Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

At least eight people were reportedly killed as the Afghan militants traded cross-border fire with the Pakistani military

Afghanistan’s Taliban government accused Pakistan of killing eight civilians in an air raid on Monday. The Islamist group responded by opening fire on Pakistani targets, allegedly wounding seven people.

Pakistani jets “bombarded the homes of civilians” in the early hours of Monday morning, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement. Mujahid said that the bombing killed eight people in the provinces of Paktika and Khost, both of which border Pakistan.

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry did not comment on the alleged civilian casualties but said that the Pakistan Air Force had launched “intelligence-based anti-terrorist operations” against Taliban-sponsored terrorist groups operating in the two provinces. These groups include the Hafiz Gul Bahadur Group and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which Islamabad says have used Afghanistan as a staging ground for attacks on Pakistani soil.

The Taliban denies sheltering the TTP. While Hafiz Gul Bahadur once led a Taliban faction in Pakistan, his current relationship with Kabul is unclear.

The most recent of these attacks was on Saturday, when a suicide bomber drove an explosives-laden truck into a military checkpoint in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. A splinter group of the TTP claimed responsibility for the attack, which killed seven Pakistani soldiers.

Mujahid said that Taliban fighters responded to Monday’s airstrikes by targeting Pakistani military outposts with heavy weapons. Pakistani officials told Al Jazeera that three soldiers and four civilians were wounded by mortar fire.

“The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which has a long experience of freedom struggle against the superpowers of the world, does not allow anyone to invade its territory,” the Taliban spokesman stated.

Although an American ally, Pakistan provided military and financial aid to the Taliban before and during the US invasion of Afghanistan. That relationship has since soured, with Pakistan fencing up its side of the Afghan border and deporting hundreds of thousands of Afghans late last year. Tit-for-tat killings have become commonplace along the frontier since 2022, with the Pakistani government accusing the Taliban of sheltering terrorists and Kabul accusing Islamabad of violating Afghan sovereignty.

READ MORE: Taliban winning war against opium trade – UN

Not a single country officially recognizes the Taliban government, which took power in Kabul in 2021 during the final stage of the withdrawal of US troops. The UN does not recognize the group’s authority over Afghanistan, and the Taliban has boycotted power-sharing talks in Qatar.

Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu has said neighboring Moldova’s “only solution” is further integration with the bloc.

Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu has endorsed Moldova’s pro-Western president’s reelection campaign, declaring that the former Soviet state would not exist without support from Bucharest.

Moldovan President Maia Sandu is seeking re-election this fall, promising to maintain her government’s pro-Western trajectory and make the country a full-fledged member of the EU by 2030. Despite just 22% of Moldova’s population expressing trust in Sandu, she is backed by multiple EU leaders, including Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu.

Sandu’s reelection “is the only solution for the Republic of Moldova to continue to have a European route,” Ciolacu told Romania’s Digi24 news outlet on Sunday.

“I want to remind you that Romanians live in the Republic of Moldova, only Romanians,” Ciolacu continued. “This state is sustainable thanks to the involvement of the Romanian state and of Romania. I think it is our duty as Romanians to continue to support our Romanians from the Republic of Moldova.”

More than 80% of Moldova’s 2.5 million people speak Romanian as their mother language and roughly a quarter of the population hold Romanian passports. However, while Sandu has spoken favorably about the country’s eventual unification with Romania, around two thirds of Moldovans oppose the idea. A majority of Moldova’s population also opposes joining NATO, while only a slim majority supports EU membership, according to a poll carried out earlier this month. 

Furthermore, the self-declared republic of Transnistria, located in eastern Moldova, is home to more than 200,000 Russian citizens. In 2006, 98% of Transnistrians voted to secede and pursue future integration with the Russian Federation.

Transnistrian legislators last month called on Moscow to take “measures to protect Transnistria amid mounting pressure from Moldova.” The Kremlin promised to “carefully consider” the request.

According to recent opinion polling, Sandu is nech-and-neck with socialist rival Igor Dodon, who favors closer relations with Russia. While Moldovans once associated Sandu with liberalization and prosperity, they now associate her with “poverty, arrogance, and anti-democratic abuse,” Dodon said in December.

Russia’s envoy urged the organization to force Kiev to abide by international rules

The obvious lack of a reaction to Ukrainian attacks on Russian cities demonstrated by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has encouraged Kiev to keep killing civilians, Moscow’s representative at the organization Alexander Lukashevich stated on Monday.

The comments came as Ukraine intensified its attacks on Russia’s border regions last week ahead of the country’s presidential election, which took place Friday through Sunday. The attacks involved drone raids, artillery strikes and attempted ground incursions. The assaults on Russia’s Belgorod Region alone have claimed the lives of 11 civilians, including children; 82 more were injured, according to the local health authorities.

“The OSCE leadership is once again demonstrating biased approaches, continuing to divide people into categories and sorts and blatantly ‘not noticing’ the victims of attacks carried out by the armed formations of the Kiev regime against peaceful residents of the Russian regions,” Lukashevich said in a statement posted on the official Telegram channel of the Russian mission.

The official highlighted that the OSCE leaders had offered nothing but “politicized statements” to back Kiev’s criminal regime, accusing the organization of demonstrating hypocrisy that “goes beyond all possible boundaries.”

Lukashevich also urged OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Ian Borg and Secretary General Helga Schmid to immediately condemn the intense, indiscriminate shelling of Russian cities by Ukrainian militant groups. 

READ MORE: OSCE violating its mandate – Moscow

According to the envoy, the organization must call on the Ukrainian authorities and their sponsors from NATO to stop killing civilians, and immediately choose a political and diplomatic path to resolve existing tensions instead. 

“Silence and inaction by the OSCE leadership now will mean not only encouragement of attacks by the Kiev regime against the civilians of the Russian Federation, but also its personal responsibility for further armed escalation,” the diplomat concluded.

Beijing is considering taking part in event, according to its ambassador in Bern

China is examining the possibility of taking part in a proposed Swiss-hosted peace conference on the Ukraine conflict, Beijing’s ambassador to Bern, Wang Shihting, told the daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung on Monday.

Last month, Switzerland announced plans to organize a peace summit, which would take place “by the summer.” No specific date has been set, nor has a list of participants been revealed. However, Ukraine has indicated that Russia can only be invited if it agrees in advance to a litany of preconditions.

Beijing has reportedly been pushing to have Moscow invited to the peace talks, with Wang saying on Monday that all parties must be involved to end the ongoing conflict.

“The crisis must be prevented from getting even worse, or even getting out of control,” the envoy said, noting that China has already put forward a strategy for a political end to the conflict, and adding that Beijing has been following the Swiss proposal and is considering taking part.

“The territorial sovereignty of all countries must be respected, and the UN Charter must be adhered to,” Wang stressed. “We should support Russia and Ukraine resuming direct dialogue as quickly as possible so that the situation can be gradually de-escalated,” the diplomat recommended.

Moscow has called the proposed peace conference plan “pointless” and indicated it has no intention of participating, even if officially invited.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last week that the proposed forum would be dedicated to the promotion of the ‘Zelensky peace formula’ which Moscow has panned as unrealistic.

Zelensky’s plan includes the full withdrawal of Russian troops and a return to Ukraine’s 1991 borders, holding Moscow accountable and forced to pay reparations, among other conditions. Kiev’s basic demands remain the same, while legitimate Russian interests are being ignored, according to Zakharova. She insisted that Switzerland has “lost” its neutral status and cannot serve as a platform for peacekeeping efforts.

Ukraine’s Western backers insist that a peace settlement can only be achieved on Kiev’s terms and have vowed to continue weapons deliveries for “as long as it takes.” Russia, meanwhile, has stressed that no amount of foreign aid will change the course of the conflict.

