Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has described the punitive measures as a response to Tehran’s bombardment of Israel

The US government is working on a new batch of sanctions on Iran in response to Tehran’s aerial attack on Israel over the weekend, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has revealed. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz has called on allies to impose punitive measures on the Islamic Republic.

According to Israel, Iran launched several hundred missiles and kamikaze drones late on Saturday. The Israeli military claims to have intercepted most of them. Iran, however, insists that it managed to strike several military installations.

Tehran has described the aerial bombardment as retaliation for an Israeli airstrike that destroyed Iran’s consulate in Damascus on April 1, killing seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officers, including two generals.

In a statement on Tuesday, Sullivan said President Joe Biden has been cooperating with US lawmakers and foreign allies to devise a “comprehensive response” to Tehran’s actions.

“In the coming days, the United States will impose new sanctions targeting Iran, including its missile and drone program as well as new sanctions against entities supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran’s Defense Ministry,” the official announced. The national security advisor added that Washington expects its partners to follow suit.

According to Sullivan, the new measures are meant to “contain and degrade Iran’s military capacity and effectiveness and confront the full range of its problematic behaviors.”

Speaking at a press conference during the International Monetary Fund and World Bank spring meetings in Washington DC on the same day, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen also confirmed that the Biden administration was likely to “take additional sanctions action against Iran in the coming days.”

She added that despite the US sanctions already in place, “Iran is continuing to export some oil,” and that “there may be more that we could do” in that respect.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), also on Tuesday, Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz wrote that he had sent letters to 32 nations and had spoken to “dozens of foreign ministers and leading figures around the world, calling for sanctions to be imposed on the Iranian missile project and that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps be declared a terrorist organization.”

Tehran has been subjected to a wide range of international sanctions for decades over its missile and nuclear enrichment programs, with the West suspecting Iran of secretly attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons – a claim Tehran has denied.

The UN’s atomic watchdog has dismissed claims by Israel that Tehran is weeks away from acquiring a nuclear capability

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has no evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, Director General Rafael Grossi has told journalists. The senior official was commenting on remarks by Israel’s UN envoy, Gilad Erdan, who claimed on Sunday that Tehran could obtain a nuclear weapon within weeks.

Grossi said he is not responsible for statements by IAEA member states, but that the agency itself considers the Israeli claim to be unsubstantiated.

“As far as the agency who is inspecting there is concerned, we don’t have any information or indication that there is a nuclear weapon program in Iran,” he told reporters on Tuesday, after briefing members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) in New York.

“The fact that there is an accumulation of uranium enriched at very, very high levels does not automatically mean that you have a nuclear weapon,” Grossi added. He was referring to previous discoveries by IAEA inspectors of traces of highly-enriched uranium in Iran.

Last Sunday, Israeli ambassador Erdan lashed out at Tehran at a UNSC session dedicated to discussing Iran’s drone and missile assault on Israel. Tehran launched the barrage at the weekend in retaliation for an attack on its consulate in Syria on April 1, which it blamed on Israel.

Erdan branded Israel’s regional rival “a terror state responsible for global destruction,” and asked the international security body to consider what would have happened if Iran “could have launched a nuclear bomb” when it attacked his country.

“Iran’s breakout time to produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons is now weeks, mere weeks,” he declared. “The IAEA inspectors have been kept in the dark. Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. It should terrify every member of this council.”

READ MORE: No Russian heavy weapons at Zaporozhye plant – IAEA boss

Tehran has for decades denied claims that it is seeking a nuclear capability. During the presidency of Barack Obama, the US and other world powers signed a deal with Iran under which it was offered sanctions relief and business opportunities in exchange for accepting restrictions on its nuclear industry. Israel was vocally opposed to the 2015 agreement, known as the JCPOA, and lobbied the administration of Donald Trump, which ultimately withdrew US participation, effectively killing the deal.

Russian-born IT entrepreneur Pavel Durov says he was “pressured” by the FBI during his stays in America

The US government wanted a so-called 'backdoor' in to Telegram in order to potentially spy on its users, the social media platform’s founder Pavel Durov has said in an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson.

The attention from the FBI was one of the reasons Durov dropped the idea of setting up the company in San Francisco, he said. 

Born in St. Petersburg, Durov first founded VK, Russia’s answer to Facebook, together with his mathematician brother Nikolay. The brothers later developed the Telegram messaging service and social media platform, which describes itself as one of the safest and best-protected communication tools available.

Durov sold his stake in VK and left Russia in 2014 due to disagreements with the government. He lived in several countries while looking for the best place to run Telegram from, and ultimately settled in Dubai. 

In an interview released on Wednesday, Durov said he visited the US several times and even met with former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. He was under the watchful eye of the FBI, which made his stays in America uneasy, he said.  

“We got too much attention from the FBI, the security agencies, wherever we came,” Durov told Carlson, describing the experience as “alarming.” 

According to Durov, one of his top employees once told him that he had been approached by the US government. “There was a secret attempt to hire my engineer behind my back by cybersecurity officers,” the businessman said.

“They were trying to persuade him to use certain open-source tools that he would then integrate into Telegram’s code that, in my understanding, would serve as backdoors,” Durov said, adding that he believes the employee’s account. “There is no reason for my engineer to make up (such) stories.”

Durov went on to say that he also had “personally experienced similar pressure” in America, where law enforcement officials approached him on multiple occasions. 

Whenever I would go to the US, I would have two FBI agents greeting me at the airport, asking questions. One time, I was having breakfast at 9 am and the FBI showed up at the house that I was renting.

“My understanding is that they wanted to establish a relationship to control Telegram better. I understand that they were doing their job. [But] for us, running a privacy-focused social media platform, that probably wasn’t the best environment to be in,” Durov explained. 

The tech entrepreneur acknowledged that Telegram has been used by protest organizers in many countries around the world. He stressed, however, that he wants the platform to remain politically neutral.

The deputy governor of a Polish province got into a flame war with critics

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has dismissed the deputy governor of Lower Silesia, Jacek Protasiewicz, after a series of bizarre social media posts which included “homophobic” insults.

Once a member of Tusk’s party, but expelled in 2015, Protasiewicz tweeted a photo of his old political comrades and said he knew “many cool stories, important and certainly interesting for this country,” which he originally intended to share after his retirement “but maybe I’ll tell them sooner.”

