#NATO military infrastructure | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

izooks · 2 months

Text

Some of Joe Biden’s accomplishments:

**Domestic policy**

* **American Rescue Plan (2021)**: Provided $1.9 trillion in COVID-19 relief, including direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, and funding for vaccines and testing.

* **Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021)**: Allocated $1.2 trillion for infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, broadband, and clean energy initiatives.

* **Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022)**: Expanded background checks for gun purchases and provided funding for mental health services.

* **Child Tax Credit Expansion (2021-2022)**: Temporarily expanded the Child Tax Credit to provide up to $3,600 per child in monthly payments.

* **Affordable Care Act Expansion (2021)**: Made health insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income Americans by reducing premiums and expanding subsidies.

**Foreign Policy**

* **Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021)**: Ended the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

* **Re-joining the Paris Agreement (2021)**: Re-committed the United States to global efforts to address climate change.

* **Strengthening Alliances with NATO and the EU (2021-present)**: Repaired relationships with key European allies after strained relations during the Trump administration.

* **Supporting Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia War (2022-present)**: Provided military, humanitarian, and diplomatic support to Ukraine in its defense against Russia's invasion.

* **Nuclear Deal with Iran (2023)**: Revived negotiations with Iran on a comprehensive nuclear deal, aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

**Other Notable Accomplishments**

* **Appointing Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court (2022)**: Made history by being the first Black woman appointed to the nation's highest court.

* **Signing the Respect for Marriage Act (2022)**: Ensured federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.

* **Establishing the Office of the National Cyber Director (2021)**: Coordinated federal efforts to combat cybersecurity threats.

* **Creating the COVID-19 National Preparedness Plan (2021)**: Developed a comprehensive strategy to respond to future pandemics.

* **Launching the Cancer Moonshot (2022)**: Re-energized the government's efforts to find a cure for cancer.

#gop #democrats #vote blue #republicans #vote biden #democracy #fuck trump #maga 🧠 = 🐶 💩

170 notes · View notes

allthecanadianpolitics · 22 days

Text

Two years after being ordered on an urgent basis, a new defence policy for Canada was unveiled Monday that promises — among other things — to bolster the military's surveillance and combat capabilities in the Arctic.

The strategy commits to delivering new equipment, including airborne early warning aircraft (AWACs), long-range surface-to-surface missiles for the army and utility helicopters that may or may not be manned.

The plan also lists new equipment the Department of National Defence is considering acquiring, such as air defence systems to protect critical infrastructure and new submarines.

The new policy, entitled Our North, Strong and Free, includes an additional $8.1 billion in new defence spending over the next five years and commits to an additional $73 billion in defence spending over the next two decades.

The additional investments will not bring Canada all the way to meeting NATO's military spending target for member nations — two per cent of national gross domestic product. The Liberal government estimates that the new policy will see military spending rise to 1.76 per cent of GDP by 2029-30. [...]

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland, @vague-humanoid

Note from the poster @el-shab-hussein: So NATO's mad at Canada for not doing enough imperialism and military pollution? Remind me what the Paris accords were for again?

#cdnpoli #canadian military #canadian imperialism #western imperialism #NATO

128 notes · View notes

torillatavataan · 7 months

Text

Extensive damage to an undersea gas pipeline and communications cable connecting Finland and Estonia “could not have occurred by accident” and appears to be the result of a “deliberate … external act”, Finnish authorities have said.

“It is likely that the damage to both the gas pipeline and the communication cable is the result of external activity,” the Finnish president, Sauli Niinistö, said on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday, adding that the cause of the damage was not yet clear.

Local media cited unnamed government sources as saying Russian sabotage was suspected, while regional security experts said a Russian survey vessel had recently been observed making repeated visits to the vicinity of the Balticconnector pipeline.

Niinistö said the government was “in contact with our allies and partners” and that Finland was “prepared, and our readiness is good”, adding that the incident, uncovered early on Sunday morning, had “no effect on our energy supply security”.

Nato’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said the transatlantic military alliance was “ready to share information about the destruction of Finnish and Estonian underwater infrastructure” and to “support its allies”.

Markku Hassinen, of the Finnish border guard, said no seismic activity had been recorded in the Gulf of Finland before the discovery of the Balticconnector damage, but “vessels from several different countries” had been monitored in the area. But seismologists at Norsar, Norway’s national datacentre for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT), confirmed late on Tuesday that they had registered a “probable explosion” at 1.20 am on Sunday.

Both countries’ gas network operators on Sunday reported an unusual drop in pressure in the bi-directional, 48-mile (77km) pipeline, which runs across the seabed of the Gulf of Finland from Inkoo in Finland to Paldiski in Estonia. The state-owned Finnish operator, Gasgrid, said the pipeline had been shut down immediately because of a suspected leak, adding that the country’s gas system was stable, with supply secured through a floating liquefied fossil gas terminal.

Read full article by The Guardian

#suomi #finland #eesti #estonia #russia #viro #*

132 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 4 months

Text

Ukraine’s daring attack on a major Russian warship in occupied Crimea in the small hours of Dec. 26 was one more episode in Kyiv’s strategy to deny Russia control over the Black Sea. With most of its ships driven out of its home port in Sevastopol, the Russian Black Sea Fleet can no longer find safe haven anywhere along the Crimean Peninsula. All ports there are now vulnerable to attack.

The Institute for the Study of War tells the story with data, showing that Sevastopol saw a steady decline in the number of Russian naval vessels in port between June and December 2023; by contrast, Novorossiysk on the Russian mainland farther east showed a steady gain. While Russia has been going all-out to attack Ukraine’s infrastructure, its risky move to deploy ships and submarines armed with Kalibr missiles in the Black Sea is exposing them to potential Ukrainian attack. It is a tacit acknowledgment that Russia can no longer depend on Crimean ports and launch sites.

Ukraine’s success has been due to domestically produced missiles and drones, sometimes launched using Zodiac boats or jet skis. But its most potent attacks have come from the air, where Ukraine has used its Soviet-era fighter aircraft to launch both domestically produced and NATO-supplied missiles. These attacks have taken place with the protection of Ukraine’s advanced air defenses—including newly supplied foreign ones—which are regularly shooting down the majority of Russian missiles and drones destined for Ukrainian targets.