Peace negotiations between Moscow and Kiev were held in Istanbul in the spring of 2022 but broke down, with each side accusing the other of making unrealistic demands. Russian President Vladimir Putin has since said that the Ukrainian delegation had initially agreed with some of Moscow’s terms, but then abruptly reneged on the deal.

The Kremlin has said that it remains open to discussions, but only if Kiev recognizes the “reality on the ground.”

The pardoned ex-lobbyist could be given a fundraising role for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, sources have claimed

Donald Trump could hire former lobbyist Paul Manafort for his presidential election campaign, sources have told the Washington Post. Manafort was convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion in 2018 after being linked to the ‘Russiagate’ saga, before being pardoned by Trump as he was leaving office. 

Citing anonymous sources, the newspaper reported on Monday that presumptive Republican nominee Trump appreciates Manafort’s personal loyalty and intends to entrust him with raising funds for his bid for a White House return in November’s election.

The move, however, “would likely revive discussion of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election,” the Post claimed. Manafort formerly served as chairman of Trump’s 2016 campaign before being dismissed over allegations of illegal lobbying.

He had spent years as a Republican operative before becoming a lobbyist for foreign clients. Manafort was later accused of neglecting to register as foreign agent and fraudulently hiding profits from the US tax authorities.

Manafort emerged as a key target for attacks on the Trump campaign in 2016 due to the fact that Viktor Yanukovich, the Ukrainian president ousted in 2014 in the US-backed armed coup in Kiev, had been among his clients.

Western media widely described Yanukovich as “pro-Russian” due to his voter base in the predominantly ethnic-Russian eastern part of Ukraine and his reluctance to integrate with the EU at the expense of tariff-free trade with Moscow.

Yanukovich employed Manafort’s services to improve his government’s standing with the West. The American engaged the bipartisan lobbying apparatus in Washington, working with major firms such as the Podesta Group, which is closely linked to the Democrats. Co-founder John Podesta had a senior position in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Manafort came to the attention of special counsel Robert Mueller, who was charged with investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential vote. While the probe failed to produce charges against Trump for supposedly colluding with Moscow, Manafort’s conviction was played up by media hostile to the then-president as circumstantial evidence that such a link existed.

READ MORE: Trump plans to ‘reform’ CIA and FBI – Politico

Trump pardoned Manafort in December 2020, just as his term in office was about to end. The Republican publicly praised his “brave” former campaign staffer in an interview in 2018, comparing him favorably to another ex-associate, long-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen. The same month, Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations related to payouts to adult film actress Stormy Daniels over an alleged affair she had with Trump.

The Chinese leader says he is sure that Russia will be able to achieve even more success under the president’s continued rule

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has congratulated his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on his historic landslide victory in Russia's presidential election, which has paved the way for his fifth term in office.

According to the Central Election Commission, with almost all ballots counted, Putin had 87% of the votes. Voter turnout, unprecedented in the country’s modern history, exceeded 77%.

In a letter quoted by Beijing’s foreign ministry on Monday, the Chinese leader noted that Putin’s victory is proof that he enjoys the support of the Russian people, and expressed confidence that under his leadership, Russia “will be able to make greater achievements in national development.” Xi added that China attaches great importance to vibrant bilateral ties.

Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said that Beijing hoped that Russian-Chinese cooperation “will continue to move forward” under the strategic guidance of the two residents. “China and Russia are each other’s largest neighbors and comprehensive strategic partners in the new era,” Lin added.

During his victory speech on Sunday night, Putin pointed out that Russia-China ties are a “stabilizing factor” for the entire framework of international relations, expressing hope that these bonds would be maintained, in no small part due to “our good personal relationship with the president of the People’s Republic of China.”

The two countries have for decades enjoyed close economic and political ties, with Beijing refusing to support unprecedented Western sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine conflict. The deep partnership between the two countries was further underscored by Xi’s historic visit to Moscow last March. Putin reciprocated, traveling to Beijing in October.

Xi was not the only world leader to congratulate Putin on his re-election. He was joined by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and a host of leaders from post-Soviet republics, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Western countries have not sent any congratulatory messages to Putin amid the stand-off over Ukraine, with many calling the election “unfair,” a charge denied in Moscow.

However, Leonid Sevastyanov, the head of the World Union of Orthodox Old Believers, who says he is in contact with Pope Francis, noted that the pontiff had also congratulated Putin on his landslide victory.

The reported test comes after Pyongyang decried the latest joint drills held by the US and South Korea

North Korea fired multiple short-range ballistic missiles into the East Sea on Monday, the Yonhap News Agency has reported, citing senior South Korean military officials. The launches were carried out as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in Seoul for a state visit.

The ballistic missile tests, Pyongyang’s first in two months, were detected between 7:44am and 8:22am local time, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) stated. The missiles traveled around 300km and landed in the East Sea (also known as the Sea of Japan), they added. 

“North Korea fired at least three missiles, and their trajectories were similar to those of [the] KN-24,” a senior military official was quoted as saying. The KN-24 is a solid-fuel ballistic missile with a range of up to 410km and an estimated payload of 400-500kg.

“We strongly condemn North Korea’s latest missile launch, which is a clear provocation that seriously threatens peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula,” the JCS said.

The Defense Ministry in Tokyo confirmed the launch, saying all three missiles had traveled about 350km before landing in waters outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, which extends 370km from the coast. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida condemned the tests, adding that Japan was analyzing them while working with the US and South Korea.

The launches come after South Korea and the US wrapped up large-scale annual joint military drills earlier this month. The 11-day Freedom Shield exercises on the Korean Peninsula reportedly involved twice the number of troops compared to 2023 and carried out roughly double the number of field-training drills.

North Korea branded the exercises “reckless” and a “further escalation of military threats,” claiming they were preparation for “an invasion attempt.” Earlier this month, Pyongyang warned the US and South Korea to stop any further “provocative and destabilizing” actions, adding that “a nuclear war may be ignited even with a single spark.” 

Blinken arrived in Seoul on Monday to attend the Summit for Democracy conference hosted by President Yoon Suk Yeol. The event, an initiative of US President Joe Biden, is reportedly aimed at discussing ways to stop democratic backsliding and the erosion of rights and freedoms worldwide. Blinken is expected to meet his South Korean counterpart, Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul, during the visit.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The Russian leader has called the political situation in America a “catastrophe”

The US has become a global laughing stock by criticizing democratic processes in other nations while suppressing a presidential candidate in its own election, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has claimed.

Speaking to journalists in Moscow early on Monday morning, shortly after preliminary results indicated he would be reelected with 87% of the vote in the Russian presidential election, Putin stated that the “whole world is laughing at what is happening” in the US.

“We are behaving with more restraint than their opponents in other countries, but this is just a catastrophe, not a democracy – that’s what it is,” the Russian leader added.

Putin claimed that the current US administration is using all its resources to attack a candidate for this year’s presidential election, seemingly referring to Donald Trump. The former US leader is facing a litany of lawsuits despite being the presumptive Republican nominee for the vote in November.

In a pre-election interview earlier this week, Putin insisted that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections and will work with any elected US president.

“I think it’s obvious to everyone that the American political system cannot claim to be democratic in any sense of the word,” he said in an interview with journalist Dmitry Kiselyov. Putin refused to comment further on the current presidential campaign in the US, but described the atmosphere as becoming “increasingly uncivilized.”

The final day of the Russian presidential election coincides with the anniversary of the utterly meaningless move against the incumbent

One year ago, on 17 March 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued two politically important – to put it neutrally – arrest warrants, one for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the other for Maria Lvova-Belova, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights, a position within the Office of the President.