Tusk fired Protasiewicz on Monday, at the request of the provincial governor. He remains a member of a political group allied with the Polish People’s Party (PSL), a junior partner in Tusk’s coalition government that took power last December. 

Ahead of the mayoral run-off vote in the provincial capital, Wroclaw, Protasiewicz got into a flame war on X (formerly Twitter), calling one critic a “lousy bum” and another a “stinking coward,” according to local media. The following day, he began posting about what appeared to be a romantic relationship with Daria Brzezicka, a party activist who is 30 years his junior.

When Brzezicka called out a journalist for making insinuations about her, Protasiewicz called him “ordinary, average, crap” and suggested the reporter had a small penis. He called another X user who criticized Brzezicka an “imperceptible speck of dust,” while suggesting a third critic was just typing “stupid things” because he was a jealous loser.

Protasiewicz went on to claim that “big and red lips” and a “delicate mouth” were responsible for activist Oskar Szafarowicz’s career in the formerly ruling PiS party. Szafarowicz has since said he would sue the deputy governor for “vulgar, primitive, homophobic” remarks.

After the PSL “firmly distanced” itself from the politician’s “inappropriate” comments, Protasiewicz further insisted that he could publish whatever he wants on his private X account.

The provincial governor’s office felt compelled to tweet that Protasiewicz’s posts were “his private opinions and in no way express the position of the governor.”

When asked if this involved any dirt, he replied, “no dirt, just the truth” and implied he had written notes to back it up.

Protasiewicz was a member of the Polish parliament from 2001-2004 and again from 2015-2023, and served three terms as a member of the European parliament between 2004 and 2014.

Authorities said the event attended by Viktor Orban and Nigel Farage presented a “possibility of disorder”

Belgian police barricaded the entrance to a conference of national conservatives in the capital of the EU for several hours, in what participants denounced as censorship and political repression.

The event, dubbed NatCon, drew populists from both Europe and the US to Claridge, a venue in central Brussels. As Brexit architect Nigel Farage spoke on Tuesday, police blocked the entrance and prevented keynote speaker Eric Zemmour – a former French presidential candidate – from entering. 

“I knew I wouldn’t be welcome back in Brussels,” Farage, a former MEP, joked on stage, calling the attempt to cancel the event “simply monstrous.”

“In the past, Belgium welcomed Victor Hugo in exile. From now on, this country lives between a caliphate and a dictatorship,” Zemmour said on X (formerly Twitter).

Two other venues had previously backed out on hosting NatCon, under pressure from the socialist and liberal mayors of Brussels and nearby Etterbeek, according to Politico EU. The mayor of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Emir Kir, told the outlet by email he would “immediately” ban the event when informed it was being held in his jurisdiction.

A Politico reporter on the scene said the police invoked the “possibility of public disorder” to attempt to shut down the conference, arguing that they couldn’t guarantee security in case of a counter-protest.

English translation of the Brussels mayor’s order deploying police and banning entrance to the NatCon conference here — pic.twitter.com/4gdHvtWoPI

“The conference is extremely peaceful. There is absolutely no public disturbance. Guests, including esteemed scholars and elected leaders, are enjoying hearing civilized discussion,” the NatCon organizers tweeted in response.

The standoff continued for most of the day. In a “compromise” the Claridge owner reached with Kir, the police allowed the event to continue but blocked new arrivals from entering the venue – including Zemmour and French MEP Patricia Chagnon.

“The last time they wanted to silence me with the police was when the Communists set them on me in ‘88. We didn’t give up then and we will not give up this time either!” said Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who is scheduled to speak on Wednesday.

Giorgia Meloni, the prime minister of Italy and leader of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Party, denounced the police blockade as “hateful oppression of freedom of expression taking place in Brussels.”

“If only the globalists in Brussels put as much energy into securing our borders as they did in trying to gag conservatives, maybe our continent would be in a healthier state,” said former UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who managed to speak at the event.

Belgian PM Alexander De Croo also chimed in, calling the police action “unacceptable.”

“Municipal autonomy is a cornerstone of our democracy but can never overrule the Belgian constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly since 1830. Banning political meetings is unconstitutional. Full stop,” he said.

Today, we overcame attempts by Brussels authorities to silence us and had a wonderful Day One of NatCon Brussels 2. See you again tomorrow! pic.twitter.com/NO9I3CbnUl

NatCon’s principal organizer is the Edmund Burke Foundation, run by Israeli-American philosopher Yoram Hazony. The event comes ahead of the European Parliament elections in June, with polls showing rising support for “nationalist” parties over the establishment EPP and Socialist-Democrat blocs.

Western hypocrisy helped bring about an escalation, the Turkish leader has said

Iran’s first direct attack on Israel is the fault of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu first and foremost, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.

In a televised address after a cabinet meeting in Ankara, Erdogan said it was unfair to look at last Saturday’s events in a vacuum. 

“The one chiefly responsible for the tension that gripped our hearts on the evening of April 13 is Netanyahu and his bloody administration,” he said.

“Since October 7, the Israeli government has opted for provocative moves in order to spread the fire to the entire region. The Israeli government targeted the Iranian consulate in Damascus, violating international law and the Vienna Convention, and that was the last straw,” added Erdogan.

Tehran’s diplomatic mission was struck on April 1, killing seven high-ranking officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, including two generals. Israel never officially claimed responsibility for the strike, but has repeatedly bombed Syria, claiming preemptive self-defense from the Iranian presence there.

“We have seen the double-standard approach of Western countries,” Erdogan said, pointing out that only a handful of countries condemned Israel’s move, but rushed to denounce Iran’s response.

Tehran eventually launched scores of drones and missiles against targets inside Israel. The US, UK, France and Jordan helped the Israelis with air defense but some of the projectiles got through, causing unspecified damage.

Erdogan also blamed Israel for the current conflict in general, saying its forces have “indiscriminately” killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including people standing in line for humanitarian aid. 

“For more than 132 days, Israel has been implementing genocidal policies,” the Turkish leader claimed.

Netanyahu declared war on Gaza-based Hamas after the Palestinian militant group raided nearby Israeli villages and military bases last October. Much of Gaza has since been reduced to rubble and its civilian population pushed to the edge of starvation. A recent report by UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur Francesca Albanese has accused Israel of intending to commit genocide in the enclave.

