Tag: Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Small nation or not, Iceland wants to help Ukraine defend Europe, too

Post By World , , , , ,

By David Kirichenko, Freelance journalist, Editor at Euromaidan Press

Although one of Europe’s smallest countries and far from Ukraine, Iceland has made extensive efforts to help in Kyiv’s fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion, David Kirichenko writes.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the Icelandic Parliament on 6 May 2022, only a few months after Russia’s full-scale invasion, he began his speech by greeting them in Icelandic, saying, “Hello, this is Volodymyr from Kyiv.”

Highlighting the ancient ties between Iceland and Ukraine, tracing back to Scandinavian settlers who arrived in Ukraine in the 8th century, he highlighted that “the size of a country is of no importance when fighting for democracy.”

The Ukrainian president’s words were not just empty phrases meant to get another ally on board. 

In fact, they couldn’t be more honest and true: as one of Europe’s smallest countries and most distant from Ukraine, Iceland has made extensive efforts to help in Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country and to protect Europe. 

Iceland is no stranger to conflict, and Reykjavik is painfully aware of the threat posed to it due to its strategic location and to Nordic countries as global superpowers like Russia gradually start shifting more resources towards the race for control of the Arctic.

Rushing to Ukraine’s aid from the other end of the continent, the island nation of just 350,000 inhabitants has done more than other much larger and more powerful European nations.

And yet, so little remains known about Reykjavik’s commitment. 

Reykjavik opts for sanctions despite significant consequences

Iceland’s steady support for Ukraine against Russian aggression is rooted in a longstanding pledge to uphold democracy and international law. 

That is why, when Russia first invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014, Iceland did not hesitate to impose economic sanctions on Moscow, despite potential consequences on its economy heavily reliant on fishing. 

This decision, however, came at a cost for Iceland’s fishermen, as Russia retaliated by banning food imports from the island nation.

Even in the face of potential financial consequences, Iceland’s foreign minister at the time, Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson, boldly affirmed during his 2014 visit to Kyiv that the country’s support for Ukraine was unwavering. And it has stood the test of time. 

The impact of these sanctions on Iceland has been particularly challenging, as seafood exports constitute a vital component of the national economy, and Russia represents a significant market for these exports. 

Nonetheless, Iceland has remained resolute in its stance.

The only NATO member without an army

Despite its lack of a military force, Iceland places tremendous value on its membership in NATO, recognising the pivotal role it plays in safeguarding shared values and upholding a rule-based international order.

Iceland is also Europe’s least densely populated country, holding the unique distinction of being the sole NATO member without a standing army. 

In fact, it hasn’t had a military ever since it was disbanded in 1869, opting for a small coast guard with four vessels and four aircraft in total. 

Despite its size, Iceland played a monumental strategic role during the Cold War, as it allowed NATO allies to station troops on its island and offered its support to assist the organisation in the past.

Even in the post-Berlin Wall era, Iceland’s role as a guardian of crucial waterways continues to position it as a valuable ally, despite its absence of military forces.

A show of remarkable solidarity, practical and symbolic

Although directly providing weapons to Ukraine is not feasible, Iceland has contributed by aiding allied nations in the transportation of essential equipment to destinations like Poland.

While Iceland has a non-weapon sales policy, it has helped acquire 10 oil transporting trucks for the Ukrainian army. 

The Icelandic government, recognising the paramount importance of oil transportation in bolstering the defence capabilities and manoeuvrability of the Ukrainian military against the backdrop of Russian invasion forces, sanctioned this purchase.

In addition to these vital vehicles, Iceland has extended further support to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which included the provision of 12,000 pieces of winter clothing. 

The country has also already donated three field hospitals to Ukraine, and an additional three are being requested to help treat injured Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Each field hospital costs about €7.9 million.

On top of that, Iceland has extended remarkable solidarity to Ukraine by not only offering diplomatic and financial backing but also by taking nearly 3,000 Ukrainian refugees while donating close to €500,000 to support the revitalisation of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

Beyond their generous financial aid, Reykjavik has taken substantial symbolic measures to show its support for Ukraine’s cause.

Icelandic lawmakers officially acknowledged the Holodomor, commonly referred to as the “death by hunger,” a famine that occurred between 1932 and 1933 as a result of Soviet government policies in Ukraine that saw millions of Ukrainians starving to death.

On the diplomatic front, Iceland has opted to close its embassy in Moscow. Russia’s Foreign Ministry claimed Iceland destroyed bilateral cooperation and stated that any actions taken by Reykjavik that are perceived as anti-Russian in nature will undoubtedly trigger a corresponding reaction.

Safeguarding the continent despite Moscow’s sabre-rattling

In today’s context, a parallel scenario is unfolding amidst the tense Arctic Ocean, evoking memories of the Cold War era. 

As a result, the Kremlin’s aggressive behaviour continues to underscore Iceland’s strong support for Ukraine. 

In 2014, Russia established the “OSK Sever,” a Unified Strategic Command, in a bid to fortify security along its vast Arctic borders and safeguard its interests in the region. 

In recent years, the Russian air force has exhibited heightened activity across northern Europe. The Kremlin’s sabre-rattling is, in fact, growing.

While the trajectory of the Arctic is inclined toward potential conflicts, Iceland is increasingly recognising the importance of safeguarding the European continent from the encroachment of an expansionist Moscow. 

And despite the threats, the island nation continues to truly demonstrate that no country is too small to contribute to the collective European defence in Ukraine.

David Kirichenko is a freelance journalist covering Eastern Europe and an editor at Euromaidan Press.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Small #nation #Iceland #Ukraine #defend #Europe

Explained | What is NATO’s stand on Ukraine’s entry?

Post By World , , , , , , , , ,

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy attends a NATO leaders summit in Vilnius, Lithuania on July 12, 2023.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The story so far: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) sought to put up a united face at its two-day summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on July 11-12, at a time when it’s deeply involved in the Russia-Ukraine war. Right before the summit opened, Turkey, the second largest military force of NATO after the U.S., lifted its opposition to the accession of Sweden to the alliance. The summit also approved new spending goals for member countries and offered to provide long-term support to Ukraine. Yet, the one issue that overshadowed the Vilnius summit was Ukraine’s promised membership in the alliance on which there was no clarity or time frame.

What did Ukraine achieve from the summit?

In the Bucharest summit of 2008, NATO had offered eventual membership to Ukraine and Georgia, two Black Sea basin countries that share land borders with Russia. The alliance said then that both countries “will become members of NATO”. Fifteen years later, ahead of the Vilnius summit, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy demanded a more concrete commitment from NATO for his country’s membership. But the Vilnius communique stated, “We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the alliance when allies agree and conditions are met”. So, Ukraine hasn’t gained much over the past 15 years in its push for NATO membership. But in 2008 when the membership was offered, several countries, including France and Germany, were opposed to Ukraine joining the alliance out of fears that such a move would poke the Russian bear. But now, in the midst of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, more member countries agree to the idea of Ukraine joining NATO, which is a marked change. Ukraine would continue its cooperation with NATO through the Ukraine-NATO Council. The Group of Seven (G-7) advanced industrialised economies have pledged to support Ukraine’s defence base, which has been battered by the war, by providing military training and institutional support for attaining NATO membership. Ahead of the summit, France agreed to send its SCALP long-range missiles to Ukraine; Germany announced a new military aid package and other NATO members would be providing combat aircraft training. Ukraine may not have got a time frame on membership, but it has got assurances on military supplies from NATO members.

Why is Ukraine still not a part of NATO?

