, appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to have Valieva banned and all her winnings after 25 Dec 2021 annulled.

    26 September 2023 – Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) begins the hearing regarding the Valieva positive test.

    7 February 2024 – CAS announces the decision and reasoning. The panel rules that Valieva  committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation (ADRV), is banned for four years and must forfeit all any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money subsequent to 25 Dec 2021.

    The CAS Decision

    Confirming that this was a judgment call, this was a 2-1 split decision. They explain the decision as follows: “The Athlete did not discharge her burden of proving …that her ADRV was not intentional on the balance of probabilities.”

    The panel said it was NOT proven Valieva intentionally ingested the banned substance.“The appellants have not established that the Athlete committed the ADRV intentionally …. there was no evidence that she had acted intentionally.”

    They also said “The Panel most certainly has not concluded that Ms. Valieva is a cheat or that she cheated on 25 December 2021 at the Russian National Championships or that she cheated  when she won gold at the Beijing Olympics (or at any other time).”

    The panel acknowledged that the punishment may be considered “harsh” given that they did not establish that she committed the ADRV intentionally.  That is certainly correct considering the punishment was the same as if she HAD cheated and the punishment is widely seen as confirming GUILT.

    Critique of the CAS Decision

     1.  The panel was biased. 

    The panel was comprised of adjudicators from the US, UK and France. Valieva’s legal team appointed French attorney Mathieu Maisonneuve. The appellants, World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and Ice Skating Union (ISU), appointed American attorney Jeffrey Mishkin. The CAS Appeals Division appointed the president of the panel, James Drake. He is a citizen of the UK and Australia who studied and worked in the USA.

    CAS rules say that the president of a panel should be selected considering the criteria of “expertise, diversity, equality and turnover of adjudicators”. Drake was a poor choice for both equality and diversity.  Two of  the adjudicators have strong connections to the US which is hostile to Russia and whose figure skating team stood to benefit if Valieva was disqualified.

    James Drake was panel president in two previous cases involving Russian athletes, canoeist Alexandra Dupik and track athlete Natalya Antyukh. Both cases were decided against the appealing Russian athletes. With Drake as president, this had the appearance of a Kangaroo Court.

    2.  The panel created a straw man to knock down.

    The panel exaggerated the importance of the theory that Kamila accidentally imbibed  TMZ  through her contact with her “grandfather”. Mr. Solovyov was called her grandfather but was actually the father of a previous partner of Kamila’s mother. Since the mother was working, Mr. Solovyov acted as driver and guardian for Kamila who trained three hours in the morning, went home for lunch and rest, then trained three hours in the afternoon. Presumably Solovyov was being compensated for his help for the family. Solovyov was taking heart medication including TMZ due to previous heart attacks. After the surprise news that Valieva tested positive for the heart medication trimetazadine (TMZ), Kamila and her mother speculated that Kamila may have imbibed TMZ from drinking from the same glass or by consuming a strawberry dessert that grandfather made with a cutting board on which there were TMZ particles from his medication.  Media and the panel poured skepticism on this theory, especially when the grandfather declined to provide basic information or verification. It appears the stress of the situation may have resulted in Solovyov – who had previous heart attacks – not wanting to be further involved. The appellants and panel pounced on this. In the panel’s report there are 96 references to “grandfather”, 75 references to “dessert”, 43 references to “strawberry”, and 98 references to “Solovyov”. The panel effectively said they are skeptical of the “grandfather” explanation and that is all there is.

    In contrast, Valieva’s legal team put forward the “grandfather” contact as one of three possibilities. Another theory was that some food or permitted supplement that Valieva consumed was contaminated with TMZ. This happened to a Russian bobsledder at the 2018 Peyongchang Winter Olympics.

    The third theory was sabotage. This is the most likely cause of the positive doping test as I will show below.