The German chancellor has a weak hand to play with Beijing, and he won’t dare do the only thing that could give him leverage

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is on a three-day visit to China. He is not traveling alone. A large delegation of German business representatives, including from flagship companies such as Mercedes, Siemens, and BMW, is coming along. Scholz’s agenda is ambitious: The chancellor wishes to talk about international trade and competition, climate politics, the tensions over Taiwan, the war in Ukraine and Beijing’s relationship with Russia. Since Iran has just made use of its clear right to self-defense and retaliated following Israel’s illegal attack on Tehran’s diplomatic premises in Damascus, Scholz felt compelled to make a statement about that as well.

Two of these topics tower above the others: matters of trade and the relationship between China and Russia. Regarding trade, the crucial issue is that the West in general – led by the US – has embarked on a policy of de facto economic warfare against China, while constantly threatening to escalate further.

That was the essence of Janet Yellen's recent Beijing trip; the US Treasury Secretary arrived with a list of demands to curb what America denounced as Chinese “overcapacity” and dumping, and left with a blunt warning that “nothing was off the table” in terms of additional strikes against China’s economy. 

Then there is the EU, which as usual, follows Washington’s lead. Under hardliners like European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Vice President Margrethe Vestager, Brussels is ramping up anti-Chinese rhetoric and measures. Beijing has officially been declared a “partner for cooperation, an economic competitor, and a systemic rival.” With the EU Commission defining “economic security” clearly in opposition to China and launching probes targeting Chinese electric vehicles, wind turbines, and soon the procurement of medical devices, the accent clearly is on competitor and rival.

At the same time, however, German business leaders know that they cannot afford a policy of sustained conflict. A high-ranking Siemens executive has just gone public with a warning that “decoupling” from Chinese manufacturing would take “decades.” That, clearly, is just another way of saying it’s a very bad idea to even try.

Superficially, it may appear that there is an opportunity here for Scholz – an opportunist to a fault – to appear as a mediator or, at least, to deftly balance and weave between competing demands. The Global Times, a media outlet owned by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, prefaced the chancellor’s visit with a generally welcoming article, depicting Scholz as, in essence, a dove among hawks, arguing that while Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economic Minister Robert Habeck stand for confrontation, the chancellor is seeking to find a balanced approach.

Yet, even if he wanted to try to be smart and flexible, Scholz is hamstrung in multiple ways. He will struggle to be taken seriously because both Germany and its chancellor lack international standing, and Germany lacks leverage in its relationship with China.

Let’s look at the leverage deficit first: In economic terms, the Chinese-German relationship is substantial and complex. Many factors are important; multiple indicators are relevant, such as, for instance, foreign direct investment (which is currently dipping). But overall trade volumes suffice to show that Germany cannot speak to Beijing from a position of strength or even parity.

China, according to 2023 export data, is still Germany’s single biggest trading partner, as Bloomberg has noted. That is not unusual in today’s world: with the second-largest economy in the world (the largest in Purchasing Power Parity terms), China is the top trade partner for a total of 120 countries.  China is also the largest (external) trade partner of the European Union as whole. However, from China’s perspective, Germany ranks only 8th among export destinations, less than the US, Japan, and even Vietnam. 

None of the above means that the economic relationship with Berlin does not matter to Beijing, but it does mean that it matters even more for Berlin. Among rational actors, such a pattern of mutual dependency is a reason for cooperation. What it certainly is not is one-sided leverage for Germany. If anyone has the whip hand here, it’s China, which may have tried to “gently” signal this fact with Scholz’s intriguingly low-key, not to say humiliating reception on his arrival in the Chinese manufacturing metropolis Chongqing.

In fundamental terms, Germany, according to data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is a country of not quite 84 million people (in China, Chongqing alone is home to over 30 million inhabitants) with projected GDP growth this year down to almost zero (0.5 percent). China has a population of over 1.4 billion, and its GDP is estimated to grow by 4.6 percent.

In sum, China’s economy has problems, such as its over-expanded real estate sector, which are inevitable and often obsessively exaggerated by Western “China doomers.” Germany’s economy is a problem.

The German chancellor can only play a weak hand, due to economics. There is only one way to play it well, and that would involve politics. Scholz could create some room for maneuver for Germany if he did what the Global Times article signaled Beijing would like to see from him: to show some autonomy, a little bit of distance between himself and the hardliners now dominating both Washington and Brussels.

Indeed, for the China hawks in the West, the mere possibility that the German chancellor might go off script is such a nightmare scenario it had to be exorcised in one of America’s two most authoritative journals on international politics. Foreign Policy dedicated a whole article to, in essence, asking if Scholz will chicken out and be too conciliatory toward Beijing. If the Global Times sent an invitation of the “an-offer-you-should-not-refuse” kind, Foreign Policy’s message was “don’t you dare.”

Scholz should dare. It would be only rational because it is really the only trump card he has. As Foreign Policy acknowledges, the EU’s hardball approach cannot work if Berlin is not on board. Without the EU toeing the line, Washington’s game would become much more challenging, too. That is power right there: the power to balance and play both sides. 

Unfortunately, this is where we come up against Scholz’s very narrow limits. This is no Bismarck. Instead, we are dealing with a chancellor who can be called the most recklessly and – it must be said, spinelessly – subservient to the US in Germany's post-WWII history. Scholz grinned when Biden announced, in essence, that the US would destroy the Nord Stream pipelines if it felt like it. When it happened, nothing happened: Germany took it and kept grinning. 

Under Scholz, Berlin has become a perfect client of the US. Accordingly, there is no real daylight between Berlin and Brussels either; another ultra-Atlanticist German, Ursula von der Leyen, runs the European Commission. True, some observers speculate that Germany is slyly cutting corners, but that will amount to too little, in absolute terms, for Beijing.

The issue of dependency also brings us to the penultimate irony of Scholz’s visit: The German chancellor has let it be known that he intends to challenge Beijing on its policy toward Russia and thus the war in Ukraine. In essence, Scholz seems to believe it is his job – and within his rights – to urge China to loosen its ties with Russia as well as to support the West’s unrealistic proposals for ending the war in Ukraine without acknowledging that Russia is winning it.