Ukraine thus has made significant strides denying Russia control of both the sea and airspace over and around its territory, thereby preventing the Russian Navy and Air Force from operating with impunity. But is that enough for Kyiv to win? To many Western observers, victory doesn’t seem possible in the face of wave after wave of Russian troops grinding down Ukrainian defenders. Ukraine’s strategy to deny Russia free use of its sea and airspace may be working, but as things stand, it cannot defeat the Russian army on the ground, nor can it defend against every missile striking civilian targets.

Indeed, the current conventional wisdom in large parts of the West is that Ukraine is losing the ground war, leaving no pathway to victory for the country as Russia pounds Ukrainian civilians into submission. Kyiv might as well call for a cease-fire and sue for peace.

The trouble with this scenario is that it spells defeat not only for Ukraine, but also for the United States and its allies in Europe and Asia. It would embolden both Russia and China to pursue their political, economic, and security objectives undeterred—including the seizure of new territory in Eastern Europe and Taiwan.

But is the conventional wisdom right—or does Ukraine’s clever success at sea and in the air suggest that a different outcome is possible? Perhaps the Russian army can be defeated by making use of Ukraine’s willingness to fight in new ways. If you asked a U.S. military professional, the key to dislodging the Russians is to subject them to relentless and accurate air attacks that are well synchronized with the maneuver of combined arms forces on the ground. While the Ukrainians are admirably using the weapons at hand to strike Russian forces both strategically, as in Crimea, and operationally, as in hitting command and logistics targets, success at the tactical level has remained elusive. To achieve a tactical breakthrough on the ground front that leads to operational and strategic success, they will need to be more effective from the air.

For power from the air to be decisive in 2024, the Ukrainian Armed Forces must create temporary windows of localized air superiority in which to mass firepower and maneuver forces. Given the Ukrainians’ success in denying their airspace to Russia at points of their choosing, such windows are possible using the assets they already have at hand. More and better weapons tailored to this scenario would make them more successful across the entire front with Russia.

Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, acknowledges that to break out of the current positional stalemate—which favors Russia—and return to maneuver warfare, where Ukraine has an advantage, Ukrainian forces need air superiority, the ability to breach mine obstacles, better counter-battery capability, and more assets for electronic warfare. Specifically, he argues for three key components. First, armed UAVs that use real-time reconnaissance to coordinate attacks with artillery (which could include properly armed Turkish-built TB2s, MQ-1C Gray Eagles, MQ-9 Reapers, or bespoke cheap and light UAVs capable of employing the necessary weapons). Second, armed UAVs to suppress enemy air defenses, as well as medium-range surface-to-air missile simulators to deter Russian pilots. And third, unmanned vehicles to breach and clear mines.

Although the technologies are new, this combination of capabilities recalls the method U.S. and allied NATO forces practiced during the Cold War in West Germany to confront numerically superior Warsaw Pact ground forces protected by layered air defenses. The Joint Air Attack Team (JAAT) was developed to synchronize attack helicopters, artillery, and close air support by fighter planes to ensure a constant barrage of the enemy in case of a ground force attack. Pooling NATO assets in this way was designed to give the alliance’s forces the mass, maneuverability, and flexibility needed to overcome superior numbers, avoid a war of attrition, and escape the type of bloody slugfest that characterizes the current stalemate in Ukraine.

In Ukraine’s case, a modernized JAAT would encompass, among many things, armed UAVs carrying Maverick and Hellfire missiles, loitering munitions, precision-guided artillery shells, and extended-range standoff missiles fired by aircraft. These systems would be coordinated in an electromagnetic environment shaped by Ukrainian operators to dominate the local airspace, saturate the battlefield with munitions, and clear mines to open the way for a ground assault. This updated JAAT—let’s call it electronic, or eJAAT—would create a bubble of localized air superiority that would advance as the combined arms force advances under the bubble’s protection.

Given Russia’s willingness to endure significant casualty rates, the eJAAT could be even more effective on defense: Massing firepower against advancing troops through an eJAAT might result in a stunning rout of the attackers, opening opportunities for Ukraine to strategically exploit the sudden change of fortunes.

Zaluzhny has made it publicly clear that “the decisive factor will be not a single new invention, but will come from combining all the technical solutions that already exist.” Like all good commanders, Zaluzhny is painfully aware that the 2023 campaign didn’t work as well as he had intended. Even so, and to their advantage, the Ukrainians have clearly demonstrated their innovative talents, willingness to exploit Western methods, and total commitment to victory. U.S. and European assistance to work with them on how to better manage operational complexity and combine technology, information, and tactics in more dynamic ways, coupled with security assistance tailored to the eJAAT approach, would return movement to the now-static battlefield and give Ukraine a fighting chance.

If Ukraine can achieve the momentum in the ground war that evaded it during its failed summer offensive, Kyiv will have a real pathway to victory. That pathway will run through Ukraine’s demonstrated prowess at sea and in the air, joined to an embrace of a sophisticated combination of techniques on the ground. It will be a pathway to victory not only for Ukraine, but also for the United States and its allies.

81 notes · View notes

snovyda · 5 months

Note

Sorry in advance if it's a stupid question! What did noam chomsky do? Honestly barely ever heard the name so if you could link me to an article or something, thank you!

He has consistently denied atrocities and genocides (including defending the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and denying the Bosnian genocide in Srebrenica, among other things).

Also of course, his apologia for russia in its invasion of Ukraine (despite criticizing the full scale invasion in broad terms):

In an interview with New Statesman published in April 2023, Chomsky is quoted in saying that Russia was fighting more "humanely" in Ukraine than the U.S. did in Iraq, and that Russia was "acting with restraint and moderation" as Ukraine had not suffered "large-scale destruction of infrastructure" compared to Iraq. (Link)

(May I point out that by that time entire cities in Ukraine had been COMPLETELY WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH, with mass graves in various locations only growing in size).