According to Jake Sullivan, the U.S. National Security Adviser, admitting Ukraine now “would have meant NATO is at war with Russia”. The reason is NATO’s “collective security” formula, rooted in its Article 5. The Article states that, “The Parties [members] agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking… such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…” As collective security is at the heart of NATO, if Ukraine is admitted now, the Ukraine war by default becomes NATO’s war— in other words, the third World War. NATO, and particularly the U.S., does not want to take that risk. The position they have taken is to keep arming Ukraine, which suffered huge losses in the past 16 months of the war, and letting them continue to fight the Russians inside Ukrainian territories. NATO wants to defeat or weaken Russia in Ukraine without directly committing itself to the war. This has left Mr. Zelenskyy disappointed as he wanted firmer commitments from NATO on membership and a time frame.

How NATO has expanded over the years?

When the alliance was formed in 1949, it had 12 members from Europe and North America. Since then 19 more countries have joined the alliance through nine rounds of expansions. In the Soviet Union’s dying years, the U.S. and the U.K. had promised Russia that the alliance would not expand east (towards Russia’s borders) “by an inch”. But in 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, all former Soviet allies, joined NATO. In 2004, seven more East European countries joined the alliance, including the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all sharing borders with Russia. NATO expanded further in 2009, 2017, 2020 and 2023, taking in countries including Croatia, Montenegro and Finland. Sweden is set to be its 32nd member.

What is Russia’s response?

In 2008, when Ukraine and Georgia were offered membership in the Bucharest summit, Vladimir Putin was there as an invitee. He called it a “direct threat” to Russia. Boris Yeltsin, Mr. Putin’s predecessor, had warned against NATO’s expansion towards the east in the 1990s. The Russian state has taken a consistent position over the years that NATO expansions pose a security threat. Four months after the Bucharest summit, Russia sent troops to Georgia to support two breakaway regions — South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Six years later, when a pro-Russian elected government of Ukraine was toppled by West-backed protesters, Russia moved swiftly to annex Crimea, the peninsula which hosted Russia’s Black Sea fleet from the time of Catherine the Great. Russia also supported the Russian-speaking rebels in Ukraine’s Donbas region, which escalated into a full-scale war in 2022. NATO wants to take Ukraine into the alliance, but won’t do so now. The flip side is that the Russians might continue fighting the war — unless, of course, they are defeated — to prevent Ukraine being accessed into NATO, as Kyiv’s NATO membership remains a red line for Moscow.

  • The NATO summit in Lithuania approved new spending goals for member countries and offered to provide long-term support to Ukraine. Yet, the one issue that overshadowed the Vilnius summit was Ukraine’s promised membership in the alliance on which there was no clarity or time frame.
  • As collective security is at the heart of NATO, if Ukraine is admitted now, the Ukraine war by default becomes NATO’s war— in other words, the third World War. NATO, and particularly the U.S., does not want to take that risk.
  • NATO wants to defeat or weaken Russia in Ukraine without directly committing itself to the war. This has left Ukrainian President Zelenskyy disappointed as he wanted firmer commitments from NATO on membership and a time frame.

Source link

#Explained #NATOs #stand #Ukraines #entry

How Ukraine lost its battle for a NATO membership commitment

Post By Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

VILNIUS — Ukraine wanted this year’s NATO summit to end with a clear declaration that it will become an alliance member once the war ends, but President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is leaving Lithuania without that ultimate prize.

For weeks, Ukrainian officials pushed their counterparts in the United States and Europe to draft language that offered a timeline and clear path toward membership. The communiqué allies released Tuesday fell short of that, stating instead that “we will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine when allies agree and conditions are met.”

That line proved a deep disappointment for Kyiv, which raged behind the scenes as the U.S. and Germany resisted pressure to offer Ukraine concrete pledges. It was particularly upset at the vague reference to conditions, seeing it as a potential arbitrary roadblock to membership.

Ukraine’s leadership reached out to Washington and Berlin to make its displeasure felt, ending in Zelenskyy firing off an irritated tweet on Tuesday referring to the confidential draft text as “unprecedented and absurd.”

“It seems there is no readiness neither to invite Ukraine to NATO nor to make it a member of the Alliance,” the president fumed to his 7.3 million followers. 

The battle over the communiqué left Kyiv unhappy with the process. 

Ukrainians were “disappointed with how NATO works” and felt there was “no real dialogue” with the alliance on the issue, said a Ukrainian official familiar with the negotiations. 

Ukraine’s backers, to the tune of billions in military and economic assistance, were blindsided by Zelenskyy’s anger. 

Even some of Kyiv’s closest friends within NATO were taken aback, seeing the blunt social media criticism from Ukraine’s president as unhelpful and unwarranted during the sensitive diplomatic negotiations. 

“We take the tweet as an unfortunate expression of frustration,” said a senior diplomat from Northern Europe.

The tweet, coming just as NATO leaders were preparing to meet in Vilnius, added more tension to diplomats’ last-minute efforts to finalize the contentious text, which was ultimately published on Tuesday evening. 

“We saw his tweet same time as everyone else did,” said a senior Biden administration official. “I think everyone understands the pressure he is feeling, and we’re confident that the commitments made at Vilnius will serve the long-term defense needs of Ukraine.”

Backing off

But by Wednesday, everyone was making an effort to tone down emotions. 

Officials highlighted the package NATO leaders agreed for Ukraine, which includes a multiyear program to help forces transition to Western standards and the creation of a new NATO-Ukraine Council, along with a decision to drop the need for a so-called Membership Action Plan (MAP) — a path of reforms ahead of joining.  

And in a gesture intended to underline Western governments’ backing for the Ukrainian cause, G7 leaders issued a declaration on Wednesday afternoon on long-term security commitments for Ukraine. That will see governments making bilateral deals to provide security assistance, training and other support. 

“I believe the package for Ukraine is good and a solid basis for a closer relationship on the path to membership,” said the senior diplomat from Northern Europe. 

An angry Kremlin said of the G7 action: “We believe that it’s a mistake and it can be very dangerous.”

In the end, the specter of Russia’s aggression proved to be a unifying force.

“The tweet did not change anything in that sense,” the senior diplomat said, adding that the G7 declaration was “also positive and many allies already said they will join” and that “the mood today was very warm and friendly.”

French officials, meanwhile, were keen to showcase understanding and empathy for the Ukrainian leader. 

“He’s in his role as head of a state at war and war chief. He’s putting pressure on the allies,” French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu told French TV on Tuesday. 

“You have to put yourself in his shoes, there was a commitment in Bucharest, and we know what happened next,” he added, referring to a NATO summit in 2008 when the military alliance made vague promises Ukraine would eventually become a member. 

For French President Emmanuel Macron, the Vilnius summit was a key moment to show unwavering support for Kyiv — after months of being perceived by Central and Eastern European leaders as being too conciliatory to Moscow. 

“It’s legitimate for the Ukrainian president to be demanding with us,” Macron told reporters on Wednesday. 

Bygones

On the Ukrainian side, there was also an acknowledgment that Wednesday’s talks brightened the mood. 

“The meetings with the NATO leaders were really good,” said the Ukrainian official. The country “got the clear signals that our membership in NATO will not be a bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia … this was the main fear.”

“So, despite the lack of clarity in the text of declaration on Ukraine’s membership path, the meetings showed that there is the commitment to deepen the relations,” the official said. But, they noted: “Of course, it’s not the same as clear fixed commitment in the joint declaration.” 

Zelenskyy himself, who was in Vilnius to attend the first meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council, also took a more positive tone in press appearances, expressing his thanks for the decision to drop the MAP requirement, gratitude for allies and praising the G7 commitments. 

“I haven’t changed my point of view,” he insisted when probed about the difference in tone from the previous day.