The warrants reflected that the ICC, to be precise its Pre-Trial Chamber following the court’s Prosecutor Karim Khan, found what it considered “reasonable grounds to believe that President Putin and Ms. Lvova-Belova bear criminal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.” Khan further argued that “these acts… demonstrate an intention to permanently remove these children from their own country.” In sum, the arrest warrants depicted an extensive kidnapping operation during wartime.

Public – and published – opinion in the West preponderantly celebrated the warrants as not only justified but salutary. They were supposed to promote the protection of civilians during war and put pressure on Russia by increasing its international isolation, a geopolitical aim that the West was struggling to achieve.

As the Wall Street Journal proclaimed, this was “the first time the leader of a nuclear superpower” was “called to account before the court, an independent institution established … to end impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.” The American President, Joe Biden, thought the ICC operation made “a very strong point.” Not to be outdone, reliably extremist Senator Lindsey Graham and equally reliably conventional publicist Fareed Zakaria both displayed historical illiteracy by absurdly claiming that Putin was copying Hitler. Historian here: Hitler’s victims would have disagreed.

Some Western commentators warned that the warrants were unlikely to be enforced and that convictions were even less likely. Yet such reservations did not challenge the overall Western consensus that the ICC move was both correct and, in some way, useful, even if mostly in a “symbolic,” that is, really, political manner.

Russian officials, unsurprisingly, responded very differently. They rejected both the charges as “null and void” and the jurisdiction of the ICC. Russia, like the US, is (after withdrawing in 2016) not a signatory state to the 1998 Rome Statute, on which the court is based. Hence, the decisions of the ICC have “no meaning for Russia,” as Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs put it. Russia even started its own investigation against members of the ICC, and later Graham.

Russian commentators, as well as dissenting voices in the West, also denounced the ICC warrants as an abuse of judicial procedures for political purposes, amounting to a form of information war or lawfare against Russia. The Grayzone’s Jeremy Loffredo and Max Blumenthal, for instance, investigated the ICC’s evidence and found that it was fundamentally flawed. Their work was thorough, and their findings were detailed as well as, for the ICC and Karim Khan personally, deeply embarrassing.

The key point was that Khan had based much of his case on a report produced by the Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL) at Yale University, an organization “funded and guided” by the US State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, an entity the Biden administration established in May 2022 to advance the prosecution of Russian officials.” In addition, the executive director of HRL, Nathaniel Raymond, started contradicting himself. Whereas he had initially made grandiloquent public statements in the Graham-Zakaria register – even including a bizarre reference to “genocide” – he greatly toned down his allegations once challenged by investigative reporters. No wonder, as the HRL report was weakly sourced, and its content actually contradicted Raymond’s inflammatory rhetoric.

In other words, the ICC prosecutor had relied on a tainted source that crudely served the information warfare purposes of Russia’s main geopolitical opponent, to such a degree that even its executive director ultimately got cold feet. That this badly undermined Karim’s case and his reputation as a professional needs no further belaboring. Washington will be Washington, but why should the ICC join it? If, that is, it seeks to be respected.

In legal terms, the cases have already been shown to be shoddy. They are unlikely to succeed, and not only because of practical and political obstacles, but, more importantly, because there is much more politics than evidence behind them. In terms of those politics, ironically, they have also failed: The warrants have not led to or increased the isolation of Russia or its president. If they have weakened anything, then it is the standing of the ICC, and, in particular, of its Prosecutor Karim Khan. The ICC is already struggling with a deserved reputation as a willing tool of Western geopolitics, while turning a blind eye to the West’s crimes. The attempt to engage in geopolitical lawfare on Russia during a Western proxy war against it has made this image problem worse. Whether a coincidence or not, the fact that one of the judges who issued the warrant for the Russian president has just become the ICC’s new president will only deepen this impression of bias.

Yet what has recently cast an especially harsh new light on the ICC’s campaign against Russia is a matter of comparison, namely between the ICC’s treatment of Russia and of Israel. And, to get a popular piece of nonsense out of the way: comparison is not “whataboutism.” Justice, and that is what courts are supposed to be about, cannot exist without consistency. To assess consistency requires comparison. The cry of “whataboutism” is merely the last refuge of the special pleaders, that is, those who want bias and thus injustice as long as it favors their own side.

As early as April 2023, another Grayzone piece of reporting found that Khan was stalling “the ICC’s case against Israel, frustrating human rights lawyers who represent the victims of grisly violence in the besieged Gaza Strip.” As critical lawyers pointed out even then, a court genuinely interested in the unlawful displacement of civilians, should have put decades of Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians at the center of its activity.

In addition, the ICC stopped investigating American war crimes in Afghanistan. The US, in return, started displaying a favorable attitude – and offering generous financial support – to the ICC, which, previously, it had threatened with invasion in case it should ever dare prosecute Americans.

And all of that before Israel’s current genocidal campaign in Gaza, which began after the Hamas attack in early October 2023. Tel Aviv and its Western supporters – in criminal terms, which do apply here, accomplices – have pretended Israel has responded with a “war” on Hamas. But, in reality, everything – explicit Israeli statements, tactics, and, last but not least, the open display of sadism by many of its soldiers and civilians as well – show conclusively that this is not “war,” terrible as the latter is. Instead, this is a genocide executed with the purpose of ethnic cleansing, to be precise, the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza (at least).

Prompted by South Africa, even the International Court of Justice – in a sense, the ICC’s “sibling” organization – has already recognized that genocide is at least a plausible possibility. It is important to understand that ICJ cases take years to conclude. At this point, a finding of a plausible possibility of genocide is the worst imaginable outcome for Israel already. In view of the fact that Tel Aviv has since then resolutely disregarded all the instructions the ICJ issued to restrain its assault, it is all the more likely that, in the end, Israel will be fully convicted.

And yet while the ICJ deals with cases between states, the ICC tries individuals – and has been conspicuous by its reticence to charge Israeli citizens. Critics have pointed out that the court and Khan himself have, once again, been very slow in reacting to Israel’s crimes. Mick Wallace, an Irish member of the European Parliament, has denounced Khan as a “pawn of US Empire” who has displayed  pro-Israeli bias and cannot “be trusted to deliver justice.” Only Khan’s removal, says Wallace, could save the ICC from irrelevance. The BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) movement, a key player in Palestinian and international resistance to Israel, has even accused Khan of being an accomplice to Tel Aviv’s genocide and, unsurprisingly, also called for him to be fired.

Only recently, as we are now looking back on half a year of unrelenting Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians in Gaza (and, as a matter of fact, elsewhere, too) have Khan and the ICC slowly started stirring themselves. Yet even now their efforts appear disingenuous. For instance, when finally appointing a prosecutor to lead the investigation into Israel’s actions against the Palestinians, Khan managed to find perhaps the worst candidate imaginable. Andrew Cayley is obviously well-embedded in the British establishment. He used to serve as the UK’s chief military prosecutor. He is a committed and open Conservative, while claiming that that does not tarnish his objectivity. Last but not least, according to The Guardian, Cayley “played a key role in a process that resulted in” the ICC giving up on a “long-running investigation into allegations that UK military personnel committed war crimes in Iraq.” Ask yourself: If you were Palestinian, would you expect fair treatment from a man with this CV?

As if to make things even worse for its own reputation, the ICC has recently added arrest warrants against two high-ranking Russian officers. In their case, the essence of the charges is that they are held responsible for attacks on infrastructure in Ukraine that, the court alleges, went beyond what humanitarian law permits. Really? The same court that has never issued similar warrants against US officers, while the comprehensive devastation of infrastructure – on a scale that Russia has not matched in Ukraine – is routine in American warfare? The same court that is dragging its feet over Israel’s assault on Gaza, which is all about mass killing of civilians not “only” directly but by the deliberate and virtually total destruction and crippling of infrastructure?