And how can he go without some good old russian propaganda on the matter:

Chomsky also asserted that Ukraine was not a free actor, that it was the U.S. and then United Kingdom which refused peace negotiations to further their own national interests, and that U.S. military aid to Ukraine is aimed at degrading Russian military forces. (Link)

And of course he blames the mythical "NATO expansion" for the war anyway.

So yeah, the piece of shit is a fascist genocide enjoyer calling himself progressive for some reason.

#noam chomsky

57 notes · View notes

fatehbaz · 8 months

Text

Guided by international authorities, the Turkish state [...] set sails to a path of massive creative destruction in 1980. Social forces that could negotiate or resist this route were crushed. They have been trying to reorganize ever since [...]. The roots of Turkey’s financial and ecological destruction were in the policy packages of two World Bank figures: Turgut Özal and Kemal Derviş. [...] 1980 was a crucial turning point. World Bank-imposed economic decisions [...] lowered wages [...] while opening the gates to more systematic – and now commercialized – urban plunder. [...] Turgut Özal, the engineer-turned-economist who brought the World Bank’s neoliberal turn to Turkey, served as prime minister and then president between 1983 and 1993. Even though he sparred with Kenan Evren (the NATO-trained counter-guerilla officer who led the junta of 1980-1983) over the issue of military-civilian balances, the two had a unified agenda: commodification of everything including housing, the abolition of social rights, and the crushing of unions. [...]

[T]he model they implemented shaped Turkey from head to toe. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, [...] [s]mall to medium sized housing acted as a replacement for secure jobs. This amounted to a Ponzi scheme [...]. [I]nstead of creating one to two story buildings as happened up until the 1970s, both construction workers and contractors built 4-story squatter units, with the intention of collecting rent from the units not inhabited by the original occupier. In other words, the newcomers to the cities now shifted part of the cost of the neoliberal package to the newer-comers from the countryside. [...] [T]he consequences of quick and cheap housing (not just for neighborhoods but for the entire society) were not yet well-understood [...]. We still don’t know what ratio of the buildings that were destroyed during the 2023 earthquake were built in the 1980s and 1990s, but they (and therefore, the social-political actors behind them) certainly share a huge part of the blame. [...]

---

The 1999 earthquake changed this.

The direct links between the quality of buildings and the unusually high number of deaths during the Gölcük earthquake opened everybody’s eyes – or so it seemed, back then. [...] The AKP of 2002, voted in partially as a reaction to the poor governmental response to the 1999 earthquake, had a vast popular mandate to enforce the new regulations. [...] But they weren’t enforced. [...] The increasing central regulation under the AKP was not for safety, as promised by the party. The AKP rather streamlined the wealth creation through cheap buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. In other words, urban rents and profits were centralized and concentrated at the top [...].

After this point, the shoddy construction was not a side effect, but a central choice.

The top-down reason for this [...] was a conscious strategy of wealth concentration. [...] [C]heap housing continued to substitute for high wages and secure jobs, as it did throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In other words, shoddy buildings were what an impoverished people could afford. And in the meantime, they were employed in passing jobs in construction and related sectors, further embedding their lives in the systematic creation of cheap housing, as part of a much more massive, and state organized, production of profit-oriented construction spree when compared to 1980-1999. [...]

[T]his path was devised by the World Bank, but the AKP rendered it much more rapacious. [...] Millions still couldn’t afford any decent housing, and now (further de-unionized in the 2000s) they couldn’t even afford units in these poorly constructed (but now giant, instead of 4-story) buildings. The new World Bank policy package (the Derviş rather than the Özal version) had a solution to this too: Household debt. Ordinary people started to live an apparently more comfortable life, thanks to mortgages and credit card debt.

But, as now they say in Turkey, they were buying not chic lives but tombstones. [...]

---

The links between Gezi [2013] and the Maraş earthquake [2023; over 59,000 deaths] are both structural and intimately personal. [...] The same individuals and associations that were active in the Gezi Uprising were and are involved in earthquake preparation and post-earthquake relief. [...] Urban rights, anti-extraction, and environmental movements flourished in Turkey after the 1980s. [...] The devastation caused by February 6 [2023] is yet another wakeup call. Ecologists, feminists, socialists, labor unions [...] [have] been organizing mutual aid once again. Self-organization has become a constant topic of discussion [...].[C]olonialism, racism, capitalism, and ecology are not separate issues. They are all intertwined. [...] Kurds and Alevis undertook impressive aid efforts in the earthquake-affected regions, despite explicit attempts by the government to thwart their relief campaigns. [...] Several associations and movements which we saw on Gezi’s stage – from the Chamber of Architects to the ever-growing multiplicity of feminist and LGBTQ organizations – have been providing the most basic necessities, whereas the neoliberal state has sunk so deep [...] that it has started to sell basic necessities in the earthquake region.

---

All text above by: Cihan Tugal. "From the Gezi Uprising to the 2023 Earthquake: Charting Turkey's Ecological Destruction and Reconstruction". Jadaliyya. 7 April 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism purposes.]

#ecology #imperial #colonial #abolition

42 notes · View notes

warsofasoiaf · 3 months

Note

This is a question that might be impossible to answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

The question is, if Russia struck a NATO with a stray missile that was meant to hit Ukraine (which almost happened a week or two ago) would that be ground to invoke Article 5, and if they did invoke Article 5 and the rest of NATO mobilizes and makes war plans, what do you think those plans look like? It is limited to simply forcing the Russians out of Ukraine, or the whole of Eastern Europe (such as Belarus)? And what do you think Russia's response be, would they use nukes?

I think unless it's definitely proven that Russia struck NATO territory with intent, it would probably not trigger Article 5 consultations. I think in the event of an accident, you would probably see an increased patrol presence and a demand for compensation for any lives lost ala the USS Panay incident.