“What’s most important is that we have a common understanding on the conditions on when and under which conditions Ukraine would be in NATO — maybe not all the details were communicated, but for me it was very important that it depends on the security.”

And asked about fears in Kyiv that NATO membership could end up as a chip in future negotiations with Russia, he was firm that this would not be acceptable. 

“I’m sure that there won’t be betrayal from [U.S. President Joe] Biden or [German Chancellor Olaf] Scholz,” Zelenskyy said, “but still I need to say that we will never exchange any status for any of our territories — even if it’s only one village with the population of one old man.”

Speaking to a crowd in Vilnius on Wednesday evening, Biden stressed that the West is there for Kyiv. 

“We will not waver. I mean that. Our commitment to Ukraine will not weaken,” Biden said.

And as the summit wrapped up, many officials were quick to try to put the tensions behind them. 

“I consider this episode closed,” said a senior diplomat from Eastern Europe. “It is more important to look forward. We have a process in front of us. Let’s work on it!” 

“It’s all ended well,” quipped a senior NATO official, adding: “that will do for me” 

Laura Kayali and Alex Ward contributed reporting.



Source link

#Ukraine #lost #battle #NATO #membership #commitment

NATO chief says no timetable set for Ukraine’s membership; Zelenskyy calls that ‘absurd’

Post By World , , ,

NATO leaders said July 11 that they would allow Ukraine to join the alliance “when allies agree and conditions are met,” hours after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy blasted the organization’s failure to set a timetable for his country as “absurd.”

“We reaffirmed Ukraine will become a member of NATO and agreed to remove the requirement for a membership action plan,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters, referring to a key step in joining the alliance.

“This will change Ukraine’s membership path from a two-step path to a one-step path,” he said.

Although many NATO members have funneled arms and ammunition to Zelenskyy’s forces, there is no consensus among the 31 allies for admitting Ukraine into NATO’s ranks. Instead, alliance leaders decided to remove obstacles on Ukraine’s membership path so that it can join more quickly once the war with Russia is over.

Zelenskyy pushed back sharply against the decision.

“It’s unprecedented and absurd when a time frame is set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership,” Zelenskyy tweeted as he headed to the annual NATO summit in Vilnius. “While at the same time, vague wording about ‘conditions’ is added even for inviting Ukraine. It seems there is no readiness to invite Ukraine to NATO or to make it a member of the Alliance.”

NATO membership would afford Ukraine protection against a giant neighbor that annexed its Crimean Peninsula almost a decade ago and more recently seized vast swaths of land in the east and south. Joining NATO would also oblige Kyiv to reform its security institutions, improve governance and curb corruption — work that would also ease the country’s path into the European Union.

Asked about Zelenskyy’s concerns, Stoltenberg said the most important thing now is to ensure that his country wins the war, because “unless Ukraine prevails there is no membership to be discussed at all.”

The broadside from Zelenskyy could renew tensions at the summit shortly after it saw a burst of goodwill following an agreement by Turkey to advance Sweden’s bid to join NATO. Allies hope to resolve the seesawing negotiations and create a clear plan for the alliance and its support for Ukraine.

“We value our allies,” Zelenskyy wrote on Twitter, adding that “Ukraine also deserves respect.” He also said: “Uncertainty is weakness. And I will openly discuss this at the summit.”

Zelenskyy is expected to meet Wednesday with U.S. President Joe Biden and other NATO leaders.

There have been sharp divisions within the alliance over Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which was promised back in 2008 even though few steps were taken toward that goal.

In addition, the Baltic states — including Lithuania, which is hosting the summit — have pushed for a strong show of support and a clear pathway toward membership for Ukraine.

However, the United States and Germany urged caution. Biden said last week that Ukraine was not ready to join. Members of NATO, he told CNN, need to “meet all the qualifications, from democratization to a whole range of other issues,” a nod toward longstanding concerns about governance and corruption in Kyiv.

In addition, some fear that bringing Ukraine into NATO would serve more as a provocation to Russia than as a deterrence against aggression.

Concretely, NATO leaders decided to launch a series of multiyear programs to bring Ukraine’s Soviet-era military equipment and doctrines up to modern standards so the country can operate fully with the alliance.

On Wednesday, the leaders and Zelenskyy are set to launch a new, upgraded forum for their cooperation: a NATO-Ukraine Council, where all parties can convene crisis talks if their security is threateed.

To fast-track its future membership, the leaders agreed to do away with a membership action plan for Ukraine, a program often seen as mandatory for aspiring nations to undertake.

Known in NATO parlance as a MAP, the action plan involves a tailor-made package of advice, assistance and practical support for countries preparing to join NATO. Bosnia, for example, is currently taking part in one.

Pressed by reporters to say what kind of conditions are being placed on Ukraine joining, Stoltenberg said: “We want modern defense and security institutions.

He also said Kyiv’s hopes might hinge on strengthening its governance standards and fighting corruption.

The dispute over Ukraine stands in contrast to a hard-fought agreement to advance Sweden’s membership. The deal was reached after days of intensive meetings, and it’s poised to expand the alliance’s strength in Northern Europe.

“Rumors of the death of NATO’s unity were greatly exaggerated,” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters triumphantly on Tuesday.

According to a joint statement issued when the deal was announced, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will ask Turkey’s parliament to approve Sweden joining NATO.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, another holdout, is expected to take a similar step. Hungary’s foreign minister said Tuesday that his country’s ratification of Sweden’s NATO membership was now just a “technical matter.” Erdogan has not yet commented publicly.

The outcome is a victory as well for Biden, who has touted NATO’s expansion as an example of how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has backfired on Moscow.

Finland has already become the 31st member of the alliance, and Sweden is on deck to become the 32nd. Both Nordic countries were historically nonaligned until the war increased fears of Russian aggression.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that NATO’s expansion is “one of the reasons that led to the current situation.”

“It looks like the Europeans don’t understand their mistake,” Peskov said. He warned against putting Ukraine on a fast track for NATO membership.

“Potentially it’s very dangerous for the European security. It carries very big risks,” Peskov said.

Erdogan met with Biden on Tuesday evening but remained mum on the deal to advance Sweden’s membership in NATO.

Although Biden made a reference to “the agreement you reached yesterday,” Erdogan said nothing about it. It was a conspicuous omission from Erdogan, who has not commented on the issue publicly during the summit.

However, Erdogan appeared eager to develop his relationship with Biden. He said previous meetings were “mere warm-ups, but now we are initiating a new process.”

The Turkish president has been seeking advanced American fighter jets and a path toward membership in the European Union. The White House has expressed support for both, but publicly insisted that the issues were not related to Sweden’s membership in NATO.

The Biden administration has backed Turkey’s desire to buy 40 new F-16s as well as modernization kits from the U.S.

Biden is on a five-day trip to Europe, with the NATO summit as its centerpiece.

The president spent Monday in the United Kingdom, meeting at Windsor Castle with King Charles III and in London with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

He met Tuesday with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda, emphasizing his commitment to transatlantic cooperation, before he joined the NATO gathering.

“Nothing happens here that doesn’t affect us,” Biden told Nauseda. The White House said Nauseda presented Biden with the Order of Vytautas the Great, the highest award a Lithuanian president can bestow. Biden is the first U.S. president to receive it.

After the summit ends Wednesday, Biden will travel to Helsinki. On Thursday, he will celebrate Finland’s recent entry into NATO and meet with Nordic leaders.

Source link

#NATO #chief #timetable #set #Ukraines #membership #Zelenskyy #calls #absurd

Putin’s meeting with Wagner boss, as Russia strikes aid centre

Post By World , ,

All the latest developments from the war in Ukraine.