    3.  The panel minimized what was most important: Valieva had no motive to take a banned substance.

    As shown at international events in October and November 2021, Kamila Valieva was at the peak of her profession. She was the best figure skater in the world. She was not only winning skate competitions, she was setting all time records.  She was training  6 hours per day under a very successful coach. She was well schooled in the dangers of anti doping violations. Since 2016 Russian athletes have been widely accused of being the worst violators of doping standards. Ugly and unproven accusations, such as from WADA’s Richard McLaren, have been widely broadcast. When Russian athletes are exonerated, it is ignored in the West.  The probability that Kamila Valieva would risk her reputation and career to intentionally take a banned medication prior to an event where she will certainly be tested is near zero.

    Adding to the unreality of this case, the medication Trimetazadine (TMZ) is of no value to a figure skater. It is for people with heart troubles, not young athletes. When it has been used by athletes, it is for endurance sports where heart palpitations may occur. As heart specialist Dr. Benjamin Levine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School said, “The chance that trimetazadine would improve her performance, in my opinion, is zero… The only chance would be for it to hurt her.”

    One of the  side effects of TMZ is dizziness, the worst thing for a figure skater.  The panel dismissed the significance by glibly saying, “It is enough to say that not all side effects manifest in all people.”

    Dr Levine noted that it is the legs, not the heart, that gets tired in figure skating. If one looks at Valieva’s performances, it is clear she in fine shape and not even breathing hard at the end of the performance. The trace amount of TMZ detected once in her system would have no effect at all. Dr. Levine notes that the US equivalent of trimetazadine,  ranolazine, is NOT prohibited.

    The legal challenge for Kamila Valieva’s team was to show that she did not intentionally take the banned substance. The CAS panel minimized the fact that Valieva had every reason and motive to NOT take a banned substance. Her dedication to the sport and talent is obvious. It should have been also obvious that this sole positive case for a trace amount of  TMZ is odd and suspicious.

    4.  The panel minimizes the problems and violations of the Swedish laboratory 

    According to International Standards for Laboratories,  “Reporting of “A” Sample results should occur in ADAMS within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Sample. The reporting time required for specific occasions  may be substantially less than twenty (20) days.”

    So the laboratory in Sweden took TWICE as long as it should have under normal circumstances.  But the circumstances were not normal. The European figure skating championship was in January and the Winter Olympics in February.

    Why was this failure ignored? Media has reported the delay was due to staffing shortages caused by Covid 19. However, the report describes a different reason for the extreme delay: there  were two incidents of  “unsatisfactory quality control” plus the need to find a “new confirmation method”. A Swedish scientist and chemical analysis expert gave his confidential assessment: “It is obvious that they were not prepared for the task and had even to develop a new procedure.” Despite the reporting failure and quality control issues at the Swedish laboratory, there was no criticism or comment by the panel or in the media.

    The report says there were “lengthy submissions in relation to the conduct of the Stockholm Laboratory in its analysis and reporting of the AAF” but they do not say more.

    5.  Valieva’s legitimate medications and supplements were distorted.

    WADA and ISU made much of the sixty medications and supplements that Valieva was authorized to take. Evidently this was a list of all the permissible medications that she COULD take if she or her doctor wished. As it was, she only took a few: There is nothing devious about these supplements. Many professional and amateur athletes use them. Here are the ones she was taking:

    Carnitine is naturally present in many foods—especially foods of animal origin—and is available as a dietary supplement…Carnitine plays a critical role in energy production.”

    Hypoxen provides a reduction in oxygen consumption with significant physical exertion, improved tissue respiration, a decrease in mental and physical fatigue, and the successful implementation of labor-intensive physical operations.”

    Supradyn is a brand name for a multivitamin and mineral supplement.”

    Ecdysterone is the main compound in spinach extract.”

    How and Why Kamila Valieva was Sabotaged

    Since 2014, the US and western allies have imposed sanctions, waged information war and treated Russia as an enemy. The US does not hide its animosity and goal to weaken Russia.  The  2019 Rand Report titled Overextending and Unbalancing  Russia is an example. Commissioned by the US Defense Department, the report discusses tactics and strategies to “weaken Russia”.