I think in the event that NATO intervened in Ukraine, they would attempt to limit targets simply to Russians in Ukraine in the interests of managing escalation. Not that I think that would matter - Russia knows it would lose a conventional conflict and its troops would be sitting ducks, thus they'd have to escalate to long-range strikes against civilian infrastructure in the hopes that the domestic pressure would cause them to back down. Russia knows it can't sustain a large conflict against NATO, and the only alternative to general nuclear war is to try to force a quick surrender via domestic pressure.

Sad thing is, it won't work. Strategic bombing of civilian targets (terror bombing) has never generated calls for peace or ceasefire; it usually has the opposite effect - hardening civilian resolve out of a desire to punish the transgressor. This isn't to say strategic bombing doesn't have a place in warfare - the destruction of military targets like military logistics hubs, military facilities, and arms production factories are of significant utility.

Thanks for the question, Bruin.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

#russo ukrainian war #foreign policy

14 notes · View notes

usafphantom2 · 1 month

Text

Putin Says Western Bases Hosting Ukraine’s F-16s Would Be Legitimate Targets

March 28, 2024 Russia, War in Ukraine

Putin F-16

F-16 firing an AGM-88 HARM. In the box, Vladimir Putin. (Image credit: The Aviationist, using images in the Public Domain)

Russia warns it may attack NATO bases possibly used to launch Ukraine’s F-16s.

If the F-16s are delivered to Ukraine, Russia could also strike NATO bases from which the jets would launch. The threat was issued by Vladimir Putin during a meeting with a group of pilots at Tver, northwest of Moscow. The Russian President said an escalation could be provoked by the delivery of the promised Fighting Falcon jets, for which training of Ukrainian pilots is underway.

“F-16s are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and we will also need to take that into account while organizing our combat operations,” Putin said.

“Of course, if they are used from bases in third countries, they would be a legitimate target for us, no matter where they are,” he added.

However, the Kremlin believes not even the supply of these fighters will be able to change the course of the conflict, “We will destroy their warplanes just as we destroy their tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, including multiple rocket launchers”.

File photo of Danish F-16s. (Photo: Danish MoD)

Ukraine has long been asking its Western partners for the delivery of F-16s. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said last year that at least 42 F-16s had been promised (the number is not known, but according to the most reliable sources, they should be 60), with the first deliveries expected by the Summer of 2024. Meanwhile, Ukrainian pilots, with different degree of flying experience, are at various stages of training, both in the U.S. and in Europe.

The delivery of the F-16s won’t be a game-changer, considering the need to integrate them in the Ukrainian Air Force, the lack of specific experience of Ukrainian pilots on the type and in view of Russia’s massive air force and sophisticated air defense systems. The weapon system requires logistic support, infrastructure and weapons: it will take years before the whole “ecosystem” that is required to sustain effective combat operations with the Fighting Falcon can be exploited at its best.

F-16 Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte walk near an F-16, in Eindhoven, Netherlands, August 20, 2023. (Photo credits: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw)

However, in the short and mid term, the “Viper” (as the F-16 is nicknamed in the pilot community) will be a quick upgrade from the current MiG-29s: the “new” jets will be used to detect, hunt and engage cruise missiles, helicopters, UAVs and Russian fighters, and to conducting air strikes on Russian targets with stand-off missiles. The F-16s can also be used to fire the AGM-88 HARM missiles (a type that was not “natively” compatible with the Ukrainian combat aircraft but was integrated with the MiG-29 and Su-27) and JDAMs bombs in SEAD/DEAD (Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses) missions that are particularly important on the Ukrainian battlefield.

We will see.

MiG-29 AGM-88

A screenshot of the video shared by the Ukrainian Air Force showing the moment an AGM-88 HARM is fired by a MiG-29.

About David Cenciotti

@theAviationist via X

David Cenciotti is a journalist based in Rome, Italy. He is the Founder and Editor of “The Aviationist”, one of the world’s most famous and read military aviation blogs. Since 1996, he has written for major worldwide magazines, including Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, and many others, covering aviation, defense, war, industry, intelligence, crime and cyberwar. He has reported from the U.S., Europe, Australia and Syria, and flown several combat planes with different air forces. He is a former 2nd Lt. of the Italian Air Force, a private pilot and a graduate in Computer Engineering. He has written five books and contributed to many more ones.

#f 16 fighting falcon #ukraine war

9 notes · View notes

republicansaredomesticterrorists · 9 months

Text

Finland is one the most vulnerable EU/NATO countries. It shares an enormous and largely unprotected border with Russia. Finland also has a small population/military. While not likely to be nuked it is likely the Russians could overrun the country and seize the stockpile. Further it’s too remote to be of use to the rest of Europe to be of help in an apocalyptic situation, lacking infrastructure and having poor weather. Not too mention its proximity to the center of a nuclear conflict could lead to heavy fallout. To me it would seem more practical to be placed in Spain, Portugal, Italy, or France where the infrastructure and climate are better and it would be away from the Russians but still central to the rest of Europe for practical purposes. This will be a costly endeavor that will require stockpiles to be updated regularly.

28 notes · View notes

berniesrevolution · 1 year

Photo

DISSENT MAGAZINE

At critical times, foreign wars have tested the moral convictions of American leftists and affected the fate of their movement for years to come. The Socialist Party’s opposition to entering the First World War provoked furious state repression but later gained a measure of redemption when Americans learned that U.S. troops had not made the world safe for democracy after all. Leftists proved prescient again in the late 1930s when they rallied to defend the Spanish Republic against a right-wing military and its fascist allies, Italy and Germany. The republic’s defeat emboldened Adolf Hitler to launch what quickly became the Second World War. When, twenty years later, American Communists backed the Soviet Union’s crushing of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, they shoved their party firmly and irrevocably to the margins of political life, which opened up space for the emergence of a New Left that rejected imperial aggressors of all ideological persuasions.

The war in Ukraine has a good chance of turning into another such decisive event. Who to blame for the bloodshed in that country should be obvious: a massive nation led by an authoritarian ruler with one of the world’s largest militaries at his disposal is seeking to conquer and subjugate a smaller and weaker neighbor. In pursuit of that vicious purpose, Vladimir Putin’s soldiers have committed countless rapes and acts of torture. His air force is systematically trying to destroy Ukraine’s infrastructure and economy, hoping to undermine its citizens’ will to resist. Yet Ukrainians, with the aid of arms from the United States and other NATO countries, have so far managed to fight this superior force to a stalemate.