There are two things wrong with this astonishingly tone-deaf attitude: First, obviously, neither Germany nor the EU are in a position to make such requests of Beijing. They have neither the arguments nor the power to back them up. In such cases, the wiser and more dignified course is to be quiet. Second, less obviously, who is Scholz to try to interfere in the partnership between Moscow and Beijing, a partnership marked by rationality and respect for both partners’ national interests? As long as Germany offers a spectacle of unquestioning and irrational obedience to Washington, no one will be interested in its advice on how to cooperate. 

That was the penultimate irony. Here is the ultimate one: Scholz’s visit is, most fundamentally, an outcome of the fact that the West has not been able to cajole China. With respect to Germany in particular, it is true that, according to a recent poll, two thirds of German businesses active in China complain of unequal treatment. And yet they are there. And yet a German chancellor still arrives with a planeload of business leaders.

The true message of the poll is about how indispensable China is, talk of “derisking” this and “decoupling” that notwithstanding. In the not-too-distant future, a successor of Scholz may well find himself on a similar trip, but to Moscow. Namely, when two realities will have become so compelling that they must be acknowledged: Russia, too, cannot be cajoled by the West; and, for Germany as well as for Europe as a whole, Russia, too, remains indispensable. 

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell says there are legal hurdles preventing such a move

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz has called on allies to recognize Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization following the massive aerial attack on Israeli territory late on Saturday.

However, the EU’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell says such a move by the bloc is not legally possible at present.

Iran launched several waves of missiles and kamikaze drones at Israel over the weekend. Tehran explained that the strikes were carried out in retaliation for a presumed Israeli airstrike that obliterated Iran’s consulate in Damascus, Syria on April 1, killing seven IRGC officers, including two generals.  

In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday, Katz wrote that he had sent letters to 32 nations and had spoken to “dozens of foreign ministers and leading figures around the world, calling for sanctions to be imposed on the Iranian missile project and that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps be declared a terrorist organization.”  

This would help “curb and weaken Iran,” the minister argued, insisting that Tehran “must be stopped now – before it is too late.” 

Alongside the military response to the firing of the missiles and the UAVs, I am leading a diplomatic offensive against Iran.

This morning I sent letters to 32
countries and spoke with dozens of foreign ministers and leading figures around the world calling for sanctions to be…

Meanwhile, in an interview with France’s Le Monde on Tuesday, Borrell said that, while “there have already been several discussions about putting the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations,” this is not a realistic scenario for the time being.

He explained that “for such a listing, a judicial authority in a member state must consider that the organization has committed a terrorist act” – something for which there are apparently no grounds at present.  

French President Emmanuel Macron has urged Israel not to retaliate against Iran militarily. In an interview with BFMTV and RMC radio, the president said the focus should instead be on further isolation of Tehran and more sanctions on the Islamic Republic.   

Tehran has been the subject of a wide range of international sanctions for decades over its missile and nuclear enrichment programs, with the West suspecting that the latter is aimed at producing nuclear weapons.  

Numerous media reports have alleged that the US government has also advised Israel against responding by force.  

Russia has expressed deep concern following the latest escalation between Israel and Iran, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating on Monday that further escalation of tensions in the region “serves no one’s interests.” 

Moscow has also criticized the UN Security Council for failing to denounce the Israeli airstrike on the Iranian diplomatic premises in Syria earlier this month.

The stalling of American aid is a “disgrace,” the leader has claimed

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has accused US politicians of playing political games around the issue of aid for Kiev, claiming that they do not care how many people in his country are dying.

Zelensky’s comments come as US lawmakers prepare to vote on a controversial aid package for Ukraine that has been stalled in Congress for months due to a bitter dispute between Democrats and Republicans.

In an interview on Monday, Zelensky referred to comments made at the weekend by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. The US politician told Fox News that he planned to move forward with a vote on an aid bill for Israel this week, without specifying when a Ukraine package would be taken up, or whether it would be tied to funding for West Jerusalem.

“This is pure politics, and it’s a disgrace for the world and a disgrace for democracy,” Zelensky told PBS NewsHour. “Nobody cares how many people are dying in Ukraine every day. They only care about their approval ratings,” he added.

Johnson has since promised to advance the long-stalled Ukraine aid bill sought by President Joe Biden this week, multiple news outlets reported on Monday. Johnson reportedly told Republican colleagues at a closed-door meeting that he intends to allow the House to vote on a standalone bill in the coming days that would ensure additional military aid for Kiev. The House will also be expected to vote on separate bills providing more assistance to Israel and Taiwan.

House Republicans have previously refused to back the foreign aid bill unveiled by Biden in October, which includes $61 billion in assistance for Ukraine.

The legislation has been held up for months as the GOP tries to force the White House to crack down on the influx of illegal immigrants via the southern US border. Biden’s 2024 election rival, former President Donald Trump, previously urged Republicans to block the bill, arguing against unconditional aid for Ukraine.

The delay in approving more weapons for Ukraine has rattled Zelensky and other officials in Kiev, who are blaming mounting battlefield losses on shortages of foreign-supplied ammunition and air defenses.

In his interview with PBS, Zelensky reiterated that without the US support, Ukraine “will have no chance of winning” in its conflict with Russia.

Moscow, meanwhile, has repeatedly stated that no amount of foreign assistance will change the outcome of the fighting, and has accused the West of escalating the hostilities.

READ MORE: Zelensky signs draconian mobilization bill

On Tuesday, Zelensky signed a contentious mobilization proposal into law, giving his government more powers to enforce conscription and punish draft dodgers. It also obliges local authorities and the police to help the military in its mobilization efforts. The bill does not contain a clause allowing soldiers to return home after three years of service, which had been the policy before the current conflict began in February 2022.

Tehran’s retaliatory attack may not have caused much destruction, but it was far from a failure

On the night of April 14, Iran and its proxy forces launched a series of cruise missile and kamikaze drone strikes on Israeli territory. The attacks did not come as a surprise. Tehran had warned that it would respond to the Israeli airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, Syria, on April 1, which killed several high-ranking officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including two generals. The retaliatory strike was called Operation True Promise. 

There is still much debate on whether Iran’s retaliatory strike was successful. Most military experts agree that there was nothing unusual about Tehran’s actions, except that this was Iran’s first direct attack on Israel. From a technical point of view, the strategy was simple and correct: Iran first suppressed the enemy’s air defense systems with drones and then launched hypersonic missiles which the Israelis and Americans were not able to intercept. Incidentally, in light of this, Ukraine’s statements about shooting down Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missiles sound ridiculous.