    The report recommends, “Undermining Russia’s image … diminishing Russian standing and influence …Western efforts to damage Russia’s international prestige can be effective if broadly implemented. Further sanctions, the removal of Russia from non-UN international forums, and boycotting of international events are largely within the power of Western states to unilaterally implement and would damage Russian prestige … the loss of international sporting events or access to key forums is likely to deepen concerns within Russia that the current regime might not be effectively pursuing policies that are returning Russia to glory.”

    International sports, with the Olympics being paramount, is an important part of a nation’s image abroad and at home. With its goal of “undermining Russia’s image”, the US establishment had a MOTIVE in preventing Russians from winning  at  the Olympics. Figure skating is one of the most widely watched Olympics events and a Russian sweep of the medals, with Valieva leading the way, would impress the viewing public and enhance Russia’s image. It is impossible to look at Valieva skating and not be impressed with her artistry and skill.

    At the end of October 2021, US secret services knew that Valieva was likely to win the figure skating gold.  Commentators at Ice Skate Canada International made that clear.  That may be when the decision was taken to sabotage Valieva.  All they had to do was insure she had one positive doping test. There are numerous ways they could have done this. They might have surveilled Kamila and her guardian grandfather for a couple weeks, learned when and where he went shopping, then sabotaged the fruit he purchased. Or perhaps they contaminated her lipstick or cosmetics with TMZ. Chemicals can enter the body through the skin. Her cosmetics are kept in a locked case, but how hard would it be for a trained CIA agent to unlock it? Cracking locks  is standard training. This is clearly within their MEANS. What is more likely, they could have replaced a legitimate pill with a lookalike pill  contaminated with TMZ. The CIA has their own chemical laboratory.

    As to the OPPORTUNITY, the Russian National Championships were a good occasion with less athlete security as mentioned by Valieva in the hearing. Or perhaps the agents entered her house in Moscow or St Petersburg hotel room when she was not there. With a small team of trained people, this would not be difficult. Based on the very low amount of TMZ in her sample from 25 December 2021, the swap may have occurred in Moscow before she left.

    Was it incompetence or worse at the Stockholm Lab?

    A remaining question is regarding the extraordinary delay in reporting the Adverse Analytic Finding (AAF) by the Swedish laboratory. Some experts have questioned why there is not a time limit. In this case, the finding was extremely late and test analysis involved multiple errors and a “new confirmation method”. Why was this allowed?

    The late report was hugely disruptive to the Beijing Olympics. Instead of being sorry, the Biden administration may have been pleased. They had already criticized the Olympics and were carrying out a diplomatic boycott.

    Senate leader Nancy Pelosi tried to get world leaders to support a boycott with the accusation that China was committing “genocide”.  Trying to derail the Olympics, another US official earlier suggested the Beijing Olympics should be “postponed”.

    Mission Accomplished

    The positive doping test for the Russian skater distracted from the other events at the Games, undercut the Russian figure skating team achievements, renewed allegations of excess doping in Russia and disrupted China’s first winter Olympics. For the US foreign policy establishment, in a cold war with both China and Russia, this was a victory.

    From the comfort of studios and sidelines, jingoistic athletes and commentators derided Kamila, assumed she was guilty, and said she should not be competing. Pretending to “defend” her, many critics accused Valieva’s coaches and doctors of “child abuse”. Like the athlete herself, Kamila’s coach and doctors had no reason to encourage a banned substance. They had very reason and motive to NOT allow that.

    Unfortunately, the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and some athletic federations have become part and parcel of  Western  hybrid warfare against “adversaries” Russia and China. WADA has expended enormous resources and efforts to ban top athletes from China and Russia. The International Skating Union  “welcomed”  the decision to ban 15 year old Kamila Valieva for four years. The top US men’s figure skater, Nathan Chen, said  that Valieva’s banning was a “win for clean sport.” On the contrary, it was a win for dirty politics, the politicization of sport and undermining the Olympic charter and its honorable ideals.