A sizeable number of American leftists have embraced an alternate reality. For them, the culprit is NATO’s post–Cold War expansion, fueled by the drive of the U.S. state and capital to bend the world to their desires. The popular author and journalist Chris Hedges cracks that the war in Ukraine “doesn’t make any geopolitical sense, but it’s good for business.” The Green Party condemns the “perpetual war mentality” of the “US foreign policy establishment” and concludes, “There are no good guys in this crisis.”

These critics ignore or dismiss the fact that every nation that joined NATO did so willingly, knowing that Russia was capable of launching the kind of attack now underway in Ukraine. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s demise, the expansion of NATO may well have been too hasty. But not one of its newer members has done anything to threaten Putin’s regime. And every country that joined the alliance enjoys a democratically elected government. They contrast sharply with the handful of nations, besides Putin’s, that voted against a UN resolution last month demanding the Russians withdraw from Ukraine: Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Nicaragua, Eritrea, and Mali. All but the last are one-party dictatorships, and Mali relies on Russian mercenaries to battle Islamist rebels.

It seems not to bother these leftists that they are making common cause with some of the most atrocious and prominent stalwarts of the Trumpian right. Tucker Carlson routinely bashes the U.S. commitment to Ukraine with lines like “Has Putin ever called me a racist?” while Marjorie Taylor Greene recently declared, “I’m completely against the war in Ukraine. . . . You know who’s driving it? It’s America. America needs to stop pushing the war in Ukraine.”

On February 19, some members of the alliance of right and left staged a demonstration at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington to vent its “Rage Against the War Machine.” Speakers included Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard as well as Jill Stein, the Green Party’s 2016 nominee for president, and Medea Benjamin, the founder of Code Pink. Carlson promoted the event on the highest rated “news” show in the history of cable TV. At the Memorial, several protesters flew Russian flags.

To paraphrase August Bebel’s famous line about anti-Semitism, the hostility of those leftists who oppose helping Ukraine is an anti-imperialism of fools—although, unlike past Jew haters, they are fools with good intentions. Wars are always horrible events, no matter who starts them or why. And we on the left should do whatever we can to stop them from starting and end them when they do.

But neither the United States nor its allies forced Putin to invade. In speech after speech, he has made clear his mourning for the loss of the Soviet empire and his firm belief that Ukraine should be part of a revived one, this time sanctified by an Orthodox cross instead of the hammer-and-sickle. As the historian (and my cousin) David A. Bell wrote recently, the United States is not “the only international actor that really matters in the current crisis.” It may have the mightiest war machine, but Biden is not shipping arms to Ukraine in an attempt to subjugate Russia to his will. We should, Bell writes, “judge every international situation on its own terms, considering the actions of all parties, and not just the most powerful one. . . . the horrors Putin has already inflicted on Ukraine, and his long-term goals, are strong reasons . . . for continuing current U.S. policy, despite the attendant costs and risks.”

(Continue Reading)

#politics #the left #dissent magazine #foreign policy #war #progressive #progressive movement #Russia #ukraine #NATO #imperialism

51 notes · View notes

workersolidarity · 3 months

Text

[ 📹 German-made Leopard II tanks wait to be rescued after enduring the ravages of the war in Ukraine. Germany previously provided Ukraine with 18 Leopard II tanks in January last year, and has now signed a bilateral agreement agreeing to provide weapons to Ukraine for the next 10 years.]

🇩🇪🇺🇦⚔️🇷🇺 🪖 🚨

GERMANY SIGNS BILATERAL AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE SECURITY GUARANTEES FOR UKRAINE

Ukrainian media is reporting the signing of a bilateral agreement with Germany providing the embattled eastern European country with security guarantees during a visit to Berlin this week by the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky.

The new agreement codifies a previous joint declaration by the G7 Western countries on July 12th, 2023 and comes on the heels of another security agreement signed with the United Kingdom.

In a statement issued by the Deputy head of the office of the President of Ukraine, Ihor Zhovkva, and reported in Ukrainian Pravda, Zhovkva said, "Ukrainian and German leaders have signed an unprecedented agreement on security cooperation and long-term support in Berlin. This is the second agreement, following the agreement with the United Kingdom, that we have signed in accordance with the G7 Joint Declaration of 12 July 2023."

The new agreement provides a 10-years-long period of security guarantees to provide Ukraine with weapons and other military aid in its war with the Russian Federation.

According to the terms of the new agreement, Germany is to provide Ukraine with a record €7.1 billion in "financial and military assistance for 2024."

Germany will also support Ukraine's "reform efforts" in light of "its ambitions to join the EU and NATO." The agreement will not impede Ukraine's path to NATO membership and will maintain long-term military support from the German government.

The agreement also covers the "work envisaged to ensure sustainable forces capable of defending Ukraine now and deterring aggression in the future" with Germany continuing to provide Ukraine with modern military equipment and other security assistance.

It will also include non-military cooperation including financial, economic and technical support, as well as support for energy and critical infrastructure, information security and to "combat organized crime" in Ukraine, with a focus on the defense industry and to build for Ukraine a "high-tech military industrial complex."

The new agreement also calls for increased cooperation on "compensation for losses" incurred by Armed Forces of Ukraine in its war with Russia, as well as "bringing Russia to justice for the crime of aggression" against Ukraine through the " establishment of an appropriate tribunal."

The new security agreement is valid for a period of no less than 10-years from the time of signing and "Germany will continue to support Ukraine during its term."

#source

#videosource

@WorkerSolidarityNews

7 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 3 months

Text

With the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion approaching in February and the European continent in the grip of deep winter, the Kremlin is redoubling its attacks against Ukraine on land and from the skies. While Russia appears to have regained the initiative along the ground front, its recent territorial gains remain minimal and have come at a terrible price in troops and materiel. Russia’s air campaign, however, has ramped up across Ukraine at levels not seen since last spring’s bombing offensive. Moscow is deploying massive, serial waves of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles — an increasing number of which are supplied by Iran and North Korea.

