Saturday, March 5, 2022

Crimea, International Law, and the West Bank - Eugene Kontorovich

 

by Eugene Kontorovich

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan 

The same rules apply.

Secretary of State John Kerry spent the spring shuttling between his two major foreign-policy concerns—Russia’s control over Crimea and Israel’s control over the West Bank—entirely unaware that he was engaged in a world-historical irony. Both these situations turn on identical international-law principles. Indeed, the failure of the United States to apply these principles consistently has led to the long-standing failure of its Middle East initiatives, while inadvertently opening the door for Russian aggression.

The legal principle that explains why Crimea was and remains under Ukraine’s sovereignty also validates Israel’s presence in the West Bank.

Let us start with the less controversial case. The international community agrees that, despite Russia’s annexation, Crimea remains sovereign Ukrainian territory. On March 27, the UN General Assembly voted 100 to 11 to continue to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. Russia cannot rewrite Ukraine’s frontiers at will.

But, as many foreign-policy realists argued while Vladimir Putin was making his move, it is not all that clear why Crimea should belong to Ukraine in the first place. The substantial majority of the population is ethnically, linguistically, and religiously Russian. The majority of its population probably prefers to be ruled from Moscow rather than Kiev (though not by the 90-plus percent margin of the recent shotgun referendum). The territory is adjacent to Russia and has been part of Russia historically.

So why Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea? The answer: Nikita Khrushchev’s caprice. In 1954, the first secretary of the Central Committee detached Crimea from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and gave it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. He did not consult the Crimeans, but it did not much matter, as everyone was ruled from the Kremlin anyway. From that moment on, official internal Soviet borders included Crimea in Ukraine.

Thus, all Ukraine has for its claim of title to Crimea is a dead dictator’s whim. But for international law, that is more than enough. When new countries emerge from old ones or from colonial empires, the last official international borders constitute the new boundary lines. This doctrine is known as uti possidetis iuris (meaning “you possess under law”). It has been applied to the borders of new states around the world and recognized as a basic principle of international law by the International Court of Justice. Even when several states emerge from one, as Russia and Ukraine did from the USSR, the prior internal administrative divisions become the new international frontiers.

Most striking, this principle applies in full when the old borders were colonial or otherwise undemocratically imposed. If it were not so, new countries would be born with all their borders in dispute, and endless frontier conflicts between neighbors would ensue. That is why international law sets the last official boundaries, even colonial provincial boundaries, as the permanent ones. Subsequent aggression cannot change them, as the reaction to Russia’s Crimean conquest shows.

Now let us apply these principles to Israel.

The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in World War I led to the division of its territories in the Middle East. The core of the Ottoman Empire became the new country of Turkey, which, in turn, surrendered all Turkish sovereignty over Ottoman territory in the rest of the Middle East (not just Israel, but also modern-day Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan). Instead of imposing their own sovereignty on the parts of the Ottoman Empire they conquered, Britain and France allowed the newly created League of Nations to transform these territories into “mandates.” The European states were committed to shepherding the mandates into new independent nation-states. The League did so pursuant to an explicit clause in its charter that authorized it to create such mandates out of the lands “formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire.”

In 1922, the League of Nations established a new “country” to serve as the Jewish national home. This was the Mandate for Palestine. Under certain provisions of the Mandate, Palestine was partitioned at the Jordan River to create the country of Transjordan (now called Jordan) on its eastern bank. After that, international frontiers of Mandatory Palestine ran from the river to the sea. The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine provides the legal basis not only for Israel’s borders, but for those of Jordan as well, and indeed for Jordan’s entire existence.

Israel is the state created in Mandatory Palestine. Thus under uti possidetis iuris, it inherits the Mandatory borders. The only question is whether anything has happened since the 1920s that legally modified these frontiers.

Three events are commonly cited as justifying the non-application of the uti possidetis doctrine. First was the UN General Assembly’s 1947 partition proposal, Resolution 181. Second was the partially successful 1948–49 Arab attempt to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, which led to the Green Line of 1949. Third was the UN Security Council’s response to Israel’s retaking of these territories in the Six-Day War.

The Partition Proposal

 Resolution 181 did not, as many seem to think, “create” the Jewish state. That had been done on paper 25 years earlier by the League of Nations Mandate, and later through Israel’s declaration of independence and War of Independence—a struggle in which the UN did nothing to promote the survival of the fledgling state.

Resolution 181 proposed an elaborate seven-sector division of Mandatory Palestine, an idea the Jewish leadership was willing to accept, but that the Arabs rejected. The General Assembly Resolution did nothing to alter the Mandatory borders because the GA is not a world legislature: It has no legal power to make any binding rules, let alone redraw the borders of nations.

Indeed, the resolution itself explicitly recognizes that the Assembly has no power to legislate its recommendations. If the GA were to vote today to “partition” Ukraine, it would be similarly ineffectual. The 1947 plan was a proposal for a compromise that, if accepted by both sides, would have been binding, but which had no force in itself.

Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, with a document that “proclaim[ed] the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called the Medinat Israel.” Under the uti possidetis iuris principle, the borders of the new state were those of Mandatory Palestine. The new state was immediately invaded by all its neighbors, who succeeded in occupying much of its territory. But the 19-year-long occupation of parts of the Mandate by Egypt and Jordan did no more to change its borders than has Russia’s equally unprovoked aggression against Ukraine today. Indeed, if Jordan’s occupation changed Israel’s borders, surely Russia’s 20 or so years of controlling Transnistria should change Moldova’s borders and Turkey’s 40-year occupation of Cyprus should change that country’s borders.

The Green Line

Israel concluded armistices with its neighbors in 1949. These were not peace treaties. They were temporary agreements to stop shooting. The “Green Line” of 1949 was simply the demarcation of the separation between Israeli and Arab forces. Without establishing any sovereign border, it thereby preserved the Mandatory boundary. All of Israel’s armistice agreements reflected this, including the Israeli-Jordanian one: “The provision of this Agreement shall not in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” Other provisions also made clear that both parties recognized the Mandatory boundaries as the only international borders for Palestine. The only dispute was who would ultimately control it.

Thus the very document that formalized the Green Line specifically said it was not to be construed as a border, or anything other than a temporary line of separation between Israeli and Arab forces. When Israel expelled the Jordanian occupation forces after King Hussein attacked across the Armistice line during the Six-Day War, the need for such a separation came to an end.

President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, like so many others, use the phrase “1967 borders” to describe the Green Line; but it was explicitly not a border, nor was it created in 1967. Indeed, with the exception of Britain, no nation recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the territory of Mandatory Palestine during its 19-year occupation. When Jordan and Egypt signed peace treaties with Israel in 1979 and 1994, both nations expressly referred to the Mandate boundary as the current international border of Israel, demonstrating its continued relevance.