Ukrainian counteroffensive showing drive – Zelenskyy

Ukrainian troops have “taken the initiative” in their counteroffensive into Russian-occupied territory, Ukraine’s president said on Sunday. 

“All of us, we want to do it faster because every day means new losses of Ukrainians. We are advancing. We are not stuck,” said Volodymyr Zelenskyy during an interview on the US’s ABC news network. 

He noted Ukraine’s military had overcome a “kind of stagnation” in previous months.

“We would all love to see the counteroffensive accomplished in a shorter period of time. But there is a reality. Today, the initiative is on our side.”

Meanwhile, Moscow has said there is heavy fighting around the eastern city of Bakhmut, captured by Russian mercenary Wagner forces in May after months of gruelling warfare.  

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov said one of his units was deployed in the area.

Furnished with advanced Western weapons and training, Ukraine launched its much-anticipated counteroffensive in June, aimed at capturing a cluster of villages in the southwest and retaking areas around Bakhmut.

Ukrainian forces have encountered stubborn Russian resistance. 

Wagner boss met Putin after abortive mutiny, says Kremlin

Russia’s president met Yevgeny Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner mercenary group, following his armed rebellion at the end of June, according to the Kremlin. 

The meeting lasted “almost three hours”, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday, adding it involved “all commanders and leaders” of Wagner.

Putin “listened to the explanations of [Wagner’s] commanders and offered them alternatives for their future work and their use for military purposes”, added Peskov. 

“The commanders gave their version of the facts. They stressed that they were convinced supporters and soldiers of the head of state [Putin]… and affirmed they were ready to continue to fight for the homeland,” he continued.

Wagner’s rebellion on 24 June shook the Kremlin. 

For several hours, its fighters occupied a Russian army HQ in Rostov-on-Don and marched on Moscow. 

The mutiny ended on that evening with an agreement with Prigozhin reportedly exiled to Belarus, but his exact whereabouts have since been unknown. 

He has not spoken publicly since June 26.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said last Thursday that Prigozhin was still “free” in Russia, despite the deal that secured him an amnesty for rebelling. 

Prigozhin claims his uprising was not to take power, but to save Wagner from being dismantled by the Russian army, which he has long slammed for incompetence in the conflict in Ukraine.

More cluster bomb concerns

President Joe Biden’s controversial decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine has been criticised by two US Democrats, Senator Tim Kaine and Representative Barbara Lee.

Washington announced on Friday it would supply Kyiv with the widely banned munitions as part of a new €730 million aid package. 

The move was widely condemned by rights groups, while the US’s NATO allies distanced themselves from it. 

“Cluster bombs should never be used,” said Representative Lee to the CNN new channel on Sunday. “That’s crossing a line.” 

She added the US risked losing its “moral leadership” by sending cluster bombs to Ukraine.

Cluster bombs are prohibited by more than 100 countries by the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans their production, stockpiling, use and transfer.

Russia, Ukraine and the United States have not signed the agreement. 

Cluster bombs are notorious for maiming and killing civilians years after a conflict, often spreading over a large area and lying dormant until they come into contact with people.

Jake Sullivan, White House national security adviser, told reporters on Sunday that Ukraine has given written assurances it would not use cluster bombs in Russia or in populated areas.

Supporters of the US move say cluster munitions are an attractive option because they would help Ukraine destroy more targets with fewer rounds.

50,000 Russians dead in war: Estimate

Nearly 50,000 Russian men have died in the war in Ukraine, according to the first independent statistical analysis of Russia’s war dead.

Two independent Russian media outlets, Mediazona and Meduza, working with a data scientist from Germany’s Tübingen University, used Russian government data to shed light on the true human cost of its invasion of Ukraine.

They used a statistical concept popularised during the COVID-19 pandemic called excess mortality. Drawing on inheritance records and official mortality data, they estimated how many more men under age 50 died between February 2022 and May 2023 than normal.

Neither Moscow nor Kyiv gives timely data on military losses. Russia has publicly acknowledged the deaths of just over 6,000 soldiers. 

In February, the UK’s Ministry of Defense said approximately 40,000 to 60,000 Russians had likely been killed in the war. 

Euronews cannot independently verify these figures. 

Russia bombs aid centre, killing civilians

Four people have been killed in a Russian bombardment on a humanitarian aid distribution centre in Orikhiv, central Ukraine, a local official announced on Monday. 

Women aged 43, 45 and 47, and a 47-year-old man were killed on the spot, said regional governor Governor Yuri Malachko, calling the strike a “war crime”. 

The strike took place on Sunday at 1.20pm local time, injuring 13 others. 

Civilians were targeted at a time when they were receiving humanitarian aid, according to the Ukrainian Interior Ministry. 

The ministry added that nearby residential buildings and civilian infrastructure were also damaged, with footage of the strike’s aftermath showing a completely destroyed two-storey building. 

Orikhiv, a city of around 14,000 before the war, is located in the Zaporizhia region. It is one of four Ukrainian territories Russia annexed in 2022 even though its army does not fully control them.

The city is close to the front line, where Ukrainian forces have been trying since early June to retake heavily fortified positions from Russian forces.

Source link

#Putins #meeting #Wagner #boss #Russia #strikes #aid #centre

Fear of Ukraine’s democratic progress fuelled Putin’s war fever

Post By World , , , ,

By Aleksandar Đokić, Political scientist and analyst

As the world marks a tragic milestone this Sunday, we need to remind ourselves that Ukraine’s progress as a full-fledged democracy shook the seat of power in Moscow to its core, Aleksandar Đokić writes.

This Sunday, the world marks a tragic milestone: the 500th day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, an all-out escalation of the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine that has been taking place since 2014, when Moscow troops first entered Crimea and then the Donbas regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. 

Even after all this time, some Europeans still struggle to understand the reasons for Vladimir Putin’s act of aggression. 

Yet, the main driving force is clear: Ukraine’s progress towards a full-fledged democracy had shaken the seat of power in Moscow to its core.

NATO enlargement was never the issue

Some might recall that, in an ominous essay published on 12 July 2021, Vladimir Putin himself labelled Ukraine as an “anti-Russia”. 

The essay itself, mostly disregarded at the time, turned out to have been the ideological and conceptual blueprint for the invasion which would follow only half a year later. 

The main argument that Putin made — and that became the framework for his justification of the invasion — was that Ukraine was being prepared as a “staging ground against Russia” by NATO and the collective West.

The “Ukraine is ‘anti-Russia'” trope was then reiterated many times by Russia’s high-ranking officials since the onset of the 2022 invasion. 

This is where some Western adherents to Cold War realism — a school of thought which is a part of international relations, a subdiscipline of political science — would argue that the war is all about NATO enlargement. 

In their opinion, Putin was convinced of an actual military staging ground being prepared in Ukraine, which Russia, as a rational actor, would find most distressing, as this process of arming Kyiv was taking place right on Russia’s borders. 

In reality, there was never any possibility or desire either by Ukraine or NATO to attempt to endanger Russia in military terms. 

If anything, Western actors have, by and large, attempted to appease Putin through diplomatic means, even when it was clear that Moscow forces were on their way to take control of Kyiv and Ukraine back in February 2022.

We can observe this desire to tread carefully even after 500 days of the all-out war, with the US weighing every new arms supply to Ukraine against the possibility of the war escalating any further.

In Putinspeak, ‘Anti-Russia’ means not being an imperialistic mafia state

Putin was, however, right — but in a completely different sense. Ukraine was gradually indeed becoming an “anti-Russia” by means of the democratic, freedom-loving spirit of its people. 