However, unlike last year’s winter, when Russia was mostly assaulting Ukraine’s energy and heating infrastructure, it is now pursuing a double strategy of sowing terror by striking civilian housing and destroying high-value defense industrial targets. Ukraine’s air defenses used to reliably intercept most of Russia’s bombs, but they are now struggling in winter weather against much more sophisticated attacks designed to wear them out.

Having put the Russian economy on a war footing, increased its military budget and domestic weapons production, evaded sanctions, and cultivated talks with Pyongyang and Tehran to keep supplies of drones and missiles flowing, the Kremlin is clearly expecting to make its onslaught last past the U.S. elections in November. Hardly a day goes by without a senior Russian official or state media threatening the obliteration of Ukraine as a nation.

Meanwhile, Congress is holding up Biden’s $60 billion pledge of aid to Ukraine, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is blocking a €50 billion (approximately $55 billion) support package promised by the European Union. NATO partners have struggled to fulfill their commitments to increase the production of ammunition so desperately needed by Ukraine; the EU has failed since the summer to agree on stocking up the European Peace Facility, a fund created to facilitate joint weapons acquisitions. Ukraine’s Western supporters also continue to fight over the legality of using Russia’s frozen central bank reserves to help Kyiv finance a battle for survival, which according to Berkeley economist Yuriy Gorodnichenko is costing it an estimated $1 billion to 1.5 billion per day.

Yet the news is by no means all bad. In December, the EU’s heads of government decided to open membership accession discussions with Kyiv. Germany and the United Kingdom have announced they will increase their funding, respectively, to $8.5 billion (doubling current funding by more than $4 billion) and $3 billion (an increase of $216 million over last year). The European External Action Service (the EU’s foreign ministry) will audit weapons deliveries by the bloc’s member states. Ahead of the second anniversary of the full-scale invasion and a European Council meeting on February 1, European leaders are readying new sanctions against Russia; EU officials are also hopeful that, to get an additional €50 billion in aid to Kyiv, they can either strike a deal with Orbán or deploy an off-budget plan to bypass his opposition.

The national security advisors of 83 countries attended a recent meeting that was hosted by neutral Switzerland in cooperation with Kyiv on a Ukrainian peace plan — including a significant number from the Global South, where numerous countries have been inclined to sympathize with Russia At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received a warm reception from world leaders. U.S. President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, promised that the United States and its partners would continue to stand by Zelenskyy.

18 notes · View notes

ukrainenews · 1 year

Text

Daily Wrap Up November 15, 2022

Under the cut:

Poland has no conclusive evidence showing who fired the missile that caused an explosion in a village near the Ukrainian border, the president said on Wednesday, adding that Warsaw remained calm in the face of what he described as a "one-off" incident. Two people were killed in the explosion in Przewodow, about 6 km (3.5 miles) from the border with Ukraine, firefighters said. Media reports said the strike hit a grain-drying facility.

Poland is likely to request consultations under NATO's Article 4 after a missile, reportedly Russian-made, struck Polish territory near the border with Ukraine, and raise the issue at a U.N. Security Council meeting on Wednesday, officials said.

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said that evidence suggests the missile that landed in Przewodów in eastern Poland was a "single act" and there is no evidence of further missiles. However, Poland is increasing their military readiness, Morawiecki said Tuesday during his address in Warsaw following the Council of Ministers meeting.

Russia launched its biggest wave of missile attacks on Ukrainian cities in more than a month on Tuesday – hours after Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky proposed a peace plan in front of world leaders at the G20 summit in Indonesia. At least a dozen cities and districts in Ukraine were targeted by Rusisan strikes, according to a CNN analysis of the missile strikes. The wave of strikes appears to be the largest since October 10, when Russia stepped up its campaign to destroy electricity, water and gas infrastructure across Ukraine. (This was the attack that led to the missile striking Poland.)

“Poland has no conclusive evidence showing who fired the missile that caused an explosion in a village near the Ukrainian border, the president said on Wednesday, adding that Warsaw remained calm in the face of what he described as a "one-off" incident.

Two people were killed in the explosion in Przewodow, about 6 km (3.5 miles) from the border with Ukraine, firefighters said. Media reports said the strike hit a grain-drying facility.

"We do not have any conclusive evidence at the moment as to who launched this missile ... it was most likely a Russian-made missile, but this is all still under investigation at the moment," Andrzej Duda told reporters.

The Polish foreign ministry had earlier said that a Russian-made rocket had fallen on the village.

Duda said that it was very likely that Poland would request consultations under Article 4 of the NATO military alliance following the blast.

"Our ambassador will be attending the meeting of the North Atlantic Council tomorrow at 10 a.m. at NATO headquarters ... it is highly likely that the ambassador will request the activation of Article 4, or allied consultations," he said.

Duda spoke after Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said that Poland would increase surveillance of its airspace following the incident.

"We decided to increase the combat readiness of selected units of the Polish armed forces, with particular emphasis on airspace monitoring," Morawiecki said.”-via Reuters

“Poland is likely to request consultations under NATO's Article 4 after a missile, reportedly Russian-made, struck Polish territory near the border with Ukraine, and raise the issue at a U.N. Security Council meeting on Wednesday, officials said.

Two people were killed in an explosion in a village 6 kilometres (3.5 miles) from the border, with Polish President Andrzej Duda saying that Poland had no conclusive evidence showing who fired the missile.

The incident happened hours after President Volodymyr Zelenskiy outlined to leaders of G20 nations his peace plan for Ukraine, and after Russia unleashed what Kyiv said was the heaviest wave of missile strikes in nearly nine months of war.

The United States and its NATO allies are investigating the incident in Poland, but early information suggests it may not have been caused by a missile fired from Russia, U.S. President Joe Biden said.

Russia's defence ministry denied the reports that Russian missiles hit the Polish territory.

Duda said that he has informed NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Biden that it is "highly probable" that the Polish ambassador to NATO "will request to invoke Article 4, that is consultations among the allies."