Resolution 242

 The United Nations Security Council responded to the Six-Day War with its famous Resolution 242, which has set the basis for all subsequent action by the council. Before turning to the resolution’s text, we should note that, as was true of the General Assembly in 1947, the Security Council does not have the power to redraw preexisting national borders. Though the council has power under its charter to take certain “binding” decisions, those are limited to authorizing economic and military means to respond to breaches of the international peace; it cannot alter the underlying dimensions of UN member states.

No less important, Security Council practice requires the Council to refer explicitly to the textual source of its authority as Chapter VII of the UN Charter in order to make resolutions binding. The resolution does not include such a reference, showing that the Council understood its resolution to be nothing more than a recommendation.

Resolution 242 famously calls for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” This language was deliberately chosen by its drafters to reject demands that Israel withdraw from all territories it occupied, and instead leaves the scale of the withdrawal up to future diplomacy. The wording of 242 was drafted by the British delegation as a replacement for other versions that would have required leaving “all” the territories.

A vast literature has arisen to cope with the fact that the word the does not precede the word territories in that sentence, but like much discussion of the ArabIsraeli conflict, it puts questions concerning Israel in a unique legal universe. In fact, it is fairly easy to see whether using the language of territories would be a standard way for the Security Council to require complete withdrawal. I have identified 16 other resolutions demanding military pull-outs, of which four were prior to 1967. In each case, the demand for complete withdrawal is explicit, with language such as “withdraw from the whole territory” and “the territory” and with references to particular antebellum positions. The language of 242 is unique in the Security Council’s history, but consistent with its own drafting history and the document’s intentions. Thus reading 242 to require a complete withdrawal not only misreads the resolution, but also makes nonsense of 16 other important resolutions.

Some argue that 242 compels Israel to return to the Green Line, relying on the resolution’s preamble, which stresses the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” But that would be a strange way to require Israel to return their territorial seizures of 1949 to Jordan and Egypt. The next operative paragraph in 242, moreover, describes a withdrawal to “recognized boundaries.” The 1949 Armistice Lines were not “recognized boundaries” in any legal sense. They constituted nothing more than a stand-off.

So to recap: The League of Nations, acting pursuant to powers in its charter, established the territory of Mandatory Palestine in 1922, much as the Mandate system established the borders of most other Middle Eastern states. The UN General Assembly did not have the power to modify that territory with its 1947 Partition proposal. Nor did the pan-Arab aggression of 1948–49 and its subsequent reception by the international community.

To be sure, international sentiment has turned sharply against Israel’s control over much of this territory. But international law is not a popularity contest; if it were, Israel would have long ago been voted off the island.

None of this undercuts the common arguments for the creation of a Palestinian state. Those arguments are rooted in diplomatic and demographic considerations. But even if one accepts the idea that the Mandate gave Israel borders too large for the Jewish population, it does not therefore follow that the pan-Arab aggression of 1948–49 established presumptive or default borders. In fact, those can and should be defined only by mutual agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

If one believes, moreover, that the vague doctrine of self-determination—which is generally not thought to entitle a people to an independent state—made an inarguable case for a Palestinian Arab state somewhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, uti possidetis would still be relevant. The doctrine make clear that the relevant boundaries have nothing to do with the 1949 Armistice Lines unless both parties agree they should.

Recall that when new states emerge, the doctrine dictates that their borders follow the last prior internal administrative division, such as state or provincial borders. Under the Mandate, Palestine was divided into six districts, no combination of which closely approximates the 1949 Armistice Lines. (For example, Gaza was lumped into one district with the entire Negev, while the area now called the West Bank straddled three different districts.) The 1993 Oslo Accords create three administrative divisions (Areas A, B, and C)—two under Palestinian jurisdiction and one under Israeli jurisdiction. Those lines make more sense under international law than the sum of the noncontiguous, illegal conquests by Egypt and Jordan in 1948–49.

The international community has, perhaps in sympathy with Palestinian claims, selectively forgotten the uti possidetis principle when it comes to Israel. Putin’s actions in Ukraine illustrate the dangers of such inconsistency. Once the world begins making exceptions to the uti possidetis doctrine, it opens the door to claims like Russia’s. After all, if an internationally established mandatory border does not continue to abide for a new country, why should the arbitrary frontier of a totalitarian dictator?

Russia’s quick takeover of Crimea—and, as of this writing, its incremental invasion of eastern Ukraine—also has significant political lessons for Israel about any potential agreement with the Palestinians. Russia’s dismemberment of Ukraine offers a frightening scenario of how a state of Palestine could continue effective activities against Israel in the wake of a peace treaty.

One of the main rewards promised to Israel for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is that it would also give Israel internationally recognized borders. While these borders would be narrow, they would, it is said, enjoy the deep guarantee of international legitimacy. Nations would move their embassies to (West) Jerusalem. Israel would, as Tzipi Livni has said, be “put on the world map.” The perceived value of this deal stems from the view that in the 21st century, sovereign borders cannot simply be rewritten.

Crimea has proven that “19th-century acts,” as Kerry called them, are alive and well, and that the international community will do little to stop them. Consider Moscow’s methods for taking apart Ukraine.

First, it bided its time, waiting more than two decades. Of course, if a deal with the Palestinians lasts only that long before it is followed by new demands, it will have proved to be a disastrous bargain for Israel. Second, Russia focused on areas with significant concentrations of co-ethnic population. In those areas, it followed Hitler’s Sudetenland strategy of provoking riots and protests, and then protesting Ukraine’s response.

This is precisely Israel’s greatest fear: that after the euphoria of a peace deal, a newly emboldened Palestinian government, now with all the apparatus of a state, would begin stoking disorder among Israeli Arabs in the Galilee Triangle and Negev. Of course, Palestine would not be able to grab these territories in a single putsch, as Russia did with Crimea. Rather, it would seek to destabilize Israel, as Russia is now doing in Eastern Ukraine.

The Machiavellian goal would be to use Israel’s response to the fomented unrest in a kind of diplomatic jujitsu, to make the case that the Jewish state cannot be permitted to maintain sovereignty over its non-Jewish populace. Then would come the kinds of demands that have been afforded far too much respect when it comes to Russian claims in Ukraine—greater federalism, decentralization of power, all of which would be designed to empower disgruntled minorities who show greater fealty to the neighboring aggressor than to the state of which they are citizens. In such a situation, would the world rally to defend the internationally mandated borders when it showed so little appreciation for them in Israel’s case throughout so many decades?

No one with a serious understanding of international law asks if it is fair or just for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine, no matter the wishes of Crimea’s population. Entertaining such a question and making it part of the discussion would eventually lead to redrawing many of the world’s borders. As we have seen, the same principles that justify Ukraine’s claims to Crimea justify Israel’s claims to the West Bank.

Israel should not be too put out by the international community’s failure to apply its general rules to the Jewish state’s rights, for the Ukrainian crisis also shows the limits of those rules. Ukraine may enjoy international backing for its claims while Israel does not. But the Ukrainian crisis also shows that when it comes to action, the international community will be driven primarily by the exigencies and conveniences of the moment, not by considerations of legality or past promises. In the end, as has been the case since 1948, Israel will have to rely on itself.