Do not jump to conclusions 

Many experts were skeptical about Iran’s strike and hastened to say that the retaliation did not live up to expectations. Given the clip thinking of most commentators, this reaction is hardly surprising. Their reasoning resembles a Hollywood blockbuster stuffed with special effects, where the end of the world and its miraculous salvation fit into 90-120 minutes, with a love scene in the middle. In real life, things are different. As Sun Tzu wrote in ancient times, to fight 100 battles and win 100 battles is not the height of skill. The best way to win is not to fight at all. This is Iran’s strategy. Its strike against Israel was not so much a military response as a grandmaster’s move in a big chess game. And the game is not over yet. 

After the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital, Tehran found itself in a tough situation. It had to respond in a way that would look convincing and would achieve specific military goals, but would not start World War III.

To achieve the first point, Iran had to carry out a direct strike without resorting exclusively to proxy forces – and that is indeed how it acted. Regarding the second point, even though most of the missiles and drones were indeed shot down, some managed to penetrate Israeli air space and hit military targets. The Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Mohammad Bagheri, said that the information center on the Israeli-Syrian border and Israel’s Nevatim air base were hit. And finally, as to the third point – war didn’t happen. This resembled the situation in 2020, when the Iranians hit US bases in Iraq in response to the assassination of General Soleimani.

However, it is still too early to speculate as to whether Iran’s attack was a success or not. The big question now is how Israel will respond. 

What Iran has accomplished

It’s important to emphasize that Iran’s operation carried more political than military weight. In this sense, it was carried out subtly and was a success. Obviously, the Iranians did not want to start a war which would involve the US, even though that is what Netanyahu wanted. In other words, Israel didn’t manage to provoke Iran. 

It is also obvious that the Islamic Republic possesses more powerful drones and missiles than those used in the attack on April 14. However, even the less advanced drones and missiles were able to penetrate Israeli air space and inflict economic damage, since Israel spent much more money on shooting down the missiles and drones than Iran spent on launching them. 

Tehran has once again demonstrated that Israel is not invulnerable, and it is possible to attack it. As for the degree of inflicted damage, which some commentators were unsatisfied with, it largely depends on the type of missiles and drones used in the attack – and Iran has a lot of military equipment. 

Finally, Iran’s main achievement is that it has managed to confuse Israel in the same way that it was confused after the October 7 Hamas attack. The country has to respond. But how? Should Israel strike Iranian proxy forces? This is possible, but Israel does it all the time without much result. Should it hit Iran directly? But that would start a war which no one is prepared for, including the US.

Conclusion

The ball is now in Israel’s court, and the country faces the same challenges that the Islamic Republic did after April 1. But will Israel be able to solve these challenges as efficiently? 

It is noteworthy that IRGC Commander-in-Chief, Hossein Salami, said that from now on, if Israel attacks the interests of Iran and Iranian citizens, Tehran will strike it again.

This is an important statement. Essentially, the attack carried out by Iran on April 14 was not just a retaliatory strike, but established a new order. Iran demonstrated that it is ready to resort to new means of influence in a situation where words are not sufficient. It attacked Israel directly not in order to start a war, but to demonstrate what could happen if all other methods of pressure on Israel fail. 

A new option has been put forward. Israel may be deprived of its most important advantage – absolute impunity, which until recently had been guaranteed by the US.

President Vladimir Putin is not invited, according to the organizers

A Russian delegation can join an international celebration marking 80 years since D-Day in France, but President Vladimir Putin is not welcome, the organizers announced on Tuesday.

The Allied landing in Normandy, which opened a second front against Nazi Germany in Europe, will be commemorated on June 6. Earlier in the day the radio station Europe 1 broke the news of the imminent French decision.

The Liberation Mission organizing committee stressed in a statement that President Putin will not be invited for the ceremony “in view of the circumstances,” referring to the Ukraine conflict.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that Moscow had received no official communications on the matter from Paris.

President Putin took part in a ceremony on the 70th anniversary of D-Day in 2014. The event took place months after a Western-backed armed coup in Kiev prompted the then-Ukrainian region of Crimea to break away and seek Russian protection from Ukrainian nationalists. Paris invited the Russian leader despite the diplomatic rift caused by those events. Western media described Putin as “detached and isolated” during the event in Normandy.

According to Europe 1, France wants Moscow to have lower-level representation at this year’s event, but marking the historic date “would be difficult” if the country was not part of it at all, the outlet suggested.

The Soviet Union sustained the highest number of casualties among the Allied powers during World War II, losing more than 26 million people, most of whom were civilians. Western nations provided crucial supplies for the Soviet war effort but joined the effort on the European continent only after the Red Army had forced Nazi Germany and its allies into retreat.

Earlier in the day, Bloomberg claimed that some French and foreign officials were “apprehensive” about President Emmanuel Macron’s public rhetoric on Russia. The French leader seems to be “oscillating unpredictably between peacemaker and provocateur,” the news agency said.

Last year, Macron said he may invite Putin to Normandy, if circumstances allowed.

The incident in Copenhagen has been described as the country’s ‘Notre Dame’ moment

A fire engulfed one of the best-known buildings in the Danish capital of Copenhagen on Tuesday in an incident that has been compared to the 2019 Notre Dame blaze in Paris.

Denmark’s historic old stock exchange in the center of the city went up in flames, leading to a collapse of its spire. The 17th century Borsen was undergoing renovation and had been covered in scaffolding and protective plastic.

“Horrible pictures from the Bourse. So sad. An iconic building that means a lot to all of us... Our own Notre-Dame moment,” Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen wrote on X (formerly Twitter). 

Danish TV also quoted locals describing the fire as a Notre Dame moment for the country. In 2019 fire engulfed the landmark medieval Catholic cathedral in Paris while the building was shrouded in scaffolding for renovations, bringing down its roof and spire. Tuesday’s fire in Denmark took place just a day after the fifth anniversary of the Notre Dame blaze.

According to the Copenhagen fire department, nearby buildings have been evacuated. The scaffolding around the stock exchange building made it harder for the emergency services to reach the flames, while the copper roof was preserving the heat, the fire department added.

READ MORE: Macron’s wife wanted ‘phallus and golden balls’ for Notre Dame – ex-minister

No injuries were immediately reported as everyone inside the building was able to leave. Some of its historic artifacts have also been rescued.