    The news had the desired effect of provoking hostility and Russophobia. It is a shame that so few announcers and athletes expressed any skepticism. They immediately assumed her guilt and condemned Valieva’s coach Eteri Tutberidze and doctors. This was done with crocodile tears of concern for “child abuse”.  When Valieva faltered under the immense pressure, announcer Christine Brennan fumed, “You could not help but see the results of the abuse of a child…. This is one of the greatest talents we have ever seen … Shame on Russia. Shame on those coaches for putting her in this position.”  Patrick McEnroe opined, “Russians – are you happy now? … An absolute disgrace.”

    Kamila had no idea why she tested positive for the banned substance because she was secretly sabotaged. How could she prove that she did not intentionally ingest the banned substance?   Arbitrators Drake and Mishkin came to their decision because of national and political bias.

    Only a Temporary Win

    On 8 February 2022, as Kamila’s positive test was stealing the show in Beijing, US President Joe Biden was in Germany.  With the tensions around Ukraine building, he threatened that if Russia intervened in Ukraine, “There will no longer be a Nordstream pipeline …. we will bring an end to it.” Around the same time, the Ukraine military and Azov militias escalated their attacks on the Donbas, perhaps preparing for a major attack. On 24 February Russia crossed the border and thus the Ukraine war began.  Supporting the belief that the US and West intentionally provoked and prolonged the war hoping to “weaken Russia”, the US and UK effectively stopped peace negotiations between Kiev and Moscow early in the conflict.

    The Ukraine war continues with horrendous loss of life. Russia seems to be slowly winning and the end is hopefully in sight.

    Kamila Valieva appears stronger than ever. She is no longer a girl, but a young woman skating in performances with tons of support. She is honored in Russia as the Olympic champion she is.

    Provoking the Ukraine war and sabotaging the best figure skater in the world can at best be temporary victories for the US and western elites.

    The post How the West Robbed and Abused the Best Figure Skater in the World While Provoking the War in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • It has been two years since Russia invaded Ukraine, sparking a brutal war in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians have died. With Ukraine running low on both weapons and new recruits, and with more U.S. funding stalled in Congress, we host a discussion on the future of the conflict with peace activist Medea Benjamin of CodePink and Oberlin professor Stephen Crowley…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Oleg Orlov, 70, tells court he has committed no crime and regrets nothing before being sentenced to two and a half years in prison

    One of Russia’s longest-serving and most respected human rights campaigners, Oleg Orlov, has been sentenced to two and a half years in jail for denouncing the war in Ukraine.

    Orlov, who is 70, has served for more than two decades as one of the leaders of the Memorial human rights organisation, which won a share of the Nobel peace prize in 2022 a year after being banned in Russia.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Parliamentary elections in Belarus are being viewed as a dress rehearsal for the presidential election that is scheduled to take place next year in which the country’s authoritarian leader, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, is expected to be the only viable candidate.

    Lukashenka’s pledge to run again — repeated on February 25 after he cast his ballot — was not seen as an off-the-cuff comment.

    “Tell them (the opposition) I’ll [run],” Lukashenka said in response to a question about the 2025 presidential election, according to BelTA, adding that there could be pressure from the opposition to hold elections sooner, but voters should not worry because the elections will be carried out “the way it is necessary for Belarus.”

    The expectation is that there will be no real opposition candidates in the race, and if there is an alternative to Lukashenka, it will be only a nominal one. Lukashenka has been in power since 1994, and under his rule, Belarus has become an increasingly repressive state, being called by some Western diplomats “Europe’s last dictatorship.”

    Election authorities in Belarus said earlier that all 110 mandates of the lower parliament chamber had been occupied following the tightly controlled parliamentary elections held on February 25, which were held under heavy securityamid calls for a boycott by the country’s beleaguered opposition.