 

Eugene Kontorovich teaches constitutional law at Northwestern University and heads the international law department of the Kohelet Policy Forum in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.commentary.org/articles/eugene-kontorovich/crimea-international-law-and-the-west-bank/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ukraine Must Join the EU to Punish Russia - Con Coughlin

 

by Con Coughlin

An excellent source of gas would be the EastMed pipeline project, which could provide energy to Europe from allies Cyprus and Israel, via Greece, and should be built without delay.

  • With clear signs that the West's strong and united response to Mr Putin's aggression is paying dividends, there is a strong and compelling argument for the West to maintain the pressure on Russia by any means possible.

  • One option to increase Moscow's isolation further, for example, would be to expand membership of Western institutions such as the European Union and the Nato alliance to countries like Ukraine, a move that would guarantee their removal from Moscow's sphere of influence.

  • European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has already stated unequivocally that Ukraine should ultimately become an EU member state, declaring, "They are one of us and we want them in."

  • An excellent source of gas would be the EastMed pipeline project, which could provide energy to Europe from allies Cyprus and Israel, via Greece, and should be built without delay. US President Joe Biden recently killed it, as he has so far killed much of America's fossil fuel exploration, production and distribution -- policies economically and geopolitically crippling both to Americans and their allies in Europe.

  • The irony is that America, formerly energy independent, is currently importing 500,000 barrels of oil a day from Russia. At more than $100 a barrel, Biden, or rather Americans, are therefore providing Putin 50 million dollars a day to kill Ukrainians. When the United States recently asked OPEC to increase production to help lower prices in the US, they were told, "If you want more oil, pump it yourself."

  • Mr Putin, by invading Ukraine, has signalled no intention of abiding by the norms of international conduct. For its part, the West must respond by taking every measure to ensure Russia pays the heaviest price possible for its appalling conduct.

One option to increase Moscow's isolation further would be to expand membership of Western institutions such as the European Union and the Nato alliance to countries like Ukraine, a move that would guarantee their removal from Moscow's sphere of influence. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has stated unequivocally that Ukraine should ultimately become an EU member state, declaring, "They are one of us and we want them in." Pictured: Von der Leyen holds a news briefing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev on October 12, 2021. (Photo by Anatolii Stepanov/AFP via Getty Images)

If any good is to come from Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, it is that the Western powers exploit the Kremlin's unprovoked act of aggression to further strengthen the cause of democratic freedom in Europe.

In many respects, Russia's brutal assault on Ukraine has acted as a salutary wake up call for Europe's liberal elites, who appeared more inclined to appease Moscow than stand up for Kyiv's democratic rights.

In the weeks immediately preceding last week's invasion, a number of prominent European leaders, such as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, seemed perfectly willing to pacify Mr Putin by sacrificing Ukrainian sovereignty to Moscow.

Thankfully, their efforts ended in abject failure as the Russian leader, despite his repeated declarations that he had no intention of invading Ukraine, has caused the greatest crisis in European security witnessed since the creation of the Iron Curtain.

Consequently, not even Europe's most conflict averse countries, such as Germany, can maintain the fiction that Mr Putin does not impose a threat to global security. On the contrary, as Mr Scholz's address to the Bundestag at the weekend demonstrates, Germany has undergone a complete volte face in its approach to Russia, with Berlin committed to making a dramatic increase to its defense budget, while bringing decades of reliance on Russia for its energy needs to an end.

Nor should the dramatic changes taking place in the attitude of European leaders to Moscow end there.

One of Mr Putin's greatest miscalculations in deciding to launch his invasion of Ukraine was that he would be able to exploit divisions within the Western alliance to achieve his aims. Events, however, since he launched the attack on February 24, show he was sorely mistaken.

Any tensions that may have existed between European leaders over how to respond to Russian aggression, such as whether to exclude Moscow from the SWIFT payment system, were banished the moment Mr Putin went back on his word and launched the invasion.

Instead, the West's response has been far larger, and demonstrating a far greater unity of purpose, than Moscow could ever have imagined, with the result that the rouble has lost almost 30 percent of its value, forcing Russia's central bank to raise its main borrowing rate from 9.5 percent to 20 percent.

Nor does the misery end there. Action taken by the US Treasury, which has announced an immediate ban on transactions with Russia's central bank and new sanctions on the Russian Direct Investment Fund, means that the Kremlin's ability to access $630 billion in foreign reserves will be limited.

This represents a major blow to Mr Putin, who believed, as part of his planning for the Ukraine invasion, he had sanction-proofed the Russian economy by building up the country's foreign currency reserves. Instead, Moscow finds itself facing an economic calamity, and has been forced to impose draconian foreign currency restrictions, a move that is likely to prove highly unpopular with Russian voters, especially the cabal of wealthy oligarchs that Mr Putin depends upon to sustain his regime in power.

There have already been rumblings of discontent from several prominent oligarchs since the invasion began. Mikhail Fridman, one of Russia's richest men, has called for an end to the war, while the daughter of Roman Abramovich, another oligarch said to have close ties to the Kremlin, posted a message that appeared to criticise Mr Putin's invasion.

With clear signs that the West's strong and united response to Mr Putin's aggression is paying dividends, there is a strong and compelling argument for the West to maintain the pressure on Russia by any means possible.

One option to increase Moscow's isolation further, for example, would be to expand membership of Western institutions such as the European Union and the Nato alliance to countries like Ukraine, a move that would guarantee their removal from Moscow's sphere of influence.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has already stated unequivocally that Ukraine should ultimately become an EU member state, declaring, "They are one of us and we want them in."

Moreover, offers of EU membership should also be offered to countries, such as Serbia, Montenegro and Albania, which are vulnerable to Moscow's never-ending efforts to increase its sphere of influence. The West also needs to keep a wary eye on the likes of Moldova, Romania, Poland and the Baltic states, most of which are already members of Nato, but could also find themselves the target of Mr Putin's imperial ambitions.

Nor should the West's targeting of Russia's main financial institutions be confined to the country's banking sector.

To date, Russia's energy sector has managed to escape the worst effects of the sanctions, not least because Russia provides 40 percent of Europe's energy needs. But with countries like Germany, which previously backed the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline project (which this week filed for bankruptcy), realising their dependence on Russian energy must end, plans are actively under consideration to find alternative supplies for Europe's energy needs, with Brussels now pushing for Europe to develop extra storage capacity for liquefied natural gas, thereby ending its reliance on Russia.

An excellent source of gas would be the EastMed pipeline project, which could provide energy to Europe from allies Cyprus and Israel, via Greece, and should be built without delay. US President Joe Biden recently killed it, as he has so far killed much of America's fossil fuel exploration, production and distribution -- policies economically and geopolitically crippling both to Americans and their allies in Europe.

The irony is that America, formerly energy independent, is currently importing 500,000 barrels of oil a day from Russia. At more than $100 a barrel, Biden, or rather Americans, are therefore providing Putin 50 million dollars a day to kill Ukrainians. When the United States recently asked OPEC to increase production to help lower prices in the US, they were told, "If you want more oil, pump it yourself."