It was not immediately clear what caused the blaze. The building currently serves as the headquarters for the Danish Chamber of Commerce.

Washington’s commitment to Israel’s defense has caused envy in Kiev, the Wall Street Journal has quoted the academic as saying

There is growing disenchantment with the US among Ukrainians over its perceived lack of commitment to their defense, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing the director of the Center for International Studies at the Odessa National University.

Vladimir Dubovyk told the newspaper in an article on Monday that the swift action from the US and its NATO allies to fend off a massive Iranian missile and drone strike on Israel at the weekend stands in stark contrast to their apparent reluctance to beef up Ukraine’s air defenses amid its conflict with Russia.

Ukrainians are “beginning to sour on the US,” Dubovyk was quoted as saying. The scholar noted that Washington played a key role “in the first two years of the war [with Russia], but now of course there’s a huge slowdown,” apparently referring to President Joe Biden’s latest aid package, which has been deadlocked by Republicans in Congress for several months.

“Rather than helping Ukraine create the kind of air-defense network Israel has, the West has provided [Kiev] with a patchwork of equipment,” the WSJ noted, adding that these stockpiles have become significantly depleted as Moscow escalates its campaign of air bombardments.

The situation in Ukraine was contrasted with that of Israel, after Iran launched several hundred missiles and kamikaze drones at the Jewish state late on Saturday. US, British, French and Jordanian fighter jets scrambled to intercept the projectiles, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) later reported that the vast majority of Iranian rockets and UAVs had been shot down before they reached Israeli airspace.

Tehran said the attack came in response to an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Syria on April 1, and claimed that it had struck several Israeli military installations.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky noted that Israel is not a NATO member, meaning Western powers were not legally obliged to come to its defense. The Ukrainian leader added that the involvement of the US, the UK, and France did not result in a war breaking out in the region.

“European skies could have received the same level of protection long ago if Ukraine had received similar full support from its partners,” Zelensky concluded.

During a press conference on Monday, US National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby made it clear that the situations in Israel and Ukraine cannot be compared, describing them as “different conflicts, different airspace, [and] different threat picture.”

He also emphasized that the US “is not going to be involved in [the Ukraine conflict] in a combat role.”

A day before the agreement would have come into force, Kiev pulled out, sources told Reuters

Russia and Ukraine had almost reached a new Black Sea shipping deal in March after two months of negotiations, only for Kiev to abruptly walk away, Reuters reported on Monday, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

The official agreement governing the freight route lapsed in July 2023, when Moscow declined to renew the original Türkiye- and UN-mediated Black Sea Grain Initiative. Russia said that the US and EU had not kept their part of the deal, blocking exports of Russian food and fertilizer.

The most recent talks were brokered by Türkiye at the prompting of the United Nations, and a tentative agreement to “to ensure the safety of merchant shipping in the Black Sea” was reached last month, according to Reuters’ sources.

They added that while Kiev did not formally sign, it agreed that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could announce the deal a day before Turkiye’s March 31 local elections, with the pact to take effect immediately upon being made public.

“At the very last minute, Ukraine suddenly pulled out and the deal was scuttled.” 

According to the draft seen by Reuters, Ankara had mediated agreements between Moscow and Kiev “on ensuring free and safe navigation of merchant vessels in the Black Sea,” in compliance with maritime conventions.

The guarantees would not apply to “warships, civilian vessels carrying military goods,” except when agreed upon by all parties, the copy of the document stated.

Both Russia and Ukraine were to offer security guarantees to commercial vessels in the Black Sea, undertaking not to strike, seize or search them, provided they were unladen or had declared a non-military cargo, according to the draft agreement.

The reasons for Kiev pulling out are unclear, but President Vladimir Zelensky accused Russia of targeting grain export infrastructure during the original deal, thereby putting vulnerable countries at risk.

Speaking to reporters earlier this year, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denied that Moscow ever attacked Ukrainian ships in the Black Sea during the grain deal. One of the reasons Moscow did not return to the Black Sea Grain Initiative was Kiev’s misuse of the shipping passage during the agreement, he said.

“The Ukrainians used these free secure passages to launch their weapons in the form of naval drones,” damaging Russian ships and ports, Lavrov stated. He added under the old agreement, only 3% of the shipped Ukrainian grain went to countries on the UN World Food Programme's list of states in greatest need.

READ MORE: Egypt wants to host Russian wheat hub

Since then, Moscow has donated 200,000 tons of grain to six African nations, with the last shipments arriving in January of this year.

Mike Johnson has reportedly unveiled a plan to pass the legislation after months of impasse

US House Speaker Mike Johnson has promised to advance the long-stalled Ukraine aid bill sought by President Joe Biden this week, multiple news outlets reported on Monday.

The proposed legislation has been stuck in Congress for months due to a bitter dispute between Democrats and Republicans.

According to reports, Johnson told Republican colleagues at a closed-door meeting that he intends to allow the House to vote on a standalone bill this week that would ensure additional military aid to Kiev. The House will also be expected to vote on separate bills providing more aid to Israel and Taiwan. 

“We know that the world is watching us to see how we react,” Johnson told reporters after a meeting with GOP legislators, as quoted by the New York Times. He added that the leaders of Russia, China and Iran are “watching to see if America will stand up for its allies and our interests around the globe – and we will.”

House Republicans have previously refused to back the foreign aid bill unveiled by Biden in October, which includes $61 billion in assistance for Ukraine.

The legislation has been held up for months, with the GOP trying to force the White House to crack down on the influx of illegal migrants via the southern border. Biden's 2024 election rival, former President Donald Trump, previously urged Republicans to block the bill, arguing against unconditional aid for Ukraine.

The delay in approving more weapons for Ukraine has rattled President Vladimir Zelensky and other officials in Kiev, who are blaming mounting battlefield losses on shortages of foreign-supplied ammunition and air defenses. “If Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war,” Zelensky warned last week.

Russia, meanwhile, has repeatedly stated that no amount of foreign assistance will change the outcome of the conflict, and accused the West of escalation.

A long ongoing case has both caused and revealed corruption in all areas of public life

In Greek mythology Heracles (Hercules in Latin) was tasked with cleaning out the Augean stables in a single day.

Augeas was a Greek king who owned large herds of animals that resided in his palatial stables. They produced extraordinary amounts of dung, and the stables had not been cleaned for years.