    The Central Election Commission said that voter turnout was nearly 74 percent amid reports of people being intimidated into going to polling stations against their will.

    The vote was criticized by the U.S. State Department, which called it a “sham” election held amid a “climate of fear.”

    Only four parties, all of which support Lukashenka’s policies, were officially registered to compete in the polls — Belaya Rus, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Party of Labor and Justice. About a dozen parties were denied registration last year.

    The Crisis In Belarus

    Read our coverage as Belarusian strongman Alyaksandr Lukashenka continues his brutal crackdown on NGOs, activists, and independent media following the August 2020 presidential election.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who has claimed her victory over Lukashenka in the 2020 presidential election was stolen, described the elections as a “farce” and called for a boycott, saying the regime had only allowed “puppets” onto the ballot.

    Tsikhanouskaya on February 26 took part in a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, reminding the council that the situation in Belarus remains serious and that thousands of political prisoners suffer in prisons in inhumane conditions.

    The international community’s response to the crisis in Belarus and similar repressive regimes should be decisive and unwavering, she said, and any actions taken against these regimes should have a real impact on the ground.

    The general elections were the first to be held in Belarus since the 2020 presidential election, which handed Lukashenka a sixth term in office. More than 35,000 people were arrested in the monthslong mass protests that followed the controversial election.

    Ahead of the voting in parliamentary and local council elections, the country’s Central Election Commission announced a record amount of early voting, which began on February 20. Nearly 48 percent of registered voters had already voted by February 24, according to the commission, eclipsing the nearly 42 percent of early voting recorded for the contentious 2020 presidential election.

    Early voting is widely seen by observers as a mechanism employed by the Belarusian authorities to falsify elections. The Belarusian opposition has said the early voting process allows for voting manipulation, with ballot boxes unprotected for a five-day period.

    The Vyasna Human Rights Center alleged that many voters were forced to participate in early voting, including students, soldiers, teachers, and other civil servants.

    “Authorities are using all available means to ensure the result they need — from airing TV propaganda to forcing voters to cast ballots early,” said Vyasna representative Paval Sapelka. “Detentions, arrests and searches are taking place during the vote.”

    The Belarusian authorities stepped up security on the streets and at polling stations around the country, with Interior Ministry police conducting drills on how to deal with voters who might try to violate restrictive rules imposed for the elections.

    For the first time, curtains were removed from voting booths, and voters were barred from taking pictures of their ballots — a practice encouraged by activists in previous elections in an effort to prevent authorities from manipulating vote counts.

    Polling stations were guarded by police, along with members of a youth law enforcement organization and retired security personnel. Armed rapid-response teams were also formed to deal with potential disturbances.

    Lukashenka this week alleged without offering proof that Western countries were considering ways to stage a coup and ordered police to boost armed patrols across the country in order to ensure “law and order.”

    For the first time, election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) were denied access to monitor the vote in OSCE-member Belarus.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Polls have closed for Belarus’s tightly controlled parliamentary elections, which were held under heavy security at polling stations and amid calls for a boycott by the country’s beleaguered opposition.

    The February 25 elections were widely expected to solidify the position of the country’s authoritarian leader, Alyaksandr Lukashenka. Only four parties, all of which support Lukashenka’s policies, were officially registered to compete in the polls — Belaya Rus, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Party of Labor and Justice. About a dozen parties were denied registration last year.

    Polls opened for the general elections at 8 a.m. local time and closed at 8 p.m.

    According to the Central Election Commission, as of 6 p.m., voter turnout was 70.3 percent.

    Results are expected to be announced on February 26, the commission said.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who has claimed her victory over Lukashenka in the 2020 presidential election was stolen, described the elections as a “farce” and called for a boycott.

    “There are no people on the ballot who would offer real changes because the regime only has allowed puppets convenient for it to take part,” Tsikhanouskaya said in a video statement from her exile in Lithuania, where she moved following a brutal crackdown on protests against the 2020 election results. “We are calling to boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    In a separate message posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Tsikhanouskaya said on February 25 that her video address to the Belarusian people about the elections and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had been displayed on 2,000 screens in public spaces throughout Belarus. The action, she said, was organized by a coalition of former police and security forces officers.