The ICC is neither promoting nor protecting human rights and international law. In reality, its obvious and indecently manifest political bias is undermining both. Is it possible that, one day, the ICC will change course, abandon its current role as an instrument of Western geopolitics, and finally do its job: pursue justice without bias? Maybe. No one knows the future. But one thing is predictable: If the ICC continues in what we might call the Khan mode of flagrant subservience, then it will become irrelevant, and soon.

Kiev’s forces will soon be able to target only one in five incoming Russian projectiles, the paper has reported

Ukraine has told its Western backers that munitions for some of its air defense systems could be almost used up by the end of March, the Washington Post has reported, citing US officials.

According to the sources, representatives of Kiev made the warning during a security conference last month, the paper wrote in an article on Friday.

Ukrainian forces, which previously managed to shoot down four out of every five missiles fired by Russia, may soon be able to target only one in five, one of the officials claimed.

The lack of air defense missiles is going to “have a significant effect on life in Ukraine’s urban centers,” the source said.

Russia has been carrying out a large-scale missile and drone campaign against Ukrainian military targets, defense-industrial complex facilities and critical infrastructure since the fall of 2022. Russia Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said previously that the aim of the attacks was to “crush Ukraine’s military potential.”

On Wednesday, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said that a US-supplied Patriot air defense system had been destroyed by Russian forces in Ukraine’s Kharkov Region. Last week, it published a video of a successful strike on a Soviet-era S-300 air defense system deployed by Ukraine in Russia’s People’s Republic of Donetsk.

The US officials who talked to WaPo warned of “catastrophic breakdown of Ukrainian lines in the grimmest contingency and the likelihood of massive casualties in the best” if Kiev does not get more military assistance from Washington.

The administration of US President Joe Biden has been trying to push through another $60 billion in assistance for Ukraine since October last year, but has so far been unable to break the resistance of hardline Republicans, who are demanding increased funding to secure the border with Mexico.

READ MORE: Ukraine’s ammo shortage hurting US strategy – White House

Moscow has repeatedly warned that deliveries of weapons to Kiev by the US, EU and their allies will not prevent it from achieving the goals of its military operation and will only prolong the fighting, and may increase the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. According to Russian officials, the provision of arms, intelligence-sharing, and training of Ukrainian troops means that Western nations have already become de-facto parties to the conflict.

The US might never have another election if he doesn’t win in November, the former president has said

Former US President Donald Trump has warned of a “bloodbath” for the American automobile industry and the country as a whole if he doesn’t win a second term in the US election on November 5.

Trump made the remark during a rally in Vandalia, Ohio on Saturday while speaking about his plans to protect US carmakers from Chinese competition.

The former president addressed China’s leader Xi Jinping from the stage, saying that “you and I are friends, but… those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now… you’re going to not hire Americans and you’re going to sell the cars to us, no.”

“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected,” the presumptive Republican nominee in the election added.

Trump urged Americans to vote for him in the fall, saying: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.”

Later in his address, he also cautioned the crowd that “if this election isn’t won, I’m not sure that you’ll ever have another election in this country.”

Trump’s speech that evening was mostly improvised as he complained about not being able to use the teleprompter due to strong winds. “I can’t read this damn teleprompter. This sucker is moving. Like reading a moving flag in a 35-mph wind,” the 77-year-old said.

The team of US President Joe Biden interpreted Trump’s mentioning of a “bloodbath” as a threat of “political violence” from their rival. “He wants another January 6, but the American people are going to give him another electoral defeat this November because they continue to reject his extremism, his affection for violence, and his thirst for revenge,” Biden’s campaign spokesman James Singer said in a statement.

Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt responded to the accusations later on Saturday, telling CNN that “crooked Joe Biden and his campaign are engaging in deceptively out-of-context editing.”

READ MORE: ‘A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin’ – Hillary Clinton

Leavitt clarified that the former president was speaking exclusively about the country’s car manufacturing industry. “Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers,” she said.

SpaceX reportedly signed a $1.8 billion contract with US intelligence services back in 2021

Elon Musk’s secretive Starshield project will allow the US military to track targets and support American and allied ground forces in real time almost anywhere on Earth, Reuters has reported, sharing new details of the billionaire’s dealings with the Pentagon.

SpaceX has been launching prototype military satellites alongside “civilian” payloads on Falcon 9 rockets since at least 2020, before eventually securing a lucrative $1.8 billion contract with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in 2021, Reuters wrote on Saturday, citing five unnamed sources familiar with the project.

The vast constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites will be able to track targets on the ground in real time nearly anywhere worldwide, the sources claimed. One of them boasted that Starshield would ensure “no one can hide” from the US government. The system also reportedly aims to be “more resilient to attacks” by rival space powers.

It remains unclear how many Starshield satellites are currently operational and when the system is expected to fully come online, with SpaceX and the Pentagon ignoring Reuters’ requests for comment. The NRO claimed it is developing “the most capable, diverse, and resilient space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance system the world has ever seen,” but refused to comment on SpaceX’s role in the project.

The SpaceX CEO previously acknowledged the development of the military alternative to the “civilian” Starlink system, saying in September that it would be “owned by the US government” and controlled by the Department of Defense.

“Starlink needs to be a civilian network, not a participant to combat,” Musk said, referring to the use of the satellites in Ukraine throughout the conflict with Russia.

Musk donated around 20,000 Starlink terminals to Ukraine shortly after Russia launched its military operation in February 2022. Since then, Kiev’s troops heavily relied on the system to maintain communications and operate combat drones along the front line.

While pledging support for Ukraine, Musk has repeatedly said he favors a peaceful resolution of the conflict. The billionaire has come under fire from US officials after refusing Kiev’s demands to use the Starlink network to aid strikes on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. In turn, Musk argued that activating Starlink in Crimea would be in breach of US sanctions. In the absence of any direct orders from the US leadership, SpaceX opted not to contravene regulations despite Kiev’s request to do so, the tycoon explained.

Earlier this month, US lawmakers reportedly launched another probe into SpaceX, after Ukrainian claims that Russian troops had allegedly used Starlink satellite service on the conflict frontline. Musk has denied the allegations, insisting that “no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia.” The Kremlin has also insisted that the Russian military has never ordered Starlink terminals.

The act, like most of the bloc’s virtue signaling, is the opposite of what its name ought to herald

The EU’s new Media Freedom Act has now been voted into law, with 464 votes for, 92 against, and 65 abstentions.

There are some news outlets whose coverage of the vote I’d like to see. Like RT’s, where you’re reading this right now. But anyone who’s viewing this from inside the European Union’s bastion of democracy and freedom is likely doing so via a VPN connection routed through somewhere outside the bloc, to circumvent its press censorship.

Nothing in this new law suggests that this will change, or that there will be increased access to information and analysis for the average person. Such improved freedoms might lead to people making up their own minds rather than having various flavors of a similar narrative served up for mass consumption. As has become par for the course in so-called Western democracies, inconvenient facts and analysis will still be dismissed as “disinformation” and criticism of the establishment still qualified as an effort to sow division – as though dissent itself wasn’t supposed to be proof of a healthy and vibrant democracy.

So, now that we’ve gotten out of the way any hope of lifting the EU’s top-down censorship in the absence of due process, exactly what kind of lip service does this new law pay to the lofty notion of media freedom?

No spying on journalists or pressing them to disclose their sources. Well, unless you’re one of the countries that lobbied to be able to keep doing this – like France, Italy, Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden, and Finland – so basically, a quarter of EU countries. Oh, but they have to invoke national-security concerns in order to do so. Which, as we know, they’re very discerning about. Like, they didn’t at all implement a virtual police state and extend its powers under the guise of fighting a virus with which French President Emmanuel Macron kept saying they were “at war.” Nor did Amnesty International point out the sweeping “Orwellian” trend across Europe, at least as far back as 2017, of exploiting domestic terrorist attacks to permanently embed what were supposed to be extraordinary powers into criminal law, via measures like “overly broad definitions of terrorism.” So, no doubt they’ll be equally reasonable when slapping the “national security threat” label on a journalist whose work they want to peek at.