By 2014 and following the events of Euromaidan, the citizens of Ukraine had opted for a political and economic transition that would lead them away from the grips of the Kremlin and root their country deep within the more politically and economically advanced part of Europe. 

With Russia being an autocratic, imperialistic, geriatric mafia state, Ukraine decided to become the opposite. 

Ukraine was set on its way to becoming a modern liberal democracy with functioning laws and institutions, where human rights are respected, foreign investment capital is attracted, and the ruling government can be replaced in free elections. 

Then Russia started the war back in 2014, annexing Crimea and aiding and abetting the parastates in the Donbas.

Can you imagine Russians having such a free, progressive, prosperous neighbour on their own border and, by their own worldview, within their cultural sphere, and not wanting a better life for themselves, too? 

Putin knew that. And he understood he had too much to lose.

A successful Ukraine is a direct threat to Putin’s regime

Most ordinary Russians do not feel that Ukraine or Belarus are actual foreign countries — a belief shared by the ruling circles in Moscow. 

If it weren’t for the war against Ukraine raging on for nine years straight, this feeling could be taken as benign cultural closeness. Yet, ever since 2014, this sentiment has grown into an outright imperialist desire to occupy and rule by hook or by crook. 

This terrifying sense of “closeness at all costs” is exactly the reason why Ukraine, as a successful democratic and economically developed nation, would pose a direct threat to Putin’s regime, first and foremost. 

It has nothing to do with the fact that Russia borders Ukraine because Russia also borders Finland or the Baltic states; Russians do not consider these countries to be “one of their own”. 

The same goes for Poland, which has had great economic success in the past few decades after it freed itself from Moscow’s domination. Yet, in the eyes of ordinary Russians and the Kremlin establishment, it is still a foreign country. 

At the same time, Russian society is accustomed to the rest of Europe being freer and further developed than their own country. 

Ukraine’s successful EU path is a death sentence to the regime in Moscow

Ukraine and Belarus, however, have always been looked down upon with a sense of superiority. The two were viewed as Russia’s “younger sisters”, meaning, permanently less developed and on a lower cultural level. Russia was the centre, and Ukraine and Belarus were the provinces.

Belarus has been captured by Alyaksandr Lukashenka in a unique 1990s-style post-communist dystopia for the last three decades and, as such, poses no threat to Putin’s regime. 

But Kyiv went down a completely different path, despite all the obstacles. This is why Ukraine’s progress towards democracy and growing closeness to the rest of Europe was seen as an existential threat number one.

NATO isn’t the primary issue here: Ukraine’s accession to the EU would be even more damaging to the Kremlin.

For instance, Ukraine’s NATO membership prior to 2014 would have ensured one thing — that Putin wouldn’t be in a position to invade it. 

Ukraine joining the EU and reforming its political and economic system would have been — and still can be — a direct challenge to Putin’s autocratic and crony capitalism form of government and economic organisation. 

In that sense, Ukraine would have truly become the kind of country which ordinary Russians envy in desperation. And although the initial invasion in 2014 was meant to put a stop to Ukraine’s progress, it succeeded in speeding up the process instead.

A democratic Russia is the only solution

As repetitive as it may sound, it has to be said once more: Russia’s national security interests were at no point threatened either by Ukraine or NATO. 

The stability of Putin’s regime, on the other hand, is now potentially threatened if Ukraine continues to develop into a politically and economically advanced country in comparison to Russia.

Fast forward to 2022: the all-out invasion was merely a final attempt to remove the threat from rival Ukraine once and for all. 

Rebuilding the empire or exploiting Ukraine’s economic resources as a motivation for war also play a significant part in Moscow’s logic, but they are welcome bonuses to the existential need of Putin’s regime to stunt the neighbouring country’s growth.

Conversely, a democratically ruled Russia would have no such necessity, as its ruling elite could be cyclically and willingly replaced, thus separating the fate of the regime from that of the state. 

A democratic Russia would be glad to find a strong and developed partner in Ukraine. And the rest of Europe and the world would be pleased to wake up to the news of a democratic Russia.

Aleksandar Đokić is a Serbian political scientist and analyst with bylines in Novaya Gazeta. He was formerly a lecturer at RUDN University in Moscow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Fear #Ukraines #democratic #progress #fuelled #Putins #war #fever

Ukraine’s Africa troubles continue after delegation’s peace talks trip

Post By World , , ,

By David Kirichenko, Freelance journalist, Editor at Euromaidan Press

African representatives seemed to have come to Kyiv earlier in June with a list of priorities that included their own stability, food security, imported goods, and the continuity of their regimes and countries, David Kirichenko writes.

As the African delegation on a peace mission was greeted with explosions and forced to shelter in a bunker amid air strikes on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, the visit of the continent’s leaders to both Ukraine and Russia has offered a fresh perspective on the underlying purpose of their engagement. 

Contrary to the initial perception that their trip was primarily aimed at peace negotiations, the core purpose seemed to revolve around discussions concerning significant grain trade between Africa and Ukraine.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine has shown genuine interest in peace talks, making the outcome of the African delegation’s efforts resoundingly pointless. 

Ukraine already froze the war with Russia once after 2014, resulting in a full-scale invasion in 2022. 

Today, a peaceful resolution could be achieved promptly only if Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to pull back his troops to Russia. 

Yet, it is clearly not something he is willing to consider, while Ukraine’s leadership has no interest in alternatives that would, in fact, represent a stalemate. 

For what it’s worth, however, the African delegation declaratively came to talk about peace and opened the talks with that goal.

Peace talks, Russian rocket attacks, and eyes wide shut

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in the course of these interactions, reiterated his stance on peace negotiations with Russia. 

He firmly stated that such talks could only be initiated following the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all occupied territories. 

He voiced his scepticism regarding formats reminiscent of the Minsk Agreements, highlighting a pattern of deceptive tactics employed by the Kremlin. 

Yet, the most important aspect that can be gleaned from the recent visit of the African delegation to Kyiv reveals a limited understanding of the Russo-Ukrainian war within the developing world.

On the morning of 16 June, as the African delegation arrived in the Ukrainian capital, the city came under fire from Russian missiles.

Many residents and news outlets on the ground witnessed the missiles in the sky and heard the subsequent explosions caused by their interception.

Surprisingly, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya contradicted the reports of missile strikes, claiming he had not witnessed anything indicative of an attack. 

An eyebrow-raising statement made Ukrainians wonder why the delegation decided to intentionally ignore what was happening around them.

Unlike their Western counterparts, the African representatives seemed to have come to Kyiv with a list of priorities that included their own stability, food security, imported goods, and the continuity of their regimes and countries.

All this, rather than showing concern for Russian atrocities in Bucha or other Ukrainian frontlines where life-and-death battles for freedom continue to be fought. 

Even the roar of Russian missiles above their heads was not enough to force a change of course.

Why so reserved?

Some of this apparent reticence can be ascribed to rampant Kremlin propaganda that has found particularly fertile ground in Africa.

Russia has been cultivating its influence there as a valid counterweight to the West, while Ukraine has been trying to establish essential diplomatic ties with African nations.

But more importantly, the impact of the war on Ukraine’s agricultural sector, particularly grain exports, has had far-reaching consequences for Africa. 

The disruption in grain exports from Ukraine and Russia’s blockade of ports has exacerbated the supply restrictions and contributed to high food prices in Africa.

Russia’s destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam has wreaked havoc on irrigation systems in eastern and southern Ukraine, decreasing grain production and resulting in potential price hikes. Rebuilding the dam could take several years, further affecting the food crisis in the medium to long term.