    The U.S. State Department blasted what it called a “sham” election, held amid a “climate of fear.”

    “The United States condemns the Lukashenka regime’s sham parliamentary and local elections that concluded today in Belarus,” it said in a statement.

    “The elections were held in a climate of fear under which no electoral processes could be called democratic. The regime continues to hold more than 1,400 political prisoners. All independent political figures have either been detained or exiled. All independent political parties were denied registration.”

    “The Belarusian people deserve better,” it said.

    The general elections were the first to be held in Belarus since the 2020 presidential election, which handed Lukashenka a sixth term in office. More than 35,000 people were arrested in the monthslong mass protests that followed the controversial election.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to "boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice."
    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to “boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    On the occasion, Lukashenka told journalists after voting that he plans to run again for president in 2025.

    “Tell them (the exiled opposition) that I’ll run,” the state news agency BelTa quoted Lukashenka as saying.

    Ahead of the voting in parliamentary and local council elections, the country’s Central Election Commission (CEC) announced a record amount of early voting, which began on February 20. Nearly 48 percent of registered voters had already voted by February 24, according to the CEC, eclipsing the nearly 42 percent of early voting recorded for the contentious 2020 presidential election.

    Early voting is widely seen by observers as a mechanism employed by the Belarusian authorities to falsify elections. The Belarusian opposition has said the early voting process allows for voting manipulation, with ballot boxes unprotected for a five-day period.

    The Vyasna Human Rights Center alleged that many voters were forced to participate in early voting, including students, soldiers, teachers, and other civil servants.

    “Authorities are using all available means to ensure the result they need — from airing TV propaganda to forcing voters to cast ballots early,” said Vyasna representative Pavel Sapelka. “Detentions, arrests, and searches are taking place during the vote.”

    The Belarusian authorities stepped up security on the streets and at polling stations around the country, with Interior Ministry police conducting drills on how to deal with voters who might try to violate restrictive rules imposed for the elections.

    For the first time, curtains were removed from voting booths, and voters were barred from taking pictures of their ballots — a practice encouraged by activists in previous elections in an effort to prevent authorities from manipulating vote counts.

    Polling stations were guarded by police, along with members of a youth law-enforcement organization and retired security personnel. Armed rapid-response teams were also formed to deal with potential disturbances.

    Lukashenka this week alleged without offering proof that Western countries were considering ways to stage a coup and ordered police to boost armed patrols across the country in order to ensure “law and order.”

    For the first time, election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were denied access to monitor the vote in OSCE-member Belarus.

    In the run-up to the vote, rights organizations uncovered violations pertaining to how local election committees were formed. An expert mission organized by the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and Viasna said in late January that the lower number of local election committees and their compositions could indicate higher control by the authorities over the election process and an effort to stack the committees with government loyalists.

    Following the vote, Belarus is expected to form a new, 1,200-seat All-Belarus Popular Assembly that will have broad powers to appoint judges and election officials and to consider amendments to the constitution. The new body will include elected local legislators, as well as top officials, union members, and pro-government activists.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Two years of fighting after Russia’s brutal 2022 invasion of Ukraine has the world asking what peace between the two nations can possibly look like and what is the possible path to end a war that has left a nation shredded and hundreds of thousands dead. Calling the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine a violation of the UN Charter and international law, UN Secretary-General António Guterres on…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Polls have closed for Belarus’s tightly controlled parliamentary elections, which were held under heavy security at polling stations and amid calls for a boycott by the country’s beleaguered opposition.

    The February 25 elections were widely expected to solidify the position of the country’s authoritarian leader, Alyaksandr Lukashenka. Only four parties, all of which support Lukashenka’s policies, were officially registered to compete in the polls — Belaya Rus, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Party of Labor and Justice. About a dozen parties were denied registration last year.