Mr Putin, by invading Ukraine, has signalled no intention of abiding by the norms of international conduct. For its part, the West must respond by taking every measure to ensure Russia pays the heaviest price possible for its appalling conduct.

 

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18285/ukraine-eu-membership

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

As Russia Invades Ukraine, U.S. Army Gives Mandatory Training on Gender Identity - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

Woke and stupid.

 

 

We can only hope that the madness in Ukraine doesn’t escalate to the extent that the U.S. military ends up getting involved. It’s clear that Gen. Mark Milley and the rest of the brass have learned absolutely no lessons from Afghanistan and are determined to repeat the same mistakes that led up to the catastrophically mishandled withdrawal from Kabul. If the Army were called upon to move into Ukraine, which would be an indication that the situation there had gotten wildly out of control, it isn’t at all clear that today’s woke force would pose a significant threat even to the manifestly weak and sluggish Russian forces. An American army presence in Ukraine would likely herald World War III, and we hope it won’t come to that, but if it does, look out.

These are the priorities of Milley’s thoroughly modern military: early in February, Army officers were forced to sit through an official and mandatory presentation entitled “Policy on the Military Service of Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria.” According to the Washington Free Beacon, the presentation gives “training on gender pronouns and coaching officers on when to offer soldiers gender transition surgery.”

While Vladimir Putin’s army was preparing to invade Ukraine, officers of the U.S. Army were learning that they have to refer to some men as “she” and “her” if they want to keep their jobs, and be attentive for moments when it might be appropriate to offer Private Jack a chance to become Private Jill (no doubt soon to be Sergeant First Class Jill, for being such a useful soldier of the zeitgeist).

According to an Army spokesman, this woke presentation was “mandatory training,” and was “used to train Army personnel on the recent changes to the DoD and Army transgender service policy.” The Free Beacon reports, “all Army personnel, from soldiers to commanders and supervisors, are required to participate in the training by Sept. 30, 2022, according to the spokesman.”

All this is part of “a larger push by the Biden administration to make the military more welcoming to transgender people.” The presentation states, “The Army allows transgender soldiers to serve openly. An otherwise qualified soldier shall not be involuntarily separated, discharged, or denied reenlistment or continuation of service on the basis of gender identity.”

In a sane society, a man who thinks he is a woman, or a woman who thinks she is a man, would be recognized as suffering from a severe psychological disorder, such that he or she would not be seen as “otherwise qualified.” But the military’s presentation offers the hypothetical scenario of a “soldier who was assigned male at birth” but “says he identifies as a female” and “lives as a female in his off-duty hours.” This language reveals how this entire business is a fantasy from start to finish: human beings are not “assigned” a gender at birth, as if the baby is neuter until a doctor or parent decides it will be a boy or a girl. The baby is a boy or a girl; all the doctor and the parents do is notice which one.

The presentation directs that if a male soldier believes he is female but “is not requesting to be treated as a female while on duty,” he should be left alone. However, if the soldier “later requests to be identified as a female during duty hours and/or experiences increased distress relating to his gender identity,” an officer must “inform [the] soldier of the Army’s transgender policy and recommend that he sees a military medical provider.”

A male soldier who asks to be identified as a female during duty hours has lost his basic sense of reality and should be removed from active duty until he understands again that he is male. But even short of that, the fact that the U.S. military is spending any time and attention on this matter at all is a sign of our deep cultural crisis. An Army spokesman said that “service in the Army is open to all who can meet the standards for military service and readiness. We remain committed to treating all soldiers with dignity and respect while ensuring good order and discipline. Soldiers who meet those standards can serve openly in their self-identified gender.”

Do the standards for military service and readiness still contain any actual military training, or is woke indoctrination sufficient now? The military’s job is to win wars, not to coddle soldiers with psychological disorders. The Russian invasion of Ukraine only makes it all the more crucial for the military to drop all of its programs of Leftist indoctrination and instead focus on actually defending the nation against its enemies. But doing that doesn’t appear to be even close to the top of Biden’s handlers’ priorities.

 

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/russia-invades-ukraine-us-army-gives-mandatory-robert-spencer/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ukraine: A cautionary tale for Israel - Michael Freund

 

by Michael Freund

While Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, may be 2,100 kilometers from Jerusalem, the vast distance does not detract from some of the key lessons that Israel can learn from the conflict raging to our north.

 

A civilian trains to throw Molotov cocktails to defend the city, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues, in Zhytomyr, Ukraine March 1, 2022 (photo credit: Viacheslav Ratynskyi/Reuters)
A civilian trains to throw Molotov cocktails to defend the city, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues, in Zhytomyr, Ukraine March 1, 2022
(photo credit: Viacheslav Ratynskyi/Reuters)

There is, I am told, an old Ukrainian proverb, which, loosely translated, says, “The obliging fool is worse than an enemy.”

This saying has likely been on the minds of quite a few Ukrainians in recent days as they surely look back and wonder why their leadership agreed to strip themselves of the country’s nuclear arsenal in the early 1990s.

After all, it seems safe to say that had Ukraine chosen to hold on to its nuclear bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, a certain bully named Vladimir Putin would probably have shied away from sending tens of thousands of troops to storm his neighbor.

While Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, may be 2,100 kilometers from Jerusalem, the vast distance does not detract from some of the key lessons that Israel can learn from the conflict raging to our north.

Indeed, Russia’s assault on Ukraine is a cautionary tale for the Jewish state, one that we would do well to contemplate.

Remains of a residential building destroyed by shelling, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues, are pictured in Zhytomyr, Ukraine March 2, 2022. (credit: Viacheslav Ratynskyi/Reuters) Remains of a residential building destroyed by shelling, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues, are pictured in Zhytomyr, Ukraine March 2, 2022. (credit: Viacheslav Ratynskyi/Reuters)

To begin with, there is the matter of “international security guarantees,” a subject that has been broached over the years as a possible component of any peace deal in which Israel would be expected to turn over tangible strategic assets such as territory to a hostile Palestinian entity.

In exchange, the thinking has gone, Jerusalem would receive various international assurances, promises and pledges to compensate for the inevitable loss of military advantage and deterrence.

But if anyone seriously still believes that “security guarantees” have any meaning, they would do well to speak to one of the countless Ukrainians currently spending nights in underground metro stations for fear of Russian aerial or artillery strikes.

It is important to recall that back in 1991, after the Soviet Union blessedly collapsed, Ukraine found itself in possession of one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, as it had served as home to approximately one-third of the Soviets’ atomic weapons inventory.

The country quickly came under heavy pressure to denuclearize and the Ukrainian leadership subsequently agreed to dismantle all its nuclear weapons and formally join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On December 5, 1994, Ukraine signed a document known as the Budapest Memorandum, together with Russia, the United States and Great Britain, which in retrospect makes for satirical reading, especially in light of the events of the past week.