This is why, during their visit to Russia right after Kyiv, the African leaders also tried to persuade Putin to extend the agreement allowing Ukraine to ship its grains through the Black Sea.

On top of that, other critics of the leaders of the delegation themselves raised doubts about their commitment to combatting colonialism and apartheid. 

While African nations have a historical legacy of resistance against colonial powers, there is an argument that their support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine contradicts their stance on colonialism.

Russia as an empire failed at colonising Africa — but it doesn’t mean it didn’t want to

African nations firmly reject being subjected to the former colonial empires that once oppressed them, arguing that Russia never colonised Africa. 

However, Ukraine never colonised Africa, either. At the same time, Russia is a former empire that has long ruled over large swaths of territories in Europe and Asia.

In its latest iteration as a federation, it remains the world’s largest country spread across 17 million square kilometres and a total of 11 timezones.

More to the point, Moscow is the one attempting to assert its influence over Ukraine, treating Ukrainians as inferior and aiming to colonise them.

As for Africa, as much as Russia did not manage to colonise any part of it successfully, it is essential to remember that it did make attempts to do so. 

In the late 19th century, Russia’s efforts to establish a colony in Ethiopia were unsuccessful, despite large donations of rifles in exchange for gold and jewels and claims by Moscow’s church leadership that Ethiopians are “our Black brethren” due to their nominal Orthodox faith. 

Regardless, Russian Emperor Nicholas II’s delegation to the country was not seen any differently from other European colonisers, both in appearance and behaviour.

Others, like the adventurer and self-styled Cossack Nikolai Ashinov, who had a keen ability to convince the Moscow royals to support his expeditions, had the idea of establishing a foothold in Africa by outright occupying both Ethiopia and Sudan.

The military top, also swayed by Europe’s rush to Africa, all toyed with a number of wild designs to become a major colonial power on the continent, including forcibly taking control over key Red Sea ports and even briefly establishing a Russian colony of New Moscow in today’s Djibouti.

However, all of these efforts, already plagued by incompetence and lack of real impetus, failed as the Russian Empire crumbled by 1917.

Moscow today is really good at selling weapons

Yet, over the past few decades, Russia has successfully established a presence on the African continent. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, many African nations have, to a varying degree, maintained ties with Russia.

These connections were particularly important for African leaders advocating for independence, as they received vital military training and weapons support from Russia, enabling them to fight against white-minority rule and colonialism. 

The historical relationship between Russia and several African countries, rooted in the Soviet era, has fostered warm relations based on shared economic and ideological ambitions and mutual scepticism towards the West.

A continuous stream of regime propaganda emphasised the Soviet Union’s crucial support for the anti-colonial movement, further strengthening Russia’s narrative.

In the meantime, Moscow has emerged as the largest arms supplier to Africa for over a decade, with nearly half of the continent’s military imports coming from Russia. 

As things stand, nearly half of Africa’s military equipment imports come from Russia — a partner African countries are careful not to rattle.

Putin’s lack of interest in diplomatic solutions shines through, again

Yet, speaking in St Petersburg after the visit to Kyiv, South Africa’s Ramaphosa did attempt to Putin with a 10-point peace initiative from seven African countries and stated that the time had come to start negotiations to end the war.

Putin interrupted opening remarks by African leaders seeking to mediate in the war and lectured on why their proposals were misguided, rattling off a string of familiar accusations denied by Ukraine and the West and saying it was Kyiv, not Moscow, refusing to talk. 

In fact, since the 2019 meeting in Paris, Putin was the one who refused all attempts by Zelenskyy to talk to him. Then, he launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, unprovoked and in spite of numerous attempts by European and world leaders to sit down for talks. 

His lack of pretence regarding his disinterest in any diplomatic process is evident, even when such efforts are being advocated by a leader as overtly sympathetic to Russia as Ramaphosa.

Putin claimed that the West caused the rise in global food prices last year, which is contradicted by the basic rules of supply and demand. 

The West didn’t disrupt the flow of food or the demand for it. Instead, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to a loss of 30% of farmland used for grain production, causing higher costs and preventing full-scale exports.

Putin also said that Ukraine’s grain exports didn’t help Africa because they mostly went to wealthy nations, but while Russia blocked Ukrainian ports, it made it difficult for Ukraine to export its grain. As a result, Ukraine had to prioritise exports to countries that are closer in terms of logistics.

Ukraine has no choice but to continue its diplomatic efforts

In the meantime, Kyiv is left to try and talk to African leaders in an attempt to have them understand the reality of the situation Ukraine has found itself in through no fault of its own.

In December of 2022, promising developments unfolded in Ukraine’s engagement with Africa, as reports surfaced of Morocco breaching Africa’s neutrality by supplying arms to Ukraine. 

Despite this, the most ardent Putin supporters’ stance on the conflict has remained unchanged.

Only 30 African nations out of 54, a mere two more than the previous year, voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia, affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and advocating for peace. 

Kyiv, however, doesn’t have much of a choice. Ukraine’s priority should be addressing the global food supply issue and countering Russian disinformation. 

The ongoing war by Russia is causing disruptions in Ukraine’s grain exports, significantly affecting poorer nations that heavily rely on imported goods. 

Ukraine must persist in engaging with African leaders to raise awareness about the true nature of Russia’s aggression and emphasise the significance of supporting Ukraine for global stability.

David Kirichenko is a freelance journalist covering Eastern Europe and an editor at Euromaidan Press.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Ukraines #Africa #troubles #continue #delegations #peace #talks #trip

Oh Fiddlesticks, Lindsey Graham Has Gone And Upset The Russians

Post By Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What a strange day. First Ted Cruz was correct about a thing, and now we have a post wherein Lindsey Graham doesn’t need to go fuck himself.

Of course in both cases, it’s because the people who are mad at these MAGA garbage Republican senators are even more MAGA garbage than they are. And yes, we are including the Russian government and state-owned media under the umbrella of “MAGA garbage,” because you bet your ass we are.

Russia has issued an arrest warrant for Lindsey Graham. And Margarita Simonyan, the lying dogshit editor of Russian government-controlled RT, who will absolutely go to hell when she dies, is suggesting that the Russian government should just go ahead and assassinate Graham. “We have his address,” she said, as if that’s some great feat of the Russian intelligence services. Next she’ll say she can tell you what time stores open and close, and if Amazon is out of deodorant.

Turns Out All Russian Journalists Know They’re Lying About Ukraine War

This all started after Graham met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday. In video of that encounter, released by Zelenskyy’s office, Graham said that “Russians are dying,” and that US aid to Ukraine in fighting Russia’s genocidal war is “the best money we’ve ever spent.” Russia is very mad because the way the video is edited, it (sorta) sounds like Graham is saying the best money we ever spent is to kill Russians. (Shrug.)

Of course, anybody can tell the video has been spliced together. (Watch it for yourself.) That means the Russians can tell, unless they are just very dumb. And that means their outrage is performative bullshit.

But oh, what performative outrage it is! The Daily Beast shares this example:

State TV host Vladimir Solovyov […] angrily exclaimed: “Your dirty American money also fully supported the Nazi regime in Germany! You are a Nazi beast and you’re following in the footsteps of your predecessors. I’ll repeat it once again: you will croak, but the Russian people will live forever!”

LOL okeydoke.

So the Investigative Committee, which investigates things in Russia, opened an investigation, and the Interior Ministry issued an arrest warrant for Graham, which we are sure will prove bothersome to any dreams Graham might have of visiting a Potemkin country whose hottest tourism attractions are “broken Ferris wheel” and “airport to take you out of Russia.” Graham wasn’t on the newest list of Americans banned from Russia, because he was already on the old list.