    Polls opened for the general elections at 8 a.m. local time and closed at 8 p.m.

    According to the Central Election Commission, as of 6 p.m., voter turnout was 70.3 percent.

    Results are expected to be announced on February 26, the commission said.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who has claimed her victory over Lukashenka in the 2020 presidential election was stolen, described the elections as a “farce” and called for a boycott.

    “There are no people on the ballot who would offer real changes because the regime only has allowed puppets convenient for it to take part,” Tsikhanouskaya said in a video statement from her exile in Lithuania, where she moved following a brutal crackdown on protests against the 2020 election results. “We are calling to boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    In a separate message posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Tsikhanouskaya said on February 25 that her video address to the Belarusian people about the elections and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had been displayed on 2,000 screens in public spaces throughout Belarus. The action, she said, was organized by a coalition of former police and security forces officers.

    The U.S. State Department blasted what it called a “sham” election, held amid a “climate of fear.”

    “The United States condemns the Lukashenka regime’s sham parliamentary and local elections that concluded today in Belarus,” it said in a statement.

    “The elections were held in a climate of fear under which no electoral processes could be called democratic. The regime continues to hold more than 1,400 political prisoners. All independent political figures have either been detained or exiled. All independent political parties were denied registration.”

    “The Belarusian people deserve better,” it said.

    The general elections were the first to be held in Belarus since the 2020 presidential election, which handed Lukashenka a sixth term in office. More than 35,000 people were arrested in the monthslong mass protests that followed the controversial election.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to "boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice."
    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to “boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    On the occasion, Lukashenka told journalists after voting that he plans to run again for president in 2025.

    “Tell them (the exiled opposition) that I’ll run,” the state news agency BelTa quoted Lukashenka as saying.

    Ahead of the voting in parliamentary and local council elections, the country’s Central Election Commission (CEC) announced a record amount of early voting, which began on February 20. Nearly 48 percent of registered voters had already voted by February 24, according to the CEC, eclipsing the nearly 42 percent of early voting recorded for the contentious 2020 presidential election.

    Early voting is widely seen by observers as a mechanism employed by the Belarusian authorities to falsify elections. The Belarusian opposition has said the early voting process allows for voting manipulation, with ballot boxes unprotected for a five-day period.

    The Vyasna Human Rights Center alleged that many voters were forced to participate in early voting, including students, soldiers, teachers, and other civil servants.

    “Authorities are using all available means to ensure the result they need — from airing TV propaganda to forcing voters to cast ballots early,” said Vyasna representative Pavel Sapelka. “Detentions, arrests, and searches are taking place during the vote.”

    The Belarusian authorities stepped up security on the streets and at polling stations around the country, with Interior Ministry police conducting drills on how to deal with voters who might try to violate restrictive rules imposed for the elections.

    For the first time, curtains were removed from voting booths, and voters were barred from taking pictures of their ballots — a practice encouraged by activists in previous elections in an effort to prevent authorities from manipulating vote counts.

    Polling stations were guarded by police, along with members of a youth law-enforcement organization and retired security personnel. Armed rapid-response teams were also formed to deal with potential disturbances.

    Lukashenka this week alleged without offering proof that Western countries were considering ways to stage a coup and ordered police to boost armed patrols across the country in order to ensure “law and order.”

    For the first time, election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were denied access to monitor the vote in OSCE-member Belarus.

    In the run-up to the vote, rights organizations uncovered violations pertaining to how local election committees were formed. An expert mission organized by the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and Viasna said in late January that the lower number of local election committees and their compositions could indicate higher control by the authorities over the election process and an effort to stack the committees with government loyalists.

    Following the vote, Belarus is expected to form a new, 1,200-seat All-Belarus Popular Assembly that will have broad powers to appoint judges and election officials and to consider amendments to the constitution. The new body will include elected local legislators, as well as top officials, union members, and pro-government activists.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.