Stoltenberg will hold urgent talks on Wednesday with alliance ambassadors over the incident, a spokeswoman and diplomats said on Tuesday.

According to Article 4 of the military alliance's founding treaty, members can bring any issue of concern, especially related to security, for discussion, allowing for more time to determine what steps to take.

If it is determined that Moscow was to blame for the blast, it could trigger NATO's principle of collective defense known as Article 5, in which an attack on one of the Western alliance's members is deemed an attack on all, starting deliberations on a potential military response.

"All the leaders with whom I spoke with today assured me of allied support, inclusive of upholding all the provisions of (NATO's) Art. 5," Duda said on Twitter. "We will consider this matter together."

Poland will also raise the matter at the United Nations Security Council meeting on Wednesday, Krzysztof Szczerski, Poland's ambassador to the United Nations, said.

"On Wednesday, at the afternoon session of the U.N. Security Council, I will present the Polish position on the current situation," Szczerski said on Twitter.”-via Reuters

“Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said that evidence suggests the missile that landed in Przewodów in eastern Poland was a "single act" and there is no evidence of further missiles.

However, Poland is increasing their military readiness, Morawiecki said Tuesday during his address in Warsaw following the Council of Ministers meeting.

"We decided to increase the combat readiness of selected units of the Polish armed forces, with particular emphasis on airspace monitoring," Morawiecki said, explaining that “airspace monitoring is and will be carried out in an enhanced manner together with our allies." Morawiecki added that Poland is conducting thorough analysis and consultations with its allies regarding the potential use of Article 4 of the NATO Treaty — with his address echoing the caution and calm urged by other Polish officials.

Earlier, the Polish foreign ministry said a "Russian-made missile" had landed in the town near the Ukrainian border and killed two people.”-via CNN

Air raid sirens sounded out across Ukraine shortly after its leader outlined a 10-point plan including the withdrawal of Russian troops and the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

The strikes targeted power infrastructure in several regions of the country, leaving more than seven million Ukrainians without power and the supply of electricity in a critical condition, according to senior Ukrainian officials.

The deputy head of the Ukrainian Presidential Office, Kyrylo Tymoshenko, said that 15 facilities of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure had been damaged during the Russian missile strikes, but Ukrainian air defenses had shot down 70 of more than 90 missiles fired at Ukraine.

Two missiles or rockets also reportedly hit a farm in Poland near the border with Ukraine, killing two people, according to Polish media. It is unclear where the projectiles came from, but they landed roughly the same time as a Russian missile attack on western Ukraine.

Two projectiles reportedly hit Poland around the same time as the Russian onslaught in Ukraine, with Polish media showing an image of a deep impact and upturned farm vehicle at the site, near the town of Przewodow.

A government spokesman said that Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has convened the Committee of the Council of Ministers for National Security and Defense Affairs...

At least a dozen cities and districts in Ukraine were targeted by Rusisan strikes, according to a CNN analysis of the missile strikes. The wave of strikes appears to be the largest since October 10, when Russia stepped up its campaign to destroy electricity, water and gas infrastructure across Ukraine.

In a video message posted to Telegram on Tuesday evening local time, Zelensky said that 85 missile strikes had been launched against Ukraine so far, and warned there may be more to come.

“We can see what the enemy wants, they will not succeed,” he said. “We may yet have 20 more strikes, please look after yourselves, stay in shelter for some time.”

In the capital, Kyiv, the city military administration said that one person had been killed. Two explosions had been heard, it added, instructing residents to remain in shelters. It said four missiles had been shot down.

Kyiv mayor Vitaliy Klitschko then said there had been a third strike. “Another hit in Pechersk district of Kyiv city. A high-rise building,” Klitschko said.

Power supplies were disrupted to several Ukrainian regions as a result of the missile strikes.

State power supplier Ukrenergo said the Russians were “trying to turn off the lights in the country again.”

“The attack is still ongoing, we cannot yet estimate the full extent of the damage, there are strikes on our infrastructure in all regions of the country, but the most difficult situation is in the northern and central regions,” it added.

In his video message, Zelensky said that authorities are working to restore power. “We will withstand,” he said.

In addition the country “is currently experiencing a major internet disruption,” according to Netblocks, which tracks cybersecurity and connectivity around the world, with connectivity at 67% of previous levels.

Neighboring Moldova also suffered power cuts following the Russian strikes on Ukraine, Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister and Infrastructure Minister Andrei Spinu said on Tuesday.

Spinu said in a post on his Telegram account that “following Russia’s bombardment of the Ukrainian power system,” one of the power lines carrying electricity to Moldova has been disconnected. Authorities are working to restore the connection to the line, which was not damaged but was disconnected as a safety measure, he added.

#Daily Update #Ukraine #Russia #War in Ukraine #poland #kyiv #NATO

83 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 6 months

Text

[mike luckovich]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 31, 2023 (Tuesday)

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

NOV 1, 2023

Today, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee about the need to fund military aid to both Ukraine and Israel, along with humanitarian aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza and increased U.S. border security, rather than accept the new measure from extremist House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). Johnson wants to split off funding for Israel into its own bill and couple it with cuts to the Internal Revenue Service. Those cuts would dramatically decrease tax audits of those with the highest income and thus decrease revenue for the U.S. Treasury; they are popular with Republicans.

Johnson and other extremist Republicans have made it clear they are not interested in continuing to help Ukraine fight off Russia’s invasion.

Blinken and Austin got strong support not only from Senate Democrats, but also from many Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who explained why it is important for the United States to “help Ukraine win the war” in a speech at the University of Louisville where he introduced Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.

“If Russia prevails, there’s no question that Putin’s appetite for empire will extend to NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization], raising the threat to the U.S. transatlantic alliance and the risk of war for America. Such an outcome would demand greater permanent deployment of our military force in Europe, a much greater cost than the support we have provided to Ukraine. And of course, Russian victory would embolden Putin’s growing alliance with fellow authoritarian regimes in Iran and China.”

“So this is not just a test for Ukraine,” McConnell said. “It’s a test for the United States and the free world.”