Heracles completed his allotted task in a day – but King Augeas refused to pay him. Heracles killed the king, and went into exile. 

The Brittany Higgins #MeToo case in Australia still awaits its Heracles – in the meantime, the prodigious pile of dung that it has generated grows exponentially higher by the day.

The sordid saga is Australia’s most infamous #MeToo case. It has dominated the mass media, the legal system, and politics in this country for the past few years – both causing and revealing corruption within each of these areas of Australian public life.

It has destroyed the reputations and careers of prominent journalists, politicians, judges, and lawyers – whilst at the same time transforming both its protagonists, Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann, into, at the end of the day, rather grubby and flawed celebrities.

It commenced in March 2019, when two drunk, unknown twenty-something political staffers – Higgins and Lehrmann – decided to go back to Parliament House in Canberra after a regular Saturday night of excessive drinking at nearby bars.

Parliament House had long been a favored after-hours sexual trysting location for young political staffers, but both Higgins and Lehrmann have subsequently maintained, unconvincingly, that this was not their intent. 

Higgins claimed that Lehrmann raped her in a minister’s office (that of Senator Linda Reynolds, for whom they worked) to which they had improperly gained access, while Lehrmann has steadfastly denied that any sex, consensual or otherwise, took place.

On Monday, in the Federal Court in Sydney, Justice Michael Lee handed down his judgment in defamation proceedings brought by Lehrmann against Channel 10 and television personality Lisa Wilkinson – who broadcast the sensational television interview in early 2021 in which Higgins first publicly alleged that Lehrmann had raped her in Parliament House.

Justice Lee, one of the few lawyers involved in the Higgins saga to have acted with complete propriety and objectivity, made damning findings about both Higgins and Lehrmann – describing them as “unreliable witnesses” who had told deliberate lies – and found that Channel 10 and Wilkinson had acted unreasonably and in a “grossly improper and unjustifiable way.”

Justice Lee’s assessment of the credibility of all the major protagonists in the Higgins saga is undoubtedly correct. 

Notwithstanding this uniformly negative appraisal, Justice Lee found – on the civil, balance of probabilities, onus of proof – that Lehrmann had raped Higgins in 2019, because he had been reckless as to whether the inebriated Higgins had consented to having sex with him.

Lee was at pains to point out that this finding differed from a finding of guilt in a criminal trial – where the more onerous “beyond reasonable doubt” onus of proof applies. It is also clear that if Lehrmann had admitted to having sex with Higgins, he would have been in a better position to defend his conduct.   

In making this crucial factual finding, Justice Lee disbelieved the accounts given by both Higgins and Lehrmann of what had occurred on the night in question. In particular, he rejected Higgins’ evidence that she had repeatedly told Lehrmann that she did not consent to having sex with her.

It followed that Justice Lee entered judgment in favor of Channel 10 and Wilkinson – because their truth defense had been made out. Lehrmann will no doubt appeal the decision – given that the legal costs of all parties probably exceed $5 million.   

The defamation trial presided over by Justice Lee revealed in graphic terms the unprofessional and unprincipled conduct engaged in by those media organizations that became involved in the Higgins affair in a partisan fashion.

Lisa Wilkinson’s interview with Higgins in February 2021 – which turned Higgins into a #MeToo icon – was hardly an exercise in journalism at all. Wilkinson was committed to the #MeToo cause and to bringing down the conservative Morrison government, and Justice Lee found that Higgins’ allegations were not tested at all – especially her now demonstrably false assertion that the government conspired to cover up her rape.

Wilkinson’s slanted interview unsurprisingly later won a prestigious award, and in her televised acceptance speech in June 2022 she reiterated the truth of Higgins’ allegations – thereby causing Lehrmann’s upcoming criminal trial for rape in the ACT Supreme Court to be postponed, and making it difficult, if not impossible, for him to receive a fair trial before a jury.  

Justice Lee found that no reputable journalist could have believed that Wilkinson’s speech did not amount to a contempt of court.

And, at one point in her cross-examination, Wilkinson – who Justice Lee described ironically as a “fourth estate eminence grise” – accused Lehrmann’s lawyer of “making me sound like a tabloid journalist” – a comment that provoked laughter from serious journalists.  

Wilkinson fell out with Channel 10 as a result of the aftermath of her speech, and she has not appeared on television for the past few years. Justice Lee’s scathing and apt criticisms of Wilkinson will probably ensure that her “journalistic” career will not be revived anytime soon.

After Lehrmann’s rape trial was aborted as a result of misconduct by a juror, Lehrmann agreed to give a tell-all television interview to the Channel 7 ‘Spotlight’ program, which was broadcast in June 2023.   

This was hardly surprising – both Higgins and Lehrmann are addicted to the celebrity culture that created them and continues to sustain them in their quest for perpetual celebrity status.

Lehrmann’s ‘Spotlight’ interview was just as self-serving and flawed as Higgins’ interview with Wilkinson had been – perhaps even more so because Lehrmann is the more determined liar – and his defamation trial revealed squalid details about the lengths to which Channel 7 was willing to go to procure it. 

Bear in mind that Justice Lee found that Lehrmann was “a fundamentally dishonest liar” who “gave false evidence about a litany of matters.”

Evidence presented at the trial showed that Channel 7 paid the rent on an expensive apartment for Lehrmann for over 12 months, as well as paying for meals at fashionable restaurants and numerous interstate trips. 

More sensationally, a former Channel 7 employee who acted as Lehrmann’s “minder” on the ‘Spotlight’ program testified that Channel 7 paid $10,000 for “Asian massages” for Lehrmann, as well as reimbursing him for cocaine that he purchased.

The “minder” also testified that Lehrmann supplied Channel 7 with confidential documents obtained during his criminal proceedings – thereby committing a contempt of court. Justice Lee found that this allegation was made out. Both the “minder” and producer of ‘Spotlight’ recently departed Channel 7.

So much for what the Higgins saga tells us about contemporary investigative journalism in Australia.

The story has had an even more destructive impact on the legal system in Australia, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory – the nation’s capital.

After Wilkinson delivered her infamous televised speech, and after Prime Minister Scott Morrison delivered his apology to Higgins in federal parliament in early 2022 – in which he implicitly accepted that she had been raped – it was virtually impossible for Lehrmann to receive a fair trial before a jury in his criminal rape case. 