In the text of the agreement, Moscow, Washington and London all solemnly committed themselves, in writing no less, “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and reaffirmed “their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

While the memorandum did not explicitly state that the US, Britain or anyone else would come to Ukraine’s defense in case of an invasion, the implication is clear that in exchange for forgoing its nuclear arsenal, Ukraine was receiving assurances that its existence would not be threatened.

Sadly, as Russia’s current attempt to conquer Ukraine indicates, documents such as the Budapest Memorandum have a shelf life similar to that of a bowl of borscht left out on a dining room table.

For that reason alone, it behooves Israeli decision-makers to discard the notion of ever relying on similar external guarantees of our nation’s security.

If the world is willing to sit back and watch the largest ground war Europe has seen since World War II and leave Ukraine to its fate, we should be under no illusions as to whether even our closest friends and allies would come to Israel’s defense if need be.

The conflict in Ukraine also provides a telling example of how territory and strategic depth remain crucial in today’s world. The vastness of Ukraine, the total area of which is more than 600,000 sq. km., makes overrunning it far more challenging for the Russian occupiers, who must contend with everything from logistical nightmares to overstretched supply lines.

Israel, of course, is far smaller in size than Ukraine, but that does not take away from the point. If anything, it enhances its importance. Precisely because the Jewish state is so small, it can ill afford to give up any territory to its neighbors, for every square kilometer is that much more precious and inestimable in strategic, historic and military value.

In the face of the Russian onslaught, Ukrainians from all walks of life have been stepping forward and volunteering to defend their homeland, insisting with fierce determination that they will never countenance turning over any part of their territory to foreign control.

And that, perhaps, is the most important lesson of all that some Israelis would do well to learn.

Rather than viewing portions of our ancestral patrimony as chips to be used at a bargaining table, we should instead be guided by a deep and abiding faith, confident in the justness of our cause and cognizant of the fact that, simply put, we can rely only on Divine providence and on ourselves.

 

Michael Freund served as deputy communications director under former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his first term of office.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-699214

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Putin's nuclear blackmail of Ukraine and the West continues - Judith Miller

 

by Judith Miller

'If he has an instrument, he wants to use it'

 

 

The largest nuclear power plant in Europe is now in Russian hands. Europe exhaled when the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that the fire at the plant on Thursday night caused by Russian shelling was extinguished, that its six reactors were intact, and that there was no release of radioactive material from the plant.

But while the prospect of nuclear meltdown has receded for now, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear blackmail of Ukraine and the West continues.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, located in eastern Ukraine near the largely Russian-occupied Donbas, supplies 20 percent of Ukraine’s power, providing electricity to some four million Ukrainian homes. 

RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE: LIVE UPDATES 

One of four Soviet-built nuclear plants with 15 reactors in Ukraine, Zaporizhzhia was just one of the recipients of some 500 missiles Russian forces have fired at Ukrainian targets since Moscow’s invasion began. But the plant is no ordinary target. 

 

 

Attacking a nuclear plant is an international war crime. And it will be added to the growing list of such crimes perpetrated by Russia’s president for which he may one day be held accountable when his aggression against Ukraine ends.

RUSSIAN TROOPS NEAR ANOTHER UKRAINE NUCLEAR PLANT, IN YUZHNOUKRAINSK, UN ENVOY SAYS

Had the fire spread and containment of the radioactive material failed, the spread of radioactivity throughout Europe could have made the 1986 accident at Chernobyl pale by comparison. "This is terrorism," said Joseph Cirincione, the former head of the Ploughshares Fund, which focuses on nuclear nonproliferation and conflict resolution.

 

 

While the goal of Putin’s attack on the plant is unclear, Cirincione said that Russia may have seized the plant to cut off electricity to Ukrainians to force them to surrender, literally, "to 

freeze Ukraine." If that is so, the attack on Zaporizhzhia may not be the only such assault on a nuclear facility.

RUSSIA USING UKRAINIAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TO TRY TO 'HOLD EUROPE HOSTAGE': UKRAINIAN MP

Clearly the IAEA is concerned about another attack, though the agency seems uncertain about how to stop one. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the IAEA’s chief, announced today that he wanted to go to Chernobyl to try to hammer out nuclear rules of the road with Russia, but Moscow has yet to agree to such a meeting.

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke to female flight attendants in comments broadcast on state television on Saturday, March 5, 2022. (Image: Reuters Video)

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke to female flight attendants in comments broadcast on state television on Saturday, March 5, 2022. (Image: Reuters Video) (Reuters Video)

 Even if Putin does not attack another nuclear plant, his decision to put his nuclear forces on higher alert – for the first time since the foundation of the Russian Federation in 1991 -- and his continued threats to use his nuclear weapons should the U.S. and its NATO allies intervene to stop Russia’s destruction of Ukraine constitute another equally ominous prospect. 

According to experts writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Russia has a stockpile of some 4,477 nuclear warheads assigned for use by long-range strategic launchers and tactical, or shorter-range forces. 

Gutted cars following a night air raid in the village of Bushiv, 40 kilometers west of Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, March 4, 2022. Russia's war on Ukraine is now in its ninth day and Russian forces have shelled Europe's largest nuclear power plant, sparking a fire there that was extinguished overnight. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)

Gutted cars following a night air raid in the village of Bushiv, 40 kilometers west of Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, March 4, 2022. Russia's war on Ukraine is now in its ninth day and Russian forces have shelled Europe's largest nuclear power plant, sparking a fire there that was extinguished overnight. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)

Putin has warned anyone who intervenes that they would suffer "consequences as you have never before experienced in your history." While many experts regard Putin’s threat as a bluff, it was a stark reminder that Russia – along with the U.S., France, Britain, and Pakistan, not to mention North Korea – have not ruled out using nuclear weapons first in a conflict. And some analysts warn that Putin’s threat to escalate in such a reckless way cannot easily be dismissed given his past conduct. 

"Every time you think, ‘No, he wouldn’t, would he? Well, yes, he would," said Fiona Hill, a former senior official at the U.S. National Security Council and specialist in Russian and European affairs. 

In an interview with Politico, Hill, who has worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations and has published a biography of Putin, cautioned that it would be dangerous for the U.S. to disregard Putin’s threat. "The thing about Putin is," she said, "if he has an instrument, he wants to use it."

Ukrainians crowd under a destroyed bridge as they try to flee crossing the Irpin river in the outskirts of Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, March 5, 2022. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

Ukrainians crowd under a destroyed bridge as they try to flee crossing the Irpin river in the outskirts of Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, March 5, 2022. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

"It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared," she added. "We have to prepare for those  contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off."

 

Judith Miller, a Fox News contributor, is an award-winning author, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of its magazine, City Journal. She was formerly a  Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter for The New York Times. Her latest book is "The Story: A Reporter's Journey."

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/putin-nuclear-ukraine-west-judith-miller

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Bombshell Revelations - Lloyd Billingsley

 

by Lloyd Billingsley

Will Joe Biden, the second coming of George McGovern, give Putin what he really wants?