At least now, under this new law, they do have to fully inform any targeted journalist of the steps being taken against them.

Another thing that changes is that there’s to be a centralized database into which “all news and current affairs outlets regardless of their size will have to publish information about their owners,” according to an EU press release. May we propose a first candidate for that? The NGO Reporters Without Borders has praised this new law as a “major step forward for the right to information within the European Union.” The same NGO also just launched a “Svoboda” (Russian for “freedom”) satellite package eventually consisting “of up to 25 independent Russian language radio and television channels” aimed at Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltics. The launch took place at the EU parliament, in the presence of EU “values and transparency” commissioner (yes, that’s a real title), Vera Jourova, who has said in support of the new media law that “it is a threat to those who want to use the power of the state, also the financial one, to make the media dependent on them.” But she has also said about this new Russia-targeting initiative that the EU state needs to “use all possible means to ensure that their work, that facts and information can reach Russian-speaking people.” This is the same person who advocated in favor of banning Russia-linked media outlets in the EU.

Anyway, you first, guys. Show everyone else how it’s done. Also, does this mean that all financial interests in the form of advertising spending will also have to be declared by corporate media? Because state-backed media platforms are already transparent; it’s the much more discretionary interests underpinning the more commercial platforms that tend to be much less obvious to audiences. Audiences may not know or understand, for example, why a particular corporate media outlet might focus on a particular nation state with softball interviews, travel pieces, and fluffy documentaries, and treating it with kid gloves in news coverage, when in reality the same country is pumping a ton of ad revenues into the place.

In any case, Queen Ursula von der Leyen’s battalion of bureaucratic desk jockeys is set to grow in ranks now with a new “European Board for Media Services” coming online as a result of the new law. Because freedom isn’t going to police itself, pal.

The name itself Media Freedom Act really is the first clue that it’s probably not all that much about freedom. Kind of like how the “European Peace Facility” fund is used to buy weapons, or the “election” of the handpicked EU Commissioner is really just what any normal country would call a confirmation vote.

It’s a pretty safe bet that whenever the EU kicks the virtue-signaling into overdrive, using feel-good language to sell it, the reality is probably the opposite of what’s advertised.

EU leadership should “start trembling,” the Hungarian PM told a crowd at an event commemorating national revolution

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said that he and his supporters are ready to march on Brussels to defend their country’s sovereignty within the EU.

Orban gave the warning on Friday in a fiery speech dedicated to an anniversary of Hungary’s unsuccessful revolution of 1848 against the rule of the Austrian Empire. “Brussels is not the first empire that has set its eyes on Hungary,” he stressed.

The conservative prime minister told a crowd of around a thousand of his supporters that he’s ready to do everything to protect Hungary from what he described as attempts by the EU to “force” the country into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, to make it accept migrants, and to “re-educate” its children by imposing an LGBTQ agenda on them.

Powers in the Western world, of which the EU is a part, “start wars, destroy worlds, redraw countries’ borders and graze on everything like locusts,” Orban told his audience. “We Hungarians live differently and want to live differently,” he pointed out.

“If we want to defend Hungary’s freedom and sovereignty, we have no other choice but to occupy Brussels,” the PM said. “We will march all the way to Brussels, and will orchestrate change in the EU ourselves.”

Orban stressed that he and his supporters are experienced people who know what needs to be done in order to properly restructure the bloc, of which Hungary has been a member since 2004. It’s time for the EU leadership to “start trembling,” he said.

In power for 14 years now, Orban is being criticized by Brussels over allegedly undermining the rule of law, infringing on press freedoms and clamping down on gay rights. The EU has been withholding funds from Hungary for years over these and other issues.

Brussels is also unhappy about the stance taken by Budapest on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, a neighbor to which it has refused to provide arms, unlike other fellow EU member states, while at the same time maintaining economic and political ties with Moscow. Orban insists that there’s no military solution to the crisis and that it should be settled through diplomacy.

READ MORE: EU state blasts Biden’s ‘dictatorship’ remarks

During his speech, he reiterated that “Hungary can only benefit from peace, we do not want war.” However, Brussels has brought the conflict to its doors, he said, referring to the ongoing fighting. “We have been deceived, it is time to rise up,” he stated.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda will meet with Arvydas Anusauskas on Saturday

Lithuanian Defense Minister Arvydas Anusauskas has handed in his resignation to Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte, the government’s press office said in a statement on Friday. Anusauskas was also scheduled to meet with President Gitanas Nauseda on Saturday, according to the agenda of the head of state.

Journalist Edmundas Jakilaitis launched a wave of speculation on Friday evening, when he wrote on Facebook: “Thanks to Arvydas Anusauskas. We'll see how Laurynas Kasciunas will do.”

Anusauskas jokingly directed all questions to Jakilaicius after the post.

“I promised him to refer all interested parties to him for that message, so go ahead, call, ask,” he said.

Earlier this week, the Lithuanian media predicted that MP Laurynas Kasciunas could succeed Anusauskas as defense chief.

The Lithuanian daily “15 min” reported that the defense minister had requested a meeting urgently, which could signal disagreements between him and Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte. The latter allegedly disapproved of statements he had made in the United States, which he visited this week.

Lithuania’s upcoming parliamentary elections, scheduled for October, could also be a source of political tension. According to the polls, Anusauskas is the most popular member of the conservative Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats party.

According to Lithuanian law, a cabinet minister must submit a resignation statement to the prime minister, and the prime minister must hand it over to the president.

A NATO member state since 2004, Lithuania has been actively supporting Ukraine since the start of its conflict with Russia. The Baltic country has also been beefing up its own defenses over the past two years.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter) last month, Lithuania’s ambassador to Sweden Linas Linkevicius warned that Russia’s western exclave of Kaliningrad would be “neutralized first” if Moscow “dares to challenge NATO.”

Russia has consistently made it clear that it considers NATO’s military buildup close to its Western borders to be a threat to its national security.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also said that Moscow has no plans to attack NATO, stressing that his country “has no interest… geopolitically, economically or militarily” in doing so.

Berlin has so far refused to provide Kiev with Taurus cruise missiles

European countries intend to create yet another “capability coalition” to supply Ukrainian forces with long-range weapons, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Friday, echoing an initiative floated by French President Emmanuel Macron.

During a joint press conference with Macron and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Berlin on Friday, the German chancellor stated that the countries have agreed to expand their own production of military equipment and “procure even more weapons for Ukraine, on the overall world market.”

“We are establishing a new capability coalition for long-range rocket artillery,” Scholz told journalists. The German leader provided no specifics and took no questions, so it remains unclear whether he meant something new, or was referring to a “long-range” initiative announced by Macron last month.

Following a summit of Ukraine’s backers in Paris, Macron said that France would lead a new coalition that aims to provide Kiev with “medium and long-range missiles and bombs.” Much like many previous Western “capability coalitions” focused on drones, artillery, air defenses and others, the new group seeks to unite those who want to boost Ukraine’s specific ability to “carry out deep strikes,” the French leader said at the time.

It remains unclear what new types of weapons Kiev’s foreign sponsors could supply, as the UK and France have already been providing their Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG long-range cruise missiles since last year, with Macron pledging another 40 missiles in January. The US also sent some of its ATACMS missiles, but Kiev has already depleted the limited supply, and has repeatedly called for additional weapons amid the suspension of American aid.

Scholz has so far refused to send German-made Taurus missiles to Ukraine in order to avoid the risk of a direct conflict with Russia, resisting pressure from foreign partners and some politicians at home. 