Nevertheless, the Lehrmann criminal matter went to trial in the ACT Supreme Court in late 2022.

During her cross-examination at the trial, Higgins was granted the extraordinary indulgence of not having to appear for some days – even though no application by her was made in open court. And when the jury was unable to reach a verdict after some days’ deliberation, it was not discharged, as many lawyers thought it should have been. 

By chance, a court official discovered that a juror had improperly accessed material from the internet – in clear breach of the trial judge’s repeated directions, and the trial was aborted.

Of course, the fact that modern jurors pay no heed to judge’s directions gives lie to the proposition that adverse pre-trial publicity can be cured by an appropriate direction by the trial judge. 

After the rape trial had been aborted, Higgins delivered an inflammatory speech on the court steps condemning the legal system and Lehrmann. This speech constituted a clear contempt of court, but no action was taken against Higgins – just as no action had been taken against Lisa Wilkinson for her speech earlier in the year.

A subsequent enquiry reluctantly established by the woke Labor/Greens ACT government into the Lehrmann trial – presided over by a well-respected former judge from Queensland – made serious findings of misconduct (including that he had not acted with fairness and detachment and had lied to the judge presiding over Lehrmann’s rape trial) against the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, who had prosecuted Lehrmann at trial.

Drumgold was forced to resign, and notwithstanding the serious findings of misconduct made against him by the enquiry, Drumgold has now found employment as a lecturer in law at a Canberra university.

And the ACT government recently gave Senator Reynolds $90,000 and an apology to settle a defamation action she had brought in respect of Drumgold’s conduct.

Not surprisingly, the reputation of the ACT legal system amongst those who believe in due process and the rule of law is at an all-time low – and quite deservedly so. It is difficult to see how it can ever recover.

Lehrmann’s flawed prosecution for rape has also led a few courageous judges in New South Wales – including one particularly brave female judge – to publicly raise questions about the influence of the #MeToo movement on the Office of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions.  

These judges believe that “meritless” cases alleging rape are regularly being prosecuted for essentially ideological reasons – and they are sick and tired of presiding over extremely weak cases with no reasonable prospects of success, that juries quickly throw out. These judges have taken the unusual step of ordering the government to pay the successful defendants’ legal costs in such cases.   

The Higgins saga’s effect on politics has been equally dire.

Mention has already been made of Prime Minister Morrison’s extraordinary apology to Brittany Higgins made in federal parliament in February 2022. 

Given that it was inevitable that the Higgins matter would wind up before the courts, it was grossly improper for Morrison to express a view on what might have occurred in Parliament House three years earlier. He was completely unaware of the facts at the time, and his apology was a pathetic attempt to curry political favor with the #MeToo movement. 

Morrison’s crude ploy failed completely, and Higgins became a trenchant critic of the prime minister and subsequently campaigned against him. The Morrison government was voted out of office in early 2023 – with its “woman problem” said to be a major contributing factor to its demise.

Morrison also disloyally failed to support Senator Reynolds over the Higgins matter – he simply threw her under the #MeToo bus, in order to try and save himself and his government from being voted out of office. Reynolds has now, understandably, resigned from parliament in disgust – yet another female victim of the Higgins saga.

After winning the federal election in early 2023, the Labor government of Anthony Albanese settled a foreshadowed legal claim by Higgins against the Morrison government and Senator Reynolds for the staggering sum of $2.3 million – at a mediation that lasted less than a day.

It is now apparent that many of the allegations made by Higgins in that foreshadowed claim were never properly tested, and may well be demonstrably false. Justice Lee expressed doubts the settlement in his judgment.

Higgins and her boyfriend were friendly with a number of female Labor politicians who had eagerly taken up her cause in 2022, and serious questions have recently been raised about the propriety of this unprecedented settlement.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission – ironically established by Albanese last year – is currently considering whether to conduct an enquiry into Higgins’ settlement. 

Higgins used part of her settlement monies to recently purchase a chateau in France, where she now resides with her boyfriend – who bears a disturbing resemblance to Bruce Lehrmann. Australian taxpayers are decidedly unimpressed.

The Higgins saga is, however, far from ended.  

Last year, Lehrmann was charged with raping a woman after meeting her at a Toowoomba striptease club. That trial will take place later this year or early next year, and will no doubt ensure that Lehrmann retains his celebrity status for the foreseeable future.

Senator Reynolds has also sued Higgins and her boyfriend for defamation, and that case will come on for trial later this year in Perth.

If the National Anti- Corruption Commission decides to investigate Higgins’ remarkable $2.3 million payout – as it should – that enquiry may also take place later this year. 

It is now beyond argument that the Higgins saga has seriously corrupted journalism, the legal system and politics in Australia, perhaps beyond hope of redemption, because – as Justice Lee pointed out in his judgment – the Higgins “shambles” has always been “a proxy for broader cultural and political conflicts.”  

A few judges and journalists of integrity – no politician would dare criticize the #MeToo movement – have taken a principled public stand, but they comprise a very small, if courageous, minority.

No doubt the #MeToo movement will fixate upon the fact the Justice Lee found that, on the civil onus of proof, Higgins was raped and blithely ignore his serious criticisms of her and those media organizations that uncritically published her false allegations.  

As the Higgins tsunami continues to wreak havoc into the future, one can only wonder what appalling additional disclosures it will reveal and how much more Australian taxpayers will have to pay for it.

Only one thing is certain – cleaning up all this filth is beyond even Heracles.

The Scranton Army Munitions Plant has produced artillery shells for Ukraine

The US Army factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania that specializes in artillery ammunition caught fire on Monday afternoon, according to local media reports and eyewitnesses.

The Scranton Army Ammunition Plant started spewing black smoke shortly before 3pm local time. Local emergency services were summoned to deal with what was described as a “structure fire.”

No further details were available. 

The Joint Munitions Command (JMC) facility is owned by the US military but operated by General Dynamics-Ordnance and Tactical Systems. It makes 155mm and 105mm artillery projectiles, 120mm mortar rounds, 203mm naval shells, as well as a variety of smoke, illumination and incendiary rounds.

The US has been trying to ramp up production of artillery ammunition to supply Ukraine for its conflict with Russia. 

Scranton is a community of about 75,000 residents in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is the birthplace of US President Joe Biden. He is scheduled to visit the town on Tuesday.