 


Putin Order Puts Russian Nuke Deterrent Force on High Alert,” the Washington Times reported on February 27.  A month before, another report exposed what was going on behind the scenes.

55 Democrats Urge Biden to Adopt ‘No First Use’ Nuclear Policy,” headlined a January 26 story in Air Force Magazine. The 55 Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also want to stop deployment of the deployment of the W76-2 low-yield Trident submarine warhead, and the development of a new nuclear-armed sea launched cruise missile.

The Democrats, including four members of the House Armed Services Committee (Andrew Kim, Sara Jacobs, Ro Khanna and John Garamendi),  also question the necessity of new nuclear weapons systems. As with opposition to deployment of the W76-2  warhead, such restrictions apply only to the United States.

In 2018, Putin boasted a new nuclear weapon that “can attack any target, through the North or South Pole, it is a powerful weapon and no missile defense system will be able to withstand.” Putin, who also announced a cruise missile system that can “avoid all interceptors.” With President Trump in office, Democrats remained rather quiet about those new threats. Joe Biden has been on that page from the start.

In 1972 the Democrats’ candidate was George McGovern, whose position on “arms control” was essentially the same as the Soviets. America is to blame for the Cold War, McGovern believed, so the Soviets must arm and America must limit.

In his Senate run that year, Biden decried “endless warfare, reliance on false obligations of global power, overt and covert manipulation of foreign regimes, standing as the sentinel of the status quo are not our true styles.” Nothing about aggression from the USSR, then on the march around the globe, and still in control of Eastern Europe.

In the 1972 election, McGovern’s Republican opponent Richard Nixon won 49 states, 521 out of 538 electoral college votes, and 60.83 percent of the popular vote. By any measure, as the New York Times put it, “Senator George McGovern suffered the worst defeat of any Democratic Presidential candidate in history.” That year Joe Biden gained office and went on to represent McGovern’s weak defense policy in the Senate.

During the 1980s Biden supported the nuclear freeze movement, a Soviet-backed initiative that would have locked Soviet gains in place. Biden also opposed the Reagan defense buildup and Strategic Defense Initiative, which had the USSR on its heels. For the Delaware Democrat living under the threat of a Soviet first strike was entirely acceptable.

In 2010, vice president Biden said, “The spread of nuclear weapons is the greatest threat facing the country and, I would argue, facing humanity.” Nothing about the spread of tyranny under Stalinist dictatorships, or the threat of Islamic terrorism, which had already struck down thousands in the American homeland.

“Let me say as clearly and categorically as I can,” vice president Biden said in 2014, “America does not and will not recognize Russian occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea.” The attempted annexation succeeded, and Biden duly accepted it. At the same time, he opposed American efforts to shore up defenses against Russia.

“Given our non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today’s threats,” Biden said in 2017, “it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary. Or make sense.” The prospect of a first strike by Putin failed to disturb Biden, who did not hesitate to target President Trump.

“The possibility that the Trump administration may resume nuclear explosive weapons testing in Nevada is as reckless as it is dangerous,” Biden said in May of 2020. “We have not tested a device since 1992; we don’t need to do so now.”

In August of 2020, Biden said. “I will restore American leadership on arms control and nonproliferation as a central pillar of U.S. global leadership.” No word about control of Putin’s aggression, and in 2022, Biden suggests that a “minor incursion” by Putin into Ukraine would be acceptable. That, and Biden’s devastation of the American energy industry, had to encourage the KGB man.

As Ukrainian-American comic Yakov Smirnoff says, the KGB will throw a man off a roof to hit the guy they really want. Putin invades Ukraine but what he really wants is for the United States to reduce its missile defense capabilities. Look for Biden to give the 55 leftist Democrats the reductions they want, while asking nothing from Putin, a big admirer of Joe Stalin.

The addled Joe Biden is the second coming of George McGovern, possibly worse. A blame-America leftist to the core, McGovern had no financial entanglements with totalitarian states in the style of Biden and son Hunter. George McGovern never told African Americans “you ain’t black” if they failed to support him, and never responded to a legitimate question by calling a reporter a “stupid son of a bitch.” And so on.

Joe Biden does all these things, and like Blanche DuBois, they increase with the years. The

Delaware Democrat also suffers from Reagan Derangement Syndrome (RDS) and Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).  

Whatever President Reagan and President Trump did, however successful at strengthening America and stopping Stalinist aggression, Joe Biden must do the opposite. So now it’s springtime for Putin, with bombs falling from the skies again, maybe in places far beyond Ukraine.

 

Lloyd Billingsley

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/bombshell-revelations-lloyd-billingsley/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US general: Iran poses biggest threat to regional security - Israel National News

 

by Israel National News

The outgoing commander of the US Central Command ended his final visit to Israel today with a review of threats in the region.

 

General McKenzie with LTG Kohavi
General McKenzie with LTG Kohavi                                                            IDF Spokesperson

The outgoing Commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), four-star General Frank McKenzie, concluded his final official visit to Israel today (Friday).

General McKenzie was welcomed yesterday (Thursday) by an honor IDF guard. During the ceremony, the Chief of the General Staff, LTG Aviv Kohavi, presented the CENTCOM commander with a service medal in recognition for his personal contribution to cooperation between the Israeli and U.S. militaries. Participating in the ceremony were members of the General Staff Forum and other commanders.

General McKenzie then met with the President of Israel, the Prime Minister of Israel, and the Israeli Minister of Defense. The General then visited the "Yad Vashem" Holocaust Memorial Center and participated in an official Holocaust remembrance ceremony.


The CENTCOM commander then met with the IDF Chief of the General Staff, LTG Aviv Kohavi. The two generals discussed opportunities to increase defensive efforts in the Middle East and the Gulf as well as joint efforts between the Israeli and U.S. militaries in the face of rising threats in the region, first and foremost being the hostile Iranian regime.

Chief of the General Staff, LTG Aviv Kohavi, commented, "Today’s visit is another significant chapter in the unique relationship between the IDF and the U.S. Armed Forces, specifically with CENTCOM over the last few years. The cooperation between our two militaries, led by General McKenzie, has brought forth many operational achievements, both overt and covert, to the region. Our strong bond regarding defensive efforts in the region is a major component of safeguarding stability and security throughout the Middle East. I thank you, General McKenzie, for maintaining and strengthening the long-standing relationship between our two militaries, and for your personal contribution to the security of the State of Israel. We in the IDF look forward to working with the incoming CENTCOM commander and to continuing joint operational activities with the United States of America.”

 

Israel National News

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/323292

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

IAEA, Iran agree on roadmap to resolve nuke issues - Yonah Jeremy Bob, Reuters

 

by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Reuters

Negotiators have worked for 11 months to try to revive the agreement under which Iran limited its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for a bomb.