On Wednesday, Scholz again insisted that the delivery of Taurus missiles was “a line that I don’t want to cross as chancellor.” He explained that such a shipment would inevitably require the presence of German military personnel on Ukrainian soil – a development that is “out of the question.”

By providing military aid to Kiev, the US has strained its own arsenals; the Congressionally approved money pot has run dry

The US Defense Department has asked the nation's  Congress to allocate at least $6.5 billion to replenish its stocks, which have been depleted after two years of constant weapon deliveries to Ukraine, according to a document seen by Bloomberg.

The Pentagon alerted Congress that spending on replenishment was a high priority in the proposals it submitted last month, the outlet reported on Thursday.

The shopping list reportedly includes a wide range of weapons, ammunition and critical components for the production of 155mm shells, HARM anti-radar missiles, Patriot interceptors, GMLRS rockets and anti-tank TOWs.

While the Pentagon estimated the price of its immediate replenishment needs at $6.5 billion, multiple US media reports suggested earlier this week that the total deficit could be at least $10 billion. Unless the shortfall is compensated, the “ongoing hole” will put a strain on the US military, one source told Politico.

READ MORE: Ukraine’s ammo shortage hurting US strategy – White House

Washington had provided more than $75 billion in cash and equipment for Ukraine’s war effort by the end of last year, far surpassing other Western donors, but the deliveries stopped after the Congressionally approved money pot ran dry.

The White House has requested over $60 billion in supplemental Ukraine assistance, but the Republican-controlled House has stonewalled repeated calls by US President Joe Biden to release the money. Biden has blamed US lawmakers for Kiev’s recent battlefield losses, including last month’s fall of Avdeevka to Russian forces.

Despite running out of money, the White House has found enough “unanticipated savings” at the Pentagon to announce a new aid package valued at up to $300 million this week. The Pentagon still has the authority to send some $4 billion worth of aid to Ukraine, but Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has so far been reluctant to tap into that fund, with no assurances the money will be replaced by US lawmakers.

The social media influencing campaign was intended to foster ‘paranoia’ among top leaders in Beijing, Reuters reported

Former US President Donald Trump authorized a secret CIA influence campaign aimed at smearing the Chinese government and turning public opinion against its leaders, Reuters reported on Thursday, citing ex-officials with knowledge of the operation.

According to the report, the CIA formed a team of operatives in 2019 who used fake internet identities to spread “negative narratives” about President Xi Jinping’s government and leak “disparaging intelligence” to foreign news outlets.

Among the narratives spread by the CIA on Chinese social media platforms were allegations that members of the ruling Communist Party were hiding money overseas. The Belt and Road Initiative, China’s global infrastructure development strategy, was also framed as “corrupt and wasteful.”

The US officials who spoke to Reuters said the effort by the Trump administration was intended to “foment paranoia among top leaders” and force the government in Beijing to expend resources chasing up intrusions into its internet space.

“We wanted them chasing ghosts,” one former official said. The sources described the operation as an American response to “years of aggressive covert efforts by China aimed at increasing its global influence.”

A CIA spokesperson contacted by Reuters declined to comment on the existence of the program.

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the outlet that the revelation proved that Washington uses public platforms “as weapons to spread false information and manipulate international public opinion.”

During his time in office, Trump orchestrated a shift in US foreign policy from the Middle East to China, with the Pentagon branding China as Washington’s top “strategic competitor” in its 2018 National Defense Strategy. Trump also waged a large-scale trade war against Beijing for much of his term.

In 2020, the president also tried to block access to the Chinese-owned TikTok platform through an executive order, arguing that it was a threat to national security.

Amid recently renewed efforts by Congress to ban the app, Trump, now the 2024 the Republican presidential frontrunner, told CNBC this week that he chose to back away from efforts to ban the platform due to its popularity among young Americans and concerns that it would strengthen rival social media giant Facebook, which he described as “an enemy of the people.”

READ MORE: Ex-US Treasury Secretary reveals TikTok purchase plans

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to force the platform’s Chinese owner ByteDance to sell the app within six months or face a US ban – and on Friday, former US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he was building an investor group to buy TikTok.

Reuters said it was unable to determine what impact the secret CIA operation had in China or whether President Joe Biden’s administration has maintained it.

Macron’s latest sallies and the spat they’ve caused show that Western Europe must finally be honest about the causes of the Ukraine conflict

The current situation in the conflict between Ukraine – serving (while being demolished) as a proxy for the West – and Russia, can be sketched in three broad strokes.

First, Russia now clearly has the upper hand on the battlefield and could potentially accelerate its recent advances to achieve an overall military victory soon. The West is being compelled to recognize this fact: as Foreign Affairs put it, in an article titled “Time is Running Out in Ukraine,” Kiev and its Western supporters “are at a critical decision point and face a fundamental question: How can further Russian advances… be stopped, and then reversed?” Just disregard the bit of wishful thinking thrown in at the end to sweeten the bitter pill of reality. The key point is the acknowledgment that it is crunch time for the West and Ukraine – in a bad way.

Second, notwithstanding the above, Ukraine is not yet ready to ask for negotiations to end the war on terms acceptable to Russia, which would be less than easy for Kiev. (Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, reiterated in an important recent interview that Moscow remains principally open to talks, not on the basis of “wishful thinking” but, instead, proceeding from the realities “on the ground.”)

The Kiev regime’s inflexibility is little wonder. Since he jettisoned a virtually complete – and favorable – peace deal in the spring of 2022, President Vladimir Zelensky has gambled everything on an always improbable victory. For him personally, as well as his core team (at least), there is no way to survive – politically or physically – the catastrophic defeat they have brought on their country by leasing it out as a pawn to the Washington neocon strategy.

The Pope, despite the phony brouhaha he triggered in Kiev and the West, was right: a responsible Ukrainian leadership ought to negotiate. But that’s not the leadership Ukraine has. Not yet at least.

Third, the West’s strategy is getting harder to decipher because, in essence, the West cannot figure out how to adjust to the failure of its initial plans for this war. Russia has not been isolated; its military has become stronger, not weaker – and the same is true of its economy, including its arms industry.

And last but not least, the Russian political system’s popular legitimacy and effective control has neither collapsed nor even frayed. As, again, even Foreign Affairs admits, “Putin would likely win a fair election in 2024.” That’s more than could be said for, say, Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, Olaf Scholz, or Emmanuel Macron (as for Zelensky, he has simply canceled the election).

In other words, the West is facing not only Ukraine’s probable defeat, but also its own strategic failure. The situation, while not a direct military rout (as in Afghanistan in 2021) amounts to a severe political setback.

In fact, this looming Western failure is a historic debacle in the making. Unlike with Afghanistan, the West will not be able to simply walk away from the mess it has made in Ukraine. This time, the geopolitical blowback will be fierce and the costs very high. Instead of isolating Russia, the West has isolated itself, and by losing, it will show itself weakened.

It is one thing to have to finally, belatedly accepted that the deceptive “unipolar” moment of the 1990s has been over for a long time. It is much worse to gratuitously enter the new multipolar order with a stunning, avoidable self-demotion. Yet that is what the EU/NATO-West has managed to fabricate from its needless over-extension in Ukraine. Hubris there has been galore, the fall now is only a matter of time – and not much time at that.

Regarding EU-Europe in particular, on one thing French President Emmanuel Macron is half right. Russia’s victory “would reduce Europe’s credibility to zero.” Except, of course, a mind of greater Cartesian precision would have detected that Moscow’s victory will merely be the last stage in a longer process.