PREVIOUSLY! Putin Bans Everybody Who Ever Hurted Donald Trump’s Feelings From Glorious Russia

Foreign Minister Dmitry Peskov said, “It’s hard to imagine a greater shame for the country than having such senators,” which is factcheck true but not for any of the reasons Peskov is saying.

Then there was beclowned Putin sycophant Dmitry Medvedev, who kept Putin’s chair warm as president of Russia from 2008 to 2012, while Putin was pretending he was just prime minister, because at the time the Russian constitution wouldn’t allow Putin to serve a third consecutive term as president.

Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said Graham “shouldn’t have done that” and called the 67-year-old lawmaker an “old fool.”

Medvedev also said on Telegram, “In his beloved America, not only ordinary people are regularly killed, but dirty money is also being spent on killing senators. He should recall the sad fate of Robert Kennedy, Huey Long, Clementa Carlos Pinckney, John Milton Elliott, Wayne Owens and other American politicians.” You know, in case people thought he was being too subtle and didn’t understand what he might be getting at.

And then there was Simonyan, who runs RT, and is a true garbage person. She allowed that maybe Graham’s comments had been edited, but then said:

“If Lady Graham really said that the money for the killing of Russians is the best money the US ever spent… I hope that in our country, the sons or grandchildren of Sudoplatov are alive, his pupils, or the descendants of his pupils. It’s not even hard. We have his address.”

“Lady Graham.” How cute. “Sudoplatov” is Pavel Sudoplatov, who the Daily Beast helpfully explains was part of the assassination of Leon Trotsky.

Then she said these things:

“I have no ill will towards anyone and our religion tells us to forgive, but no one tells us to reward these types of things. When we don’t act in response to these things, it is the same as encouraging them. It causes them to become increasingly more brazen.”

What’s Lindsey Graham gonna do? Invade the country next door unprovoked and start blowing its babies’ heads off like Russia did? Because we feel like that was pretty brazen.

Here’s video of all that fake Russian bellyaching:

www.youtube.com

Graham is acting like he isn’t even upset about all this, tweeting that he “will wear the arrest warrant issued by Putin’s corrupt and immoral government as a Badge of Honor.” He followed up:

“To know that my commitment to Ukraine has drawn the ire of Putin’s regime brings me immense joy. I will continue to stand with and for Ukraine’s freedom until every Russian soldier is expelled from Ukrainian territory.”

Melodramatic, but correct.

Specifically in response to Medvedev, Graham said, “[I]f you want Russians to stop dying in Ukraine, withdraw. Stop the invasion. Stop the war crimes. The truth is that you and Putin could care less about Russian soldiers.”

That’s one way to say it.

Or he could just tell all these Russians to eat an entire field full of Ukrainian assholes. But he would never do that because he is not cool and he still sucks, just not for the reasons the Russians think.

Watch, our next post will be about Marjorie Taylor Greene not kicking a puppy or something, WTF are we even on about today.

[NBC News / The Hill / Daily Beast]

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter right here.

Just got to BlueSky!

I have profiles those other places but I think I forgot how to log on.

Have you heard that Wonkette DOES NOT EXIST without your donations? Please hear it now, and if you have ever enjoyed a Wonkette article, throw us some bucks, or better yet, SUBSCRIBE!

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.



Source link

#Fiddlesticks #Lindsey #Graham #Upset #Russians

Moldova ramps up EU membership push amid fears of Russia-backed coup

Post By Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CHIȘINĂU, Moldova — Tens of thousands of Moldovans descended on the central square of the capital on Sunday, waving flags and homemade placards in support of the country’s push to join the EU and make a historic break with Moscow.

With Russia’s war raging just across the border in Ukraine, the government of this tiny Eastern European nation called the rally in an effort to overcome internal divisions and put pressure on Brussels to begin accession talks, almost a year after Moldova was granted EU candidate status.

“Joining the EU is the best way to protect our democracy and our institutions,” Moldova’s President Maia Sandu told POLITICO at Chișinău’s presidential palace, as a column of her supporters marched past outside. “I call on the EU to take a decision on beginning accession negotiations by the end of the year. We think we have enough support to move forward.”

Speaking alongside Sandu at what was billed as a “national assembly,” European Parliament President Roberta Metsola declared that “Europe is Moldova. Moldova is Europe!” The crowd, many holding Ukrainian flags and the gold-and-blue starred banner of the EU, let out a cheer. An orchestra on stage played the bloc’s anthem, Ode to Joy.

“In recent years, you have taken decisive steps and now you have the responsibility to see it through, even with this war on your border,” Metsola said. “The Republic of Moldova is ready for integration into the single European market.”

However, the jubilant rally comes amid warnings that Moscow is doing everything it can to keep the former Soviet republic within its self-declared sphere of influence.

In February, the president of neighboring Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, warned that his country’s security forces had disrupted a plot to overthrow Moldova’s pro-Western government. Officials in Chișinău later said the Russian-backed effort could have involved sabotage, attacks on government buildings and hostage-taking. Moscow officially denies the claims.

“Despite previous efforts to stay neutral, Moldova is finding itself in the Kremlin’s crosshairs — whether they want to be or not, they’re party of this broader conflict in Ukraine,” said Arnold Dupuy, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.

“There’s an effort by the Kremlin to turn the country into a ‘southern Kaliningrad,’ putting in place a friendly regime that allows them to attack the Ukrainians’ flanks,” Dupuy said. “But this hasn’t been as effective as the Kremlin hoped and they’ve actually strengthened the government’s hand to look to the EU and NATO for protection.”

Responding to the alleged coup attempt, Brussels last month announced it would deploy a civilian mission to Moldova to combat growing threats from Russia. According to Josep Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, the deployment under the terms of the Common Security and Defense Policy, will provide “support to Moldova [to] protect its security, territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

Bumps on the road to Brussels

Last week, Sandu again called on Brussels to begin accession talks “as soon as possible” in order to protect Moldova from what she said were growing threats from Russia. “Nothing compares to what is happening in Ukraine, but we see the risks and we do believe that we can save our democracy only as part of the EU,” she said. A group of influential MEPs from across all of the main parties in the European Parliament have tabled a motion calling for the European Commission to start the negotiations by the end of the year.

But, after decades as one of Russia’s closest allies, Moldova knows its path to EU membership isn’t without obstacles.

“The challenge is huge,” said Tom de Waal, a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe. “They will need to overcome this oligarchic culture that has operated for 30 years where everything is informal, institutions are very weak and large parts of the bureaucracy are made viable by vested interests.”

At the same time, a frozen conflict over the breakaway region of Transnistria, in the east of Moldova, could complicate matters still further. The stretch of land along the border with Ukraine, home to almost half a million people, has been governed since the fall of the Soviet Union by pro-Moscow separatists, and around 1,500 Russian troops are stationed there despite Chișinău demanding they leave. It’s also home to one of the Continent’s largest weapons stockpiles, with a reported 20,000 tons of Soviet-era ammunition.

“Moldova cannot become a member of the EU with Russian troops on its territory against the will of the Republic of Moldova itself, so we will need to solve this before membership,” Romanian MEP Siegfried Mureșan, chair of the European Parliament’s delegation to the country, told POLITICO.

“We do not know now what a solution could look like, but the fact that we do not have an answer to this very specific element should not prevent us from advancing Moldova’s European integration in all other areas where we can,” Mureșan said.

While she denied that Brussels had sent any official signals that Moldova’s accession would depend on Russian troops leaving the country, Sandu said that “we do believe that in the next months and years there may be a geopolitical opportunity to resolve this conflict.”