But at the Senate hearing, protesters from CodePink, the group that describes itself as “a feminist grassroots organization working to end U.S. warfare and imperialism,” had a different agenda. They held up their hands, covered in red paint, with the word “GAZA” written on their forearms, repeatedly interrupting Blinken and calling for an end to funding for Israel, citing what the organization calls “Israel's genocide of Palestine.”

Over the weekend, as Palestinian militants continued to fire rockets into Israel and skirmish with Israeli troops, Israel began to push into northern Gaza in a ground operation U.S. officials said had been changed from the originally planned massive Israeli ground offensive to “surgical” strikes that would hit high-value Hamas targets but spare Palestinian civilians.

That advance was accompanied by even fiercer airstrikes than previous ones, and today an attack on a Palestinian refugee camp appears to have caused significant civilian loss. The Israeli military said the attack “eliminated many terrorists and destroyed terror infrastructure,” with underground Hamas installations collapsing and taking adjacent buildings down with them.

From the time of Hamas’s initial strike against Israel on October 7, the Biden administration has been keen to stop the crisis from spreading. President Joe Biden was firm in his repeated declarations that the U.S would stand firmly behind Israel, warning “any country, any organization, anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation, I have one word: Don’t. Don’t.”

To deter militants backed by Iran, the U.S. moved two American aircraft carrier strike groups into the region. After repeated drone strikes against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, on Wednesday, October 25, Biden warned Iran that the U.S. would respond if Iran continued to move against U.S. troops. On October 27 the U.S. carried out airstrikes against munitions stockpiles stored at two facilities in eastern Syria linked to militants backed by Iran. Secretary of Defense Austin emphasized that the U.S. actions were “precision self-defense strikes” and were separate from the conflict in Gaza.

Drone attacks on U.S. troops in the area have increased, and the Institute for the Study of War assessed today that Iranian-backed militants, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, “are creating the expectation in the information environment that Hezbollah will escalate against Israel on or around November 3.” The U.S. today announced it is sending 300 additional troops to U.S. Central Command, whose responsibility includes the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of South Asia, to protect U.S. troops from drone attacks by Iran-backed militant groups. Air Force Brigadier General Pat Ryder told reporters the troops are not going to Israel.

In addition to trying to hold off Iran from expanding the conflict, the U.S. has been trying to support Israel’s right to respond while also demanding that Israel follow the rules of war. The U.S. has firmly condemned the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians as “an act of sheer evil.” That evil included the taking of hostages—which is a war crime—including U.S. citizens.

But, all along, the administration has warned Israel that it must not violate international law in its retaliation for the attack. On October 18, in a remarkable admission, Biden advised Israelis not to be consumed by their rage. “After 9/11, we were enraged in the United States. And while we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”

Responding to the October 7 massacre, he said, “requires being deliberate. It requires asking very hard questions. It requires clarity about the objectives and an honest assessment about whether the path you are on will achieve those objectives.”

Despite the administration's warnings, while international eyes are on Gaza, according to the United Nations, settlers in the West Bank encouraged by the policies of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have killed at least 115 Palestinians, injured more than 2,000 more, and forcibly displaced almost 1,000. The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross are concerned that Israel’s pursuit of Hamas militants has led it to commit war crimes of its own, enacting collective punishment on the civilians of Gaza by denying them food, water, and electricity as well as instructing them to leave their homes, displacing well over a million people.

While the U.S. says it does not trust the numbers of casualties asserted by Hamas, it believes from other sources that there have been “many thousands of civilian deaths in Gaza thus far in the conflict…. Way too many.” Today the National Security Council’s coordinator for strategic communications, John Kirby, reminded reporters: “We aren’t on the ground fighting in this war. There’s no intent to do that…. [T]hese are Israeli military operations. They get to decide what their aims and strategy are. They get to decide what their tactics are. They get to decide how they’re going to decide to go after Hamas.

“We’re doing everything we can to support them—including providing our perspectives, including asking them hard questions about their aims and their strategy and—the kind of questions we’d ask ourselves.”

The administration appears to be trying to defend Israel’s right to self-defense in the face of a massacre that took the lives of 1,400 Israelis, while also trying to recover the hostages, get humanitarian aid into Gaza, and prevent U.S. ally Israel from committing war crimes in retaliation for the attack. It is also insisting there must be a long-term plan for Israel and the Palestinians. To that end, it is throwing its weight behind the long-neglected two-state solution.

On October 27, U.S. Representative to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield echoed Biden’s statement that “there is no going back to the status quo as it stood on October 6th. We must not go back to the status quo where Hamas terrorizes Israel and uses Palestinian civilians as human shields,” she said. “And we must not go back to the status quo where extremist settlers can attack and terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank. The status quo is untenable and it is unacceptable.”

“[W]hen this crisis is over,” she said, “there has to be a vision of what comes next. In our view, that vision must be centered around a two-state solution. Getting there will require concerted efforts by all of us—Israelis, Palestinians, regional partners, and global leaders—to put us on a path for peace. To integrate Israel with the region, while insisting that the aspirations of the Palestinian people be part of a more hopeful future.”

The current crisis might have made that two-state solution more possible than it has been for a generation. Neither Hamas nor Netanyahu’s government supports a two-state solution, but other leaders in the region, including Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, say they do.

Hamas has little support outside of Iran, and up to 80% of Israelis blame Prime Minister Netanyahu for the October 7 attack. His leadership of a right-wing coalition has shielded him from corruption charges even as his attempts to gain more control over Israeli society sparked the largest protests in Israeli history, and there is no doubt the attack and his response to it have weakened him dramatically. At a news conference yesterday, a reporter asked if he would resign.

The recent peace talks in Egypt excluded Hamas, Iran, and Israel. Instead, the organizers invited Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority that oversees the West Bank. President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have been meeting with officials from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. On Friday, Blinken will travel back to Israel to meet with officials there, after which he will make other stops in the region.

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From American #War #Israel Hamas war #Gaza #Blinken #diplomacy

8 notes · View notes