The deeper causes of EU/NATO-Europe’s loss of global standing are threefold. First, its own wanton decision to seek confrontation instead of a clearly feasible compromise and cooperation with Russia (why exactly is a neutral Ukraine impossible to live with again?) Second, the American strategy of systematically diminishing EU/NATO-Europe with a short-sighted policy of late-imperial client cannibalization which takes the shape of aggressive deindustrialization and a “Europeanization” of the war in Ukraine. And third, the European clients’ grotesque acquiescence to the above.

That is the background to a recent wave of mystifying signals coming out of Western, especially EU/NATO elites: First, we have had a wave of scare propaganda to accompany the biggest NATO maneuvers since the end of the Cold War. Next Macron publicly declared and has kept reiterating that the open – not in covert-but-obvious mode, as now – deployment of Western ground troops in Ukraine is an option. He added a cheap demagogic note by calling on Europeans not to be “cowards,” by which he means that they should be ready to follow, in effect, his orders and fight Russia, clearly including inside and on behalf of Ukraine. Never mind that the latter is a not an official member of either NATO or the EU as well as a highly corrupt and anything but democratic state.

In response, a divergence has surfaced inside EU/NATO Europe: The German government has been most outspoken in contradicting Macron. Not only Chancellor Scholz rushed to distance himself. A clearly outraged Boris Pistorius – Berlin’s hapless minister of defense, recently tripped up by his own generals’ stupendously careless indiscretion over the Taurus missiles – has grumbled that there is no need for “talk about boots on the ground or having more courage or less courage.” Perhaps more surprisingly, Poland, the Czech Republic as well as NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg (i.e., the US) have been quick to state that they are, in effect, not ready to support Macron’s initiative. The French public, by the way, is not showing any enthusiasm for a Napoleonic escalation either. A Le Figaro poll shows 68 percent against openly sending ground troops to Ukraine.

On the other side, Macron has found some support. He is not entirely isolated, which helps explain why he has dug in his heels: Zelensky does not count in this respect. His bias is obvious, and his usual delusions notwithstanding he is not calling the shots on the matter. The Baltic states, however, while military micro-dwarfs, are, unfortunately, in a position to exert some influence inside the EU and NATO. And true to form, they have sided with the French president, with Estonia and Lithuania taking the lead.

It remains impossible to be certain what we are looking at. To get the most far-fetched hypothesis out of the way first: is this a coordinated bluff with a twist? A complicated Western attempt at playing good-cop bad-cop against Russia, with Macron launching the threats and others signaling that Moscow could find them less extreme, at a diplomatic price, of course? Hardly. For one thing, that scheme would be so hare-brained, even the current West is unlikely to try. No, the crack opening up in Western unity is real.

Regarding Macron himself, too-clever-by-half, counter-productive cunning is his style. We cannot know what exactly he is trying to do; and he may not know himself. In essence, there are two possibilities. Either the French president now is a hard-core escalationist determined to widen the war into an open clash between Russia and NATO, or he is a high-risk gambler who is engaged in a bluff to achieve three purposes. Frighten Moscow into abstaining from pushing its military advantage in Ukraine (a hopeless idea); score nationalist “grandeur” points domestically in France (which is failing already); and increase his weight inside EU/NATO-Europe by “merely” posturing as, once again, a new “Churchill” – whom Macron himself has made sure to allude to, in all his modesty. (And some of his fans, including Zelensky, a grizzled veteran of Churchill live action role play, have already made that de rigueur if stale comparison.)  

While we cannot entirely unriddle the moody sphinx of the Elysée or, for that matter, the murky dealings of EU/NATO-European elites, we can say two things. First, whatever Macron thinks he is doing, it is extremely dangerous. Russia would treat EU/NATO-state troops in Ukraine as targets – and it won’t matter one wit if they turn up labeled “NATO” or under national flags “only.” Russia has also reiterated that it considers its vital interests affected in Ukraine and that if its leadership perceives a vital threat to Russia, nuclear weapons are an option. The warning could not be clearer.

Second, here is the core Western problem that is now – due to Russia undeniably winning the war – becoming acute: Western elites are split between “pragmatists” and “extremists.” The pragmatists are as Russophobic and strategically misguided as the extremists, but they do shy away from World War Three. Yet these pragmatists, who seek to resist hard-core escalationists and reign it at least high-risk gamblers, are brought up short against a crippling contradiction in their own position and messaging: As of now, they still share the same delusional narrative with the extremists. Both groupings keep reiterating that Russia plans to attack all of EU/NATO-Europe once it defeats Ukraine and that, therefore, stopping Russia in Ukraine is, literally, vital (or in Macron’s somewhat Sartrean terms “existential”) to the West.    

That narrative is absurd. Reality works exactly the other way around: The most certain way to get into a war with Russia is to send troops to Ukraine openly. And what is existential for EU/NATO-Europe is to finally liberate itself from American “leadership.” During the Cold War, a case could be made that (then Western) Europe needed the US. After the Cold War, though, that was no longer the case. In response, Washington has implemented a consistent, multi-administration, bipartisan, if often crude, strategy of avoiding what should have been inevitable: the emancipation of Europe from American dominance.

Both the eastward expansion of NATO, programmed – and predicted – to cause a massive conflict with Russia and the current proxy war in Ukraine, obstinately provoked by Washington over decades, are part of that strategy to – to paraphrase a famous saying about NATO – “keep Europe down.” And the European elites have played along as if there’s no tomorrow, which, for them, there really may not be.

We are at a potential breaking-point, a crisis of that long-term trajectory. If the pragmatists in EU/NATO-Europe really want to contain the extremists, who play with triggering an open war between Russia and NATO that would devastate at least Europe, then they must now come clean and, finally, abandon the common, ideological, and entirely unrealistic narrative about an existential threat from Moscow.

As long as the pragmatists dare not challenge the escalationists on how to principally understand the causes of the current catastrophe, the extremists will always have the advantage of consistency: Their policies are foolish, wastefully unnecessary, and extremely risky. And yet, they follow from what the West has made itself believe. It is high time to break that spell of self-hypnosis, and face facts.

Steven Mnuchin told CNBC he is putting together an investor group to try to buy the short-video app

Former US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said he is building an investor group to acquire TikTok, a day after the House of Representatives voted to force the social media platform’s Chinese owner ByteDance to sell the app or face a US ban.

The House passed the legislation by a vote of 352-65 on Wednesday, citing national-security risks. The bill now goes to the Senate. US President Joe Biden previously said he would sign the bill into law if it passes both houses of Congress.

“I think the legislation should pass and I think [TikTok] should be sold,” Mnuchin, who leads Liberty Strategic Capital, told CNBC on Thursday. “It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok,” he stated.

Mnuchin, who served as Treasury Secretary under former President Donald Trump, did not specify who the other investors would be in such a deal or the potential valuation for the social media site.

“This should be owned by US businesses,” he stressed, adding “There’s no way that the Chinese would ever let a US company own something like this in China.” 

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal had earlier reported that former Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick was also shopping a potential deal to prospective partners. However, according to CNBC, it remains unclear whether the Chinese government would permit ByteDance to sell TikTok to a US buyer.

China has lashed out at an ongoing effort to ban the popular social media platform in the US, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin saying that such a step would violate international trade rules. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew has implied that a sale is not an option.

While TikTok is the only application specifically mentioned in the document currently winding its way through Congress, it creates a framework for Washington to ban other platforms controlled by countries it considers “foreign adversaries,” experts warn. The list of nations labeled as such includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.

If inked into law, the bill would give ByteDance 165 days to divest TikTok, which has more than 170 million American users. If it fails to do so, US web-hosting companies would have to remove TikTok and other apps linked to ByteDance from their app stores.

Benjamin Netanyahu said the IDF is prepared to conduct the attack and evacuate the civilian population

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the latest truce and prisoner-exchange proposal by Hamas and has approved an IDF plan to launch an operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, Israeli media reported on Friday.