 

The Iranian flag waves in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters, before the beginning of a board of governors meeting, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Vienna, Austria, March 1, 2021. (photo credit: REUTERS/LISI NIESNER/FILE PHOTO)
The Iranian flag waves in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters, before the beginning of a board of governors meeting, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Vienna, Austria, March 1, 2021.
(photo credit: REUTERS/LISI NIESNER/FILE PHOTO)

The IAEA and Iran agreed on Saturday to a roadmap to resolve outstanding issues in the agency’s probe of Tehran’s nuclear program in a development that could pave the road to a broader deal with the world powers.

According to the roadmap, Iran will provide new information to the world’s nuclear inspectors by March 20 followed by a series of exchanges and meetings which may end with closing the probe at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting in June.

Yet, in a dizzying development, the same day the IAEA deal was announced saw Russia suddenly threaten to obstruct the ongoing nuclear talks with the Islamic Republic in Vienna.

Since the Mossad seized Iran’s secret nuclear archive in January 2018, the IAEA and the ayatollahs have faced a series of conflicts over questions about three nuclear sites that Iran had kept secret and over illicit nuclear material that inspectors found at one of the sites.

A deal closing those probes by late June would seem to energize the broader talks between Iran and the world powers about returning to the 2015 JCPOA deal in Vienna.

IAEA DIRECTOR-GENERAL Rafael Grossi speaks at a news conference during a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna in September. (credit: Leonhard Foeger/Reuters) IAEA DIRECTOR-GENERAL Rafael Grossi speaks at a news conference during a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna in September. (credit: Leonhard Foeger/Reuters)

But on Saturday, suddenly Moscow demanded a written US guarantee that Ukraine-related sanctions would not damage Russian cooperation with Iran.

An Iranian official called this threat "not constructive" and there was speculation about whether it might derail the talks.

At press time the US had not yet responded to the Russian demand.

However, Moscow’s activities go to the heart of the JCPOA, including being the default location to ship out Iran’s uranium stock and being that Russia helps operate a variety of Iranian nuclear facilities.

As such, there has been no US statement to date indicating that Ukraine sanctions would impact Russia’s relations with Iran, and the entire situation could be simply to get Washington to publicly acknowledge that fact in the ongoing public relations war with Moscow.

"Russians had put this demand on the table (at the Vienna talks) since two days ago. There is an understanding that by changing its position in Vienna talks Russia wants to secure its interests in other places. This move is not constructive for Vienna nuclear talks," said the Iranian official in Tehran.

Demanding written US guarantees that Western sanctions imposed on Russia over the conflict in Ukraine would not damage its cooperation with Iran, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the limitations had become a stumbling block for the Iran nuclear deal, warning the West that Russian national interests would have to be taken into account.

Lavrov said the sanctions on Russia over the conflict in Ukraine had created a "problem" from Moscow's perspective.

When asked whether Russia's demand would harm 11 months of talks between Tehran and world powers, including Russia, Iran Project Director at International Crisis Group, Ali Vaez said: "Not yet. But it’s impossible to segregate the two crises for much longer."

"The US can issue waivers for the work related to the transfer of excess fissile material to Russia. But it’s a sign that the commingling of the two issues has started," Vaez said.

Two diplomats, one of them not directly involved in the talks, said China also has demanded written guarantees that its companies doing business in Iran wouldn't be affected by US sanctions.

Still, all parties involved in Vienna talks said on Friday they were close to reaching an agreement.

"We have agreed to provide the IAEA by (the Iranian month of) Khordad [June 21] with documents related to outstanding questions between Tehran and the agency," Iran's nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami told a joint news conference earlier Saturday with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi.

Grossi arrived in Tehran late on Friday to discuss one of the last thorny issues blocking revival of the pact, which in return for a lifting of economic sanctions limited Iran's enrichment of uranium, making it harder for Tehran to develop material for nuclear weapons.

"It is important to have this understanding ... to work together, to work very intensively," Grossi told the televised news conference.

"Without resolving these (outstanding) issues, efforts to revive the JCPOA may not be possible."

A major sticking point in the talks had been that Tehran wanted the question of uranium traces found at several old but undeclared sites in Iran to be closed. Western powers had said that is a separate matter to the deal, which the IAEA is not a party to.

Grossi, who also held talks with Iran's foreign minister before returning to Vienna on Saturday, said, "there are still matters that need to be addressed by Iran."

 

Yonah Jeremy Bob, Reuters

Source: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-700390

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Russian elites' kids protest Ukraine war: A look at who is taking stand against Putin - Julius Young

 

by Julius Young

The daughters of some of Russia’s most elite figures with ties to the Kremlin are denouncing the war

With the war in Ukraine continuing to push many of its citizens out of the country amid Vladimir Putin’s invasion, protests continue in Russia. 

Thousands have taken to the streets to denounce the war, including the daughters of some of Russia’s most elite figures with ties to the Kremlin. 

One of Russia’s most outspoken opponents of the invasion on social media has been Sofia Abramovich, who publicly called out Putin in her Instagram Story with a post that said, "Putin wants a war with Ukraine. The biggest and most successful lie out of the Kremlin propaganda is that most Russians are with Putin."

A LOOK AT UKRAINIAN STARS WHO’VE VOWED TO DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY AGAINST RUSSIA'S INVASION

Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich with his daughter Sofia Abramovich in the stands.

Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich with his daughter Sofia Abramovich in the stands. (Mike Egerton/PA Images)

The equestrian is the daughter of Roman Abramovich, 55, the owner of the Chelsea Premier League Football Club who has a reported net worth of $12 billion. The club owner has said he will sell the team after mounting pressure brought on by the invasion and his ties to the Kremlin. 

MAKSIM CHMERKOVSKIY ON LEAVING UKRAINE: 'I FEEL GUILTY'

Abramovich also announced that he has instructed the popular football club to set up a foundation that will use all net proceeds from the sale of Chelsea to "benefit all victims of the war in Ukraine." Abramovich has yet to be sanctioned over his relationship with Russia.

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov's daughter Yelizaveta Peskova posted "No to the war" before her post was deleted and her Instagram account made private.

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov's daughter Yelizaveta Peskova posted "No to the war" before her post was deleted and her Instagram account made private. (Vyacheslav ProkofyevTASS)

With nearly 240,000 followers on Instagram, 24-year-old Elizaveta Peskova, the outspoken daughter of Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, posted "No to the war" on her now-private social media profile. 

The post was later deleted. 

Russia's Sofia Abramovich competing in the 2015 Monaco International Horse Jumping competition. The equestrian is the daughter of Roman Abramovich, owner of the Chelsea Premier League Football Club.

Russia's Sofia Abramovich competing in the 2015 Monaco International Horse Jumping competition. The equestrian is the daughter of Roman Abramovich, owner of the Chelsea Premier League Football Club. (Valery Hache/AFP)

SEAN PENN ARRIVES IN UKRAINE TO FILM DOCUMENTARY ON RUSSIAN INVASION

Also detesting the invasion is Maria Yumasheva, the 19-year-old daughter of Russian real estate developer Valentin Yumashev and his wife Tatyana Borisovna. Borisovna is the daughter of former Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

Putin will make this humanitarian crisis much worse: McMaster

 

 

Video

 

On Feb.24, Yumasheva made her feelings known when she shared a picture of a Ukrainian flag to Instagram, captioning the post with a simple broken heart emoji.