Ties that bind

Even outside of Transnistria, Moscow maintains significant influence in Moldova. While Romanian is the country’s official language, Russian is widely used in daily life while the Kremlin’s state media helps shape public opinion — and in recent months has turned up the dial on its attacks on Sandu’s government.

A study by Chișinău-based pollster CBS Research in February found that while almost 54 percent of Moldovans say they would vote in favor of EU membership, close to a quarter say they would prefer closer alignment with Russia. Meanwhile, citizens were split on who to blame for the war in Ukraine, with 25 percent naming Russian President Vladimir Putin and 18 percent saying the U.S.

“Putin is not a fool,” said one elderly man who declined to give his name, shouting at passersby on the streets of the capital. “I hate Ukrainians.”

Outside of the capital, the pro-Russian ȘOR Party has held counter-protests in several regional cities.

Almost entirely dependent on Moscow for its energy needs, Moldova has seen Russia send the cost of gas skyrocketing in what many see as an attempt at blackmail. Along with an influx of Ukrainian refugees, the World Bank reported that Moldova’s GDP “contracted by 5.9 percent and inflation reached an average of 28.7 percent in 2022.”

“We will buy energy sources from democratic countries, and we will not support Russian aggression in exchange for cheap gas,” Sandu told POLITICO.

The Moldovan president, a former World Bank economist who was elected in 2020 on a wave of anti-corruption sentiment, faces a potentially contentious election battle next year. With the process of EU membership set to take years, or even decades, it remains to be seen whether the country will stay the course in the face of pressure from the Kremlin.

For Aurelia, a 40-year-old Moldovan who tied blue and yellow ribbons into her hair for Sunday’s rally, the choice is obvious. “We’ve been a part of the Russian world my whole life. Now we want to live well, and we want to live free.”



Source link

#Moldova #ramps #membership #push #fears #Russiabacked #coup

Pelosi says Ukraine, democracy ‘must win’

Post By World , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“We thought we could die.”

The Russian invasion had just begun when Nancy Pelosi made a surprise visit to Ukraine, the House speaker then the highest-ranking elected U.S. official to lead a congressional delegation to Kyiv.

Ms. Pelosi and the lawmakers were ushered under the cloak of secrecy into the capital city, an undisclosed passage that even to this day she will not divulge.

“It was very, it was dangerous,” Ms. Pelosi told The Associated Press before April 30th’s one-year anniversary of that trip.

“We never feared about it, but we thought we could die because we’re visiting a serious, serious war zone,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We had great protection, but nonetheless, a war — theater of war.”

Ms. Pelosi’s visit was as unusual as it was historic, opening a fresh diplomatic channel between the U.S. and Ukraine that has only deepened with the prolonged war. In the year since, a long list of congressional leaders, senators and chairs of powerful committees, both Democrats and Republicans, followed her lead, punctuated by President Joe Biden’s own visit this year.

The steady stream of arrivals in Kyiv has served to amplify a political and military partnership between the U.S. and Ukraine for the world to see, one that will be tested anew when Congress is again expected this year to help fund the war to defeat Russia.

“We must win. We must bring this to a positive conclusion — for the people of Ukraine and for our country,” Ms. Pelosi said.

“There is a fight in the world now between democracy and autocracy, its manifestation at the time is in Ukraine.”

With a new Republican majority in the House whose Trump-aligned members have baulked at overseas investments, Ms. Pelosi, a Democrat, remains confident the Congress will continue backing Ukraine as part of a broader U.S. commitment to democracy abroad in the face of authoritarian aggression.

“Support for Ukraine has been bipartisan and bicameral, in both houses of Congress by both parties, and the American people support democracy in Ukraine,” Ms. Pelosi told AP. “I believe that we will continue to support as long as we need to support democracy … as long as it takes to win.”

Now the speaker emerita, an honorary title bestowed by Democrats, Ms. Pelosi is circumspect about her role as a U.S. emissary abroad. Having visited 87 countries during her time in office, many as the trailblazing first woman to be the House speaker, she set a new standard for pointing the gavel outward as she focused attention on the world beyond U.S. shores.

In her office tucked away at the Capitol, Ms. Pelosi shared many of the honours and mementoes she has received from abroad, including the honorary passport she was given on her trip to Ukraine, among her final stops as speaker.

It’s a signature political style, building on Ms. Pelosi’s decades of work on the House Intelligence Committee, but one that a new generation of House leaders may— or may not— choose to emulate.

The new Speaker Kevin McCarthy hosted Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library this month, the Republican leader’s first foray as leader into foreign affairs.

Democrat Hakeem Jeffries took his own first trip abroad as House minority leader, leading congressional delegations last week to Ghana and Israel.

Ms. Pelosi said it’s up to the new leaders what they will do on the global stage.

“Other speakers have understood our national security— we take an oath to protect and defend— and so we have to reach out with our values and our strength to make sure that happens,” she said.

“I just want to say that this, for me, was the most logical thing to do,” Ms. Pelosi said.

When Pelosi arrived in Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stood outside to meet the U.S. officials, a photo that ricocheted around the world as a show of support for the young democracy fighting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion.

“The courage of the president in greeting us on the street rather than us just meeting him in his office was yet again another symbol of the courage of the people of Ukraine,” she said.

Ms. Pelosi told Mr. Zelenskyy in a video released at the time “your fight is a fight for everyone.”

A year on, with no end to the war in sight, Ms. Pelosi said: “I would have hoped that it would have been over by now.”

Ms. Pelosi’s travel abroad has not been without political challenges and controversy. During the Trump era, she acted as an alternative emissary overseas, reassuring allies that the U.S. remained a partner despite the Republican president’s “America First” neo-isolationist approach to foreign policy.

Last year, in one of her final trips as a speaker, Ms. Pelosi touched down with a delegation in Taipei, crowds lining the streets to cheer her arrival, a visit with the Taiwanese president that drew a sharp rebuke from Beijing, which counts the island as its own.

“Cowardly,” she said about the military exercises China launched in the aftermath of her trip.

Ms. Pelosi offered rare praise for Mr. McCarthy’s own meeting with Tsai, particularly its bipartisan nature and the choice of venue, the historic Reagan library.

“That was really quite a message and quite an optic to be there. And so I salute what he did,” she said.

In one of her closing acts as House speaker in December, Ms. Pelosi hosted Mr. Zelenskyy for a joint address to Congress. The visit evoked the one made by Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Britain, at Christmastime in 1941 to speak to Congress in the Senate chamber of a “long and hard war” during World War II.

Mr. Zelenskyy presented to Congress a Ukrainian flag signed by front-line troops that Ms. Pelosi said will eventually be displayed at the U.S. Capitol.

The world has changed much since Ms. Pelosi joined Congress— one of her first trips abroad was in 1991 when she dared to unfurl a pro-democracy banner in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square shortly after the student demonstrations that ended in a massacre.

After the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s again Russia and China that remain front of her mind.

“The role of Putin in terms of Russia that is a bigger threat than it was when I came to Congress,” she said. A decade after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, she said, Mr. Putin went up.

“That’s where the fight for democracy is taking place,” she said.

And, she said, despite the work she and others in Congress have done to point out the concerns over China’s military and economic rise, and its human rights record, “that has only gotten worse.”

Often mentioned as someone who could become an actual ambassador— there have been musings that Mr. Biden could nominate her to Rome or beyond— Ms. Pelosi said she is focused on her two-year term in office, no longer the House speaker but the representative from San Francisco.

“Right now my plan is to serve my constituents,” Ms. Pelosi said. “I like having 7,50,000 bosses, rather than one.”

Source link

#Pelosi #Ukraine #democracy #win