”The IDF is prepared for the operation and to evacuate the [civilian] population,” the PM’s office said in a statement, as cited by the Times of Israel.

Earlier in the day, Hamas announced on social media that it had presented its “vision” of a prisoner swap with Israel to Qatari and Egyptian mediators and was looking towards a ceasefire agreement which would involve the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from Gaza.

As reported by Reuters, which has seen the proposal, the Palestinian militants proposed the release of Israeli women, including female soldiers, children, the elderly and ill hostages, in exchange for Israel freeing between 700 and 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Once the prisoner exchange is complete, Hamas said it would be ready to negotiate a date for a permanent ceasefire.

The Jewish state, however, dismissed the proposal and accused Hamas of making “unrealistic demands.”

On Thursday, Netanyahu also reiterated Israel’s determination to complete its mission of “eliminating” Hamas.

Israel’s decision to proceed with a ground incursion into Rafah comes after repeated warnings from the international community, including the US and Egypt, not to enter the city where some 1.5 million Palestinians are currently sheltering.

READ MORE: The Last Stand: Israel is very close to breaking a key accord that defined the Middle East

After Hamas militants launched a surprise attack on Israeli settlements last October 7, which saw 1,100 people killed and 250 taken hostage, Israel has been conducting a relentless siege on Gaza. According to the latest information from Palestinian health authorities, at least 31,341 people have been killed and 73,134 others injured in Israeli airstrikes and ground operations in the enclave over the past half a year.

Potential delivery of German-made Taurus missiles to Kiev could undermine Berlin’s own security, Sahra Wagenknecht says

Lawmakers across the German political spectrum who are considering delivering long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine should realize that this would put the lives of millions of Germans on the line, veteran left-wing politician Sahra Wagenknecht has argued. The MP also pointed out to colleagues that this weapon cannot change the course of the Ukraine conflict.

Kiev has for months been requesting Berlin to supply it with the rockets, with Chancellor Scholz, however, repeatedly ruling out such a possibility. He has explained that Taurus’ long range would enable Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russian territory, increasing the potential for further escalation. Scholz has also said supply of these missiles, which are made in Germany, would inevitably imply the presence of Bundeswehr troops on Ukrainian soil – a scenario that is “out of the question.”

While the German parliament did vote against arming Kiev with the missiles on Thursday, critics from the opposition as well as from within the ruling ‘traffic light’ coalition have urged Chancellor Scholz to lift the self-imposed prohibition.

Addressing her colleagues in the Bundestag before the vote, Wagenknecht claimed that the “whole world outside of the German political bubble knows that Ukraine can’t win this war.”

“Taurus [cruise missiles] would not change anything at all there, the only [thing this] would change is that Germany would definitely become a party to the war in Russia’s eyes,” she explained.

According to the politician, who is also the leader of her party, what proponents of Taurus missile deliveries to Kiev are “carelessly toying with here is the security and, in the worst case, the lives of millions of people in Germany.”

Wagenknecht, who made a name for herself in German politics as one of the leaders of the Left party before leaving it last October, described as scandalous the fact that “German air force officers calmly debate how one can destroy Russian targets with German cruise missiles.” The MP was apparently referring to a leaked conversation between several German top brass made public by RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan earlier this month.

In the audio, whose authenticity was later confirmed by the German Defense Ministry, the officers theorized about a Ukrainian strike on the Crimean Bridge with the help of Taurus missiles.

Wagenknecht has been a vocal critic of Scholz’s policies toward Russia over the Ukraine conflict since the start of hostilities in February 2022.

The Palestinian group said it will discuss a permanent ceasefire with Israel after the exchange of prisoners, the outlet has reported

Palestinian armed group Hamas is calling for an exchange of prisoners and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza as part of a ceasefire agreement, Reuters has reported after reviewing the document.

Early on Friday, Hamas announced on social media that it had presented its “vision” of a prisoner swap with Israel to Qatari and Egyptian mediators. The group said it made the move as part of talks aimed at “stopping the aggression against our people in Gaza, providing relief and assistance to them, and [facilitating] the return of those displaced [by the conflict].”

Reuters later revealed details of the Hamas proposal, which it said envisages a two-stage road-map toward ending the fighting.

In the first stage, Hamas stated it is ready to release Israeli women, including female soldiers, children, the elderly and ill hostages, in exchange for Israel freeing between 700 and 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, around a hundred of whom are serving life sentences, according to the agency.

In line with the proposal, a deadline for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza should be agreed following the conclusion of the first stage, Reuters said.

Hamas revealed it would also be ready to negotiate a date for a permanent ceasefire after the initial exchange of prisoners, it added.

According to the agency, the group wants all detainees from both sides to be released in the second stage of the plan.

However, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu downplayed hopes of an imminent ceasefire on Friday, saying in a message on X (formerly Twitter) that Hamas continues to produce “unrealistic demands.

Netanyahu insisted on Thursday that Israel will complete its mission of “eliminating” Hamas. In order to do so, he stated that Israeli forces will enter Rafah on Gaza’s southern border with Egypt, which has become the last refuge for more than a million displaced Palestinians.

At least 1,100 were killed and 250 taken hostage when Hamas carried out a surprise incursion into Israel on October 7. Many of the captives were released by the group during a week-long truce in November, but Hamas is still believed to be holding around 130 people.

READ MORE: UN report finds Israel deliberately targeted journalists – Reuters

The latest information from Gaza’s health ministry suggests that at least 31,341 Palestinians have been killed and 73,134 others injured in Israeli airstrikes and ground operations in the Palestinian enclave over the past half a year.

The UK needs to make “tough choices” to be able to counter the “threats” posed by Russia and China, Richard Dearlove has said

Britain is engaged in a “gray war” with Russia, but neither the authorities nor the public are taking the situation seriously enough, the former head of the famed spy agency MI6, Richard Dearlove, has warned.

The UK military isn’t getting enough money to be able to counter the “threats” posed by Moscow and Beijing, Richard Dearlove, who led the British Secret Intelligence Service between 1999 and 2004, said in an interview with Politico on Friday.

The statement followed last week’s announcement of the UK’s budget for the next financial year, in which there was no increase in defense spending. It remains at 2% of the country’s GDP.

”If you stopped anyone in the street here in the UK and asked them whether they thought Britain is at war, they’d look at you as if you were mad. But we are at war — we’re engaged in a gray war with Russia, and I am trying to remind people of that,” the former spy chief said.

The British authorities have “got to make some tough choices, and I’m afraid the tough choices are in front of us right now. We should be spending at least 2.5%” on defense, he insisted.

“We urgently need to be building more ships. We need a much bigger navy. And we need more boots on the ground, for God’s sake,” Dearlove stressed.

The fighting between Russia and Ukraine has shown the importance of manpower on the modern battlefield, the 79-year-old said. The size of the British army had been reduced by more than 26,000 since 2006, and currently has just over 74,000 full-time troops.

Last month, Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov accused the UK of being “directly involved” in the conflict between Moscow and Ukraine. He was reacting to a report in The Times which claimed that the head of the UK armed forces, Admiral Tony Radakin, had “helped the Ukrainians with the strategy to destroy Russian ships and open up the Black Sea.” According to Peskov, it is “no secret” for Moscow that the British “provide different forms of support” to Kiev such as “people on the ground and intelligence.”

In February, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the UK has been “even more aggressive, more elaborate in its provocative assertiveness” towards Moscow than any other Western nation during the conflict.

READ MORE: Putin issues warning on US troops in Ukraine 

The UK has been one of the leading backers of Ukraine in Europe since the start of the fighting more than two years ago, pledging to provide Kiev with 12 billion pounds ($15.2 billion) in overall support, including 7.1 billion pounds ($9 billion) in military assistance.