While comments on the post are disabled, the image has garnered more than 4,000 likes from her 12,000-plus followers.

Russia launched a full-scale attack on Ukraine Feb. 24, with Vladimir Putin labeling it a "special military operation."

The Associated Press contributed to this report

 

Julius Young

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/russia-ukraine-crisis-wealthy-daughters-protesting-war-putin

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Erdoğan, in Trouble at Home, Fishing for Trouble in the Aegean - Burak Bekdil

 

by Burak Bekdil

Like any other third-world autocrat, Erdoğan blames the economic collapse on "foreign powers plotting against Turkey's graceful rise."

  • At home, Turks are economically paralyzed: the official annual inflation rate is running at 48% (although independent researchers measure it at 114%); there are basic commodity shortages; gasoline, natural gas and electricity costs have doubled within a year; the national currency has lost half of its value against major Western currencies, and per capita GDP has been in freefall for the past seven years. The minimum wage, at barely $375 a month, is, after Albania, the second lowest in continental Europe. This gloomy picture has emerged just 16 months before Turkey's Islamist autocrat, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, will go for an all-or-nothing election in June 2023.

  • Like any other third-world autocrat, Erdoğan blames the economic collapse on "foreign powers plotting against Turkey's graceful rise."

  • [Turkey's top defense procurement official, Ismail] Demir's office is running hundreds of armament programs. But observers have noticed a recent tendency to give prominence to naval programs targeting exclusively Greece, as Turkey does not have other littoral rivals.

  • Turkish military and defense procurement officials are working day and night to run scores of other, smaller naval programs, despite the country's severe economic constraints. This expansion reflects a political process of prioritizing guns over butter -- all as theater for Turkish voters before they go to the ballot box.

Turkey's top defense procurement official, Ismail Demir, says that Turkey will keep working to have a stronger and more deterrent naval force in the "blue homeland," a term Turks use for the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. Demir's office is running hundreds of armament programs. Pictured: The Turkish Navy minesweeper Akcay enters the Russian port of Novorossiysk, for military exercises in the Black Sea, on March 6, 2019. (Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images)

To this day, the Turks are proud that their Ottoman ancestors had made the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas "a Turkish lake." To this day, they lament that the Aegean is now widely a Greek lake and the Mediterranean is anything but a Turkish lake.

A century after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of the modern Turkish Republic, Turkey's irredentist Islamists are flexing their muscles not exactly to make the Aegean a Turkish lake again, but to distract the Turkish masses who many well be economically disgruntled into embracing the illusion that a neo-Ottoman Armada is back on the blue waters.

At home, Turks are economically paralyzed: the official annual inflation rate is running at 48% (although independent researchers measure it at 114%); there are basic commodity shortages; gasoline, natural gas and electricity costs have doubled within a year; the national currency has lost half of its value against major Western currencies, and per capita GDP has been in freefall for the past seven years. The minimum wage, at barely $375 a month, is, after Albania, the second lowest in continental Europe. This gloomy picture has emerged just 16 months before Turkey's Islamist autocrat, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, will go for an all-or-nothing election in June 2023.

Like any other third-world autocrat, Erdoğan blames the economic collapse on "foreign powers plotting against Turkey's graceful rise." He often describes his unorthodox economic policies as an "economic war of independence." He needs more than that, however, to make poverty-stricken Turks feel better. How about: "Our mighty navy is making the Aegean a Turkish lake again"? Not bad, especially if you think that the average Turk is a seventh-grade drop-out who would not bother to check the map and see that some Greek islands are swimming distance from the Turkish shore.

Feeling threatened, traditional Aegean rival Greece in January showcased its newly acquired defense capabilities by flying six Rafale fighter jets over the Acropolis hours after they arrived from France -- along with a bill for €11.5 billion.

"The six planes that Greece bought are too few to face Turkey," responded Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar.

Echoing the minister, Turkey's top defense procurement official, Ismail Demir, said that Turkey will keep working to have a stronger and more deterrent naval force in the "blue homeland," a term Turks use for the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas.

Demir's office is running hundreds of armament programs. But observers have noticed a recent tendency to give prominence to naval programs targeting exclusively Greece, as Turkey does not have other littoral rivals.

In December, the procurement agency SSB invited bids for the construction of three Turkish-designed Istanbul-class frigates to join five others under its national corvette (MILGEM) program. The frigates are designed for reconnaissance and surveillance, target identification, early warning, base and port defense, anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, surface warfare, amphibious operations and patrolling missions.

Turkey's decision to have three frigates built -- instead of one at a time of budgetary constraints -- has a geo-strategic message. "The political authority is telling Turkey's regional adversaries that it will not reconcile in geo-strategic disputes in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean seas," Özgür Ekşi, editor-in-chief of the defense news website TurDef, told this author.

There are other Turkish naval programs signaling a return to tensions on the Aegean Sea.

In August 2021, Turkish shipyard Ares said it designed and developed an unmanned anti-submarine warfare vessel. Ares said the ULAQ DSH/ASW successfully passed laser-guided firing tests. In October, Ares and defense technology company Meteksan Savunma launched a surface-warfare version of the ULAQ: Turkey's first armed unmanned surface vessel. The system reportedly has a 400-kilometer range and can travel at speeds up to 65 kph.

In January, Turkey also commissioned into service the country's first intelligence-gathering ship, TCG Ufuk, which will be jointly operated by the National Intelligence Organization and the Turkish Navy.

Also in January, the government announced that it would start the construction of a prototype ship that eventually will become part of a planned fleet of "Turkish-type assault boats." Military analysts say these boats will "destroy/inactivate enemy assets at seas."

Shortly after that, the Turkish Navy decided to replace its ageing inventory of about 350 U.S.-made Harpoon anti-ship missiles with the Atmaca, an indigenous anti-ship missile that reportedly has a range of over 220km, can cruise at an altitude as low as three meters and "navigate around islands and islets," a not-so-hidden reference to their use in the Aegean Sea. It will be fitted aboard the Ada-class corvettes, the Istanbul-class frigates and the TF2000-class destroyers.

Then there is what will become the Turkish Navy's jewel, the TCG Anadolu, a $1.2 billion landing helicopter dock. Ankara recently decided to convert this ambitious vessel into a drone carrier, as a Turkish drone manufacturer, Baykar, has been building TB3 drones exclusively for the Anadolu. The Anadolu is expected to become operational within a year.

Turkish military and defense procurement officials are working day and night to run scores of other, smaller naval programs, despite the country's severe economic constraints. This expansion reflects a political process of prioritizing guns over butter -- all as theater for Turkish voters before they go to the ballot box.

 

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from the country's most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18271/erdogan-trouble-aegean

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter