Ukraine's Strike on Iranian Shipping Exposes the West’s Racialized Empathy

Ukraine's Strike on Iranian Shipping Exposes the West’s Racialized Empathy

    Thursday, July 30, 2026   No comments

The late July 2026 Ukrainian drone strike on an Iranian-linked cargo ship in the Caspian Sea is more than just a tactical escalation; it is a glaring reminder of the deep-seated double standards that continue to drive Western foreign policy. While Ukraine stated the strike targeted military cargo destined for Russia, the resulting casualties among Iranian sailors and the subsequent condemnation from Tehran have laid bare the contradictions of the so-called "rules-based international order."

As the West rallies behind Ukraine while simultaneously waging a devastating war on Iran, the selective application of international law has never been more stark. When we place the Ukrainian and Iranian conflicts side by side, it becomes clear that the West’s foreign policy is not driven by universal principles, but by geopolitical alignment and racialized empathy.

To understand the scale of this hypocrisy, one must first look at the undeniable similarities that, in a strictly principled world, should grant both nations equal sympathy regarding their sovereignty.

Both Ukraine and Iran are sovereign nations facing existential pressure from nuclear-armed states. 

Neither the US-Israeli war on Iran nor the Russian invasion of Ukraine was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Furthermore, both nations are fighting to preserve their national sovereignty against foreign demands. Ukraine seeks integration into the EU and NATO, which Russia claims threatens its national security. Similarly, Iran asserts its right, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to develop nuclear technology. The US and Israel have historically sought to deprive Iran of this capability, with maximalist factions demanding "zero enrichment" and pursuing regime change. 

Both nations are resisting foreign powers attempting to dictate the terms of their sovereignty.

However, when we examine the dissimilarities between the two conflicts, the West’s hypocritical application of international law becomes impossible to ignore.

First, geography and demographics heavily complicate the Western narrative. Ukraine shares a massive, contested border with Russia and is home to a large Russian-speaking community that Moscow  used as a pretext for intervention. Iran shares no border with the United States (or Israel), nor does it possess an American ethnic minority that the US could claim is being oppressed to justify military action.

Second, the historical and diplomatic contexts highlight Western double standards. Iran has been subjected to crippling, unilateral US sanctions for more than 40 years, a campaign rooted in the historical grievance of the US-backed 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government. 

Diplomatically, Iran signed the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, which was endorsed by the UN Security Council, only for the US to unilaterally abandon it. In contrast, while the Minsk agreements regarding ethnic Russians in the Donbas ultimately failed to prevent war, they at least represented a diplomatic framework that Ukraine engaged with, unlike the US approach to the Iranian deal.

Third, the flow of arms exposes the arbitrary nature of "international law." Ukraine is openly and massively supplied with weapons by the US and EU. Iran, isolated from the West, relies on a closed loop of military and economic support from Russia and China. Yet, the West routinely condemns Chinese and Russian aid to Iran as illicit violations of international law, while treating its own open arming of Ukraine as the legitimate defense of a sovereign nation. This proves that "proliferation" and "sanctions busting" are only considered crimes when committed by the West's adversaries.

It is a profound distortion to suggest the US-Iran conflict is merely one of "sanctions and proxy strikes." 

Since February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel have waged a brutal, direct war on Iran. This campaign began with the decapitation of Iran’s leadership, including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his family, alongside numerous political and military figures. Russia, while it has the capability to assassinate Ukranian political leaders, it did not do so thus far; and it should be presumed that Russia  is able to locate and strike given that it was accused of providing detailed location of US troops to Iran. 

On that very first day, a US double-tap strike devastated the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, killing 168 people, including a vast number of children. When US and Israeli efforts to arm Kurdish rebels for a ground invasion were thwarted by Iraqi Hashd forces and Iranian counter-strikes, the US resorted to overwhelming aerial bombardment. 

President Trump has explicitly threatened to destroy Iran’s bridges, cultural centers, and power plants, posting on Truth Social that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran does not surrender unconditionally. The threats and dehumanizing language persisted with the US presidents calling Iranians  "crazy bastards" and described Iranians as "sick people" and "scum". Trump wrote in his social media platform, "Open the F***in' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH!"  Trump has repeatedly compared Iranians to "animals". In April 2026, when a White House reporter asked how striking civilian targets like bridges and power plants wouldn't constitute a war crime, Trump defended the actions by stating, "Because they’re animals."  In March 2026, Trump spoke directly to reporters describing Iranian leaders as "thugs, and animals, and horrible people."

Therefore, comparing the two conflicts is not a false equivalence of scale, but rather a stark exposure of competing aggressions. Ukraine is enduring a Russian land invasion with territorial occupation--albeit context in some regions given the demographics disputes. Iran, on the other hand, is facing a relentless, months-long US-Israeli aerial and naval campaign that has deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure, educational institutions, and the highest levels of government. Yet, the West demands the world view Ukraine solely as the victim of unprovoked aggression, while painting Iran as a global pariah deserving of isolation, actively ignoring the catastrophic violence unleashed upon it by Western-aligned forces--aided by GCC Arab sates who opened their territories and airspaces for US use.

Why does the West demand global sympathy for Ukraine while demanding isolation for Iran? The answer lies in a deep-seated, unacknowledged supremacism.

During the early days of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, the mask of "universal values" slipped, revealing the racialized empathy at the heart of Western foreign policy. Western pundits, journalists, and officials openly argued that the war in Ukraine was uniquely tragic because Ukrainians are "white, blue-eyed people like us," explicitly contrasting them with people in the Middle East, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It is this blatant double standard—the instinct to look down upon non-Europeans as undeserving of respect or sovereignty—that drives the West’s selective outrage.

The Diplomatic Crisis Over Ukranian attack of an Iranian Cargo Ship in the Caspian Sea

The Diplomatic Crisis Over Ukranian attack of an Iranian Cargo Ship in the Caspian Sea

    Tuesday, July 28, 2026   No comments

 Ukraine's Caspian Conundrum

By attacking an Iranian civilian vessel in the Caspian Sea, Kyiv has opened a Pandora's box of legal and diplomatic contradictions that could haunt not only Ukraine but its Western backers for years to come.

When Ukraine struck the Iranian cargo ship Ana in the Caspian Sea on Saturday, killing one sailor and injuring others, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy likely saw it as a legitimate military target disrupting Iran's supply of Shahed drones to Russia. What he may not have anticipated was the diplomatic and legal quagmire that would follow—a crisis that forces Ukraine into an impossible choice between two equally problematic paths.

The Diplomatic Tightrope

The exchange of messages between Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha and his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi reveals the delicate dance now underway. Sybiha emphasized that "all of Ukraine's actions are aimed solely at defending our country from Russian aggression and never intended to target civilian vessels or people," while stressing the goal is to "avoid unnecessary escalation."

Araghchi's response was measured but firm: Ukraine assured him the attack was "unintentional and Ukraine seeks no escalation," but Iran "made clear any attack on our citizens or interests is unacceptable. There must be restitution for losses."

This is where Ukraine's crisis begins. The country now faces two options, neither palatable:

Option 1: Compensate Iran for the damage and casualties, implicitly acknowledging wrongdoing.

Option 2: Continue arguing that attacking civilian cargo ships is legitimate when they belong to nations that supply weapons to Russia—a precedent that could unravel the very legal framework Ukraine relies upon for Western support.

The Precedent Problem

Here lies the crux of Ukraine's dilemma. Kyiv's justification for the strike rests on the premise that the Ana was carrying military cargo—specifically components for Shahed drones and ammunition from Iran to Russia. Ukraine argues this makes it a legitimate target, despite its civilian nature.

But this logic creates a dangerous precedent that Ukraine and its Western allies may live to regret. If civilian vessels can be legitimately attacked based on the cargo they carry and the governments they trade with, then the same logic must apply universally—not selectively.

Consider the implications: The United States and European Union have provided Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons, intelligence, and military support since Russia's 2022 invasion. Ukraine has used these weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, including attacks on civilian infrastructure and energy facilities. Russian reports indicate that Ukrainian drones struck Russian refineries at least 194 times from January to early July 2026, knocking out roughly a third of Russia's refining capacity.

If Ukraine can attack Iranian civilian ships because Tehran sold drones to Russia, what prevents Russia—or Iran—from attacking civilian cargo ships belonging to the United States, Germany, France, or Poland on the grounds that these nations are supplying weapons used to kill Russian soldiers and destroy Russian infrastructure?

The Logical Inconsistency

Ukraine's position requires carving out an exception to a principle that, if applied consistently, would legitimize precisely the kind of attacks Kyiv condemns when directed at its own shipping or that of its allies.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry insists that Iran "has never intervened in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine," yet simultaneously argues that Iran is a "direct accomplice to Russian aggression against Ukraine, fueling Moscow's criminal war with weapons that have killed Ukrainians since 2022." This contradiction is stark: Iran is both uninvolved and an accomplice; its ships are civilian but carrying military cargo; the attack was unintentional yet achieved "very strong results" as Zelenskyy boasted.

Araghchi called the attack a violation of the United Nations Charter and accused Israel of provoking it to "drag Europe into its war." Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Azizi warned that "any attack on Iran always comes with a cost" and that "Ukraine, too, may soon come to understand that Iran does not let actions go unanswered."

The Western Complicity Question

The crisis extends beyond Ukraine to implicate its Western supporters. If the principle holds that civilian cargo can be targeted based on the military end-use of goods being transported, then Western commercial vessels become legitimate targets for Russian or Iranian retaliation.

Should the German government be held responsible if Russia attacks a German cargo ship carrying industrial equipment to Ukraine, claiming it could be used for military purposes? Should American commercial vessels face attack because the U.S. government supplies HIMARS systems and ATACMS missiles to Ukraine? Should French tankers be targeted because France provides Caesar artillery systems?

The absurdity of these scenarios reveals the flaw in Ukraine's logic. Yet Ukraine has now acted on precisely this logic in the Caspian Sea.

The Caspian No Longer Insulated

The attack demonstrates that the Caspian Sea—bordering Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, but not Ukraine—can no longer be viewed as insulated from the Ukraine war. The maritime corridor between Russia's Astrakhan port and Iran has become strategically vital as both countries face Western sanctions, making it a workaround route for trade.

By striking in the Caspian, Ukraine has expanded the geographical scope of the conflict and set a precedent that could justify reciprocal expansion. If Ukraine can attack Iranian ships in the Caspian because they allegedly carry military cargo to Russia, then Russia could claim the right to attack Ukrainian or Western ships in the Black Sea, Mediterranean, or beyond on similar grounds.

Two Wars, Converging Dangers

The incident reveals how the US-NATO war against Russia and the US-Israeli war against Iran are converging in dangerous ways. Ukraine has expressed solidarity with Gulf states targeted by Iran, sending military personnel to help intercept Shahed drones. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy accused Russia of supplying Iran with military support, claiming Russian satellites have been actively surveilling Gulf states and U.S. military facilities.

This convergence creates a multipolar conflict where actions in one theater have immediate repercussions in another. Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Houthi threats to the Bab el-Mandeb strait already threaten 30 percent of the world's oil capacity. Ukraine's Caspian strike adds another flashpoint to an increasingly volatile global situation.

Ukraine now faces an impossible choice:

Pay restitution to Iran, acknowledging that the attack on a civilian vessel—regardless of its cargo—was wrongful. This would preserve the principle of civilian vessel immunity but undermine Ukraine's justification for the strike and potentially open the door to compensation claims from other nations whose civilian assets Ukraine has damaged.

Refuse compensation and maintain that attacks on civilian cargo are legitimate when the cargo ultimately supports military operations. This preserves Ukraine's immediate position but creates a precedent that Russia, Iran, or other adversaries could invoke to justify attacks on Western commercial shipping supporting Ukraine.

Either choice carries severe consequences. Payment acknowledges a principle that could constrain Ukraine's future operations. Refusal legitimizes a doctrine that could expose Ukraine's allies to retaliatory strikes on their commercial fleets.

The Broader Implications

The crisis reveals a fundamental tension in the laws of war as applied to modern conflict: Where do we draw the line between civilian and military targets in an era of total war economies? If Iran's sale of drones to Russia makes Iranian civilian ships legitimate targets, does Germany's sale of weapons to Ukraine make German ships legitimate targets? If Russian satellites sharing intelligence with Iran justifies Ukrainian strikes, does Western intelligence sharing with Ukraine justify Russian strikes on Western assets?

Ukraine cannot carve out an exception to this logic for itself while expecting others to abide by it. The principle, once established, applies universally—or it applies to no one.

As Araghchi told Sybiha in their conversation, "Europe and the Middle East deserve stability, security, and peace." But peace built on selective application of legal principles is no peace at all—it is merely a temporary advantage awaiting inevitable reversal.

The Caspian Sea incident may well be remembered not as a tactical victory against Iranian drone supplies, but as the moment Ukraine inadvertently legitimized the very doctrine that could be used against it and its supporters. In seeking to defend international law, Ukraine may have undermined it—and in doing so, created a precedent that will haunt the rules-based order long after this war ends.

  

The Kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Its Immediate Impact on Russian Foreign Policy

The Kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Its Immediate Impact on Russian Foreign Policy

    Friday, January 09, 2026   No comments

In an unprecedented breach of international law and state sovereignty, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was forcibly abducted by armed forces of the United States government on January 3, 2026. The incident has triggered a global diplomatic crisis and prompted a swift, uncompromising response from Moscow.

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, issued a scathing statement describing it as “sheer thuggery and vileness—or, to put it more elegantly, a civilizational catastrophe in the sphere of international relations.” His remarks are not mere rhetoric; they reflect a fundamental recalibration of Russia’s strategic posture in the wake of what is now widely regarded as the most brazen act of state-sponsored abduction in modern history.

For Moscow, Maduro’s abduction is not just a regional crisis—it is a direct challenge to the multipolar world order Russia has spent two decades trying to construct. Venezuela has been a cornerstone of Russian influence in Latin America, serving as a strategic counterweight to U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

In his statement, Medvedev outlined two possible outcomes: either the U.S. releases Maduro under diplomatic cover—an outcome he deems “minimal”—or Maduro becomes “a new Latin American Mandela,” martyred by Western imperialism and immortalized alongside Simón Bolívar, Francisco de Miranda, and Hugo Chávez. Either scenario, Medvedev argues, strengthens the anti-imperialist narrative that Russia and its allies have cultivated globally.

Medvedev tied the kidnapping directly to energy politics. “Oil is the key factor here,” he noted, referencing Venezuela’s vast reserves—the largest in the world. He warned that if the current Venezuelan authorities (now led by acting President Delcy Rodríguez) refuse to grant U.S. firms access to those resources, Washington might consider a full-scale invasion. Yet he dismissed this as unlikely, citing domestic political constraints in the U.S., including a divided Congress and growing public opposition to foreign military entanglements.

Perhaps most significantly, the Maduro kidnapping has accelerated Russia’s formal abandonment of the post–World War II international legal framework. Medvedev explicitly stated that after such an act, “the American elites—both Republican and Democratic—should permanently shove their long tongues back into their rickety asses” and “acknowledge the legitimacy of Russia’s actions during the SMO [Special Military Operation] in Ukraine.”

This linkage is deliberate: Moscow now asserts moral equivalence between its actions in Ukraine and U.S. actions in Venezuela—both, in its view, are exercises of sovereign power in a world where might makes right. In this new paradigm, international law is not merely weakened; it is declared obsolete. As Medvedev chillingly put it: “international law is not required at all.”

He reinforced this stance in discussing the recent seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker by U.S. naval forces—a vessel that had been granted temporary registration to evade sanctions. While acknowledging the move violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Medvedev pointed out that the U.S. never ratified the treaty, rendering its objections hypocritical. More importantly, he argued that responses to American aggression must now occur “entirely outside the framework” of existing legal structures.

Medvedev’s closing metaphor reveals the emerging Russian doctrine: in a world turned into “outright Bedlam,” diplomacy is futile. “Dangerous madmen,” he wrote, “require either a straitjacket—or a lifesaving injection of haloperidol.” The reference to events “last night in the west of the Bandera-run Ukrainian periphery” suggests that Russia has already begun administering its own form of “treatment”—likely a major retaliatory strike or covert operation designed to signal that any further U.S. adventurism will be met with asymmetric, unpredictable force.

This marks a decisive shift from deterrence through parity to deterrence through unpredictability. Russia is no longer seeking to negotiate within the system; it is working to dismantle it and replace it with a raw balance of power enforced by “orderlies with massive fists.”

The kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, is not a speculative fiction—it is a watershed moment in international relations. It has validated Moscow’s long-held claim that the United States operates as a lawless hegemon, willing to violate the most basic norms of sovereignty when convenient. In response, Russia has abandoned any pretense of working within Western-led institutions and is now openly advocating for a world governed by strength, loyalty, and retribution.

As nations across the Global South watch closely, the coming weeks will determine whether this act triggers a cascade of realignments—or a broader conflict. One thing is certain: the rules-based order did not die slowly. It was taken hostage from a bedroom in Caracas—and with it, the last vestiges of post–Cold War stability.

Witkoff's Peace Proposal Aimed at Ending the War in Ukraine

Witkoff's Peace Proposal Aimed at Ending the War in Ukraine

    Friday, November 21, 2025   No comments

In a dramatic and highly controversial initiative that has reignited global debate over the future of Ukraine and European security, real estate magnate and Trump adviser Steven Witkoff has unveiled a comprehensive peace proposal aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. First reported by The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and The New York Times in late November 2025, the 28-point plan — dubbed “Witkoff’s Peace Proposal” — presents a sweeping, U.S.-mediated framework that would require profound concessions from both Ukraine and the West, while offering Russia significant strategic and economic rewards.

At its heart, Witkoff’s proposal seeks to freeze the conflict on terms that would effectively legitimize Russia’s territorial gains while embedding Ukraine into a new, constrained security architecture.

The plan begins with a rhetorical affirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty — a necessary fig leaf for Western audiences — but quickly pivots to concrete measures that would permanently alter Ukraine’s geopolitical trajectory. Most notably, Ukraine would be constitutionally barred from joining NATO, and NATO would formally pledge never to extend membership to Kyiv. In return, NATO would agree not to station troops or military infrastructure on Ukrainian soil — a direct reversal of current Western policy.

To ensure compliance, the proposal calls for a U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO security dialogue, a U.S.–Russia working group to monitor adherence, and the legal codification of Russian non-aggression pledges toward Ukraine and Europe. Simultaneously, Ukraine’s armed forces would be capped at 600,000 troops — a significant reduction from its current mobilized strength — and it would remain a non-nuclear state, reinforcing its dependence on Western security guarantees rather than self-reliance.

Territorial Concessions: The De Facto Recognition of Annexation

The most contentious element of the proposal lies in its territorial provisions. Ukrainian forces would withdraw from remaining Kyiv-held areas of Donetsk, creating a demilitarized buffer zone that would be “recognized as Russian territory.” While the proposal claims both sides will “not change territorial arrangements by force,” critics argue this is a de facto international recognition of Russia’s illegal annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — territories seized since 2014 and fully occupied since 2022.

This concession, if implemented, would mark the largest territorial realignment in Europe since the end of World War II — and would fundamentally undermine the post-Cold War order built on the principle that borders cannot be changed by force.

Economic Engine: Frozen Assets as Reconstruction Fuel

Witkoff’s economic plan is equally ambitious. It proposes using $100 billion of frozen Russian assets — held primarily in Western banks — to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction, with the U.S. receiving 50% of the profits generated from those assets. Europe would contribute an additional $100 billion. The remainder of frozen Russian funds would be redirected to joint U.S.–Russia investment projects, signaling a dramatic thaw in economic relations.

The proposal further calls for Russia’s phased reintegration into the global economy, including an invitation to rejoin the G8 — a move that would reverse the Western diplomatic isolation imposed after the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Russia would also guarantee Ukraine’s free commercial use of the Dnieper River and establish agreements on Black Sea grain exports — critical for global food security.

Humanitarian and Political Measures: Elections and Amnesty

On the humanitarian front, the proposal includes a humanitarian committee to oversee prisoner exchanges, repatriation of civilians, and family reunifications — widely welcomed by international NGOs. It also mandates that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of signing the agreement and grants full wartime amnesty to all parties, including Russian soldiers and Ukrainian collaborators — a provision that has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates.

Enforcement: Trump at the Helm

Perhaps the most politically explosive feature is the proposal’s enforcement mechanism: a “Peace Council” chaired by former President Donald Trump, empowered to impose sanctions or penalties for violations. This unprecedented role for a private citizen — and a former U.S. president with known pro-Russia leanings — has drawn bipartisan alarm in Washington. Critics warn it would undermine international law and institutional legitimacy, turning diplomacy into a personal project.

Reactions: Polarization Across the Globe

Reactions have been sharply divided. In Kyiv: Ukrainian officials have called the plan “a surrender disguised as peace,” warning it would cement Russian occupation and betray Ukraine’s sacrifices. President Zelenskyy’s office stated, “No peace that requires Ukraine to abandon its sovereignty or future in Europe can be legitimate.”

In Moscow: Russian state media hailed the proposal as “a realistic and dignified path forward,” with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova calling it “the first serious Western acknowledgment of Russia’s security needs.”

In Brussels and Washington: NATO allies expressed deep skepticism. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the plan “violates the spirit of the UN Charter,” while U.S. Senator Bob Menendez called it “a dangerous appeasement that would embolden authoritarianism.” However, some conservative voices in the U.S., including former Trump officials, have praised it as “pragmatic statecraft.”

In Global South: Many non-aligned nations welcomed the economic reintegration of Russia, seeing it as a step toward multipolarity — but questioned why Ukraine bore the full cost of peace.

Witkoff’s proposal is not a negotiation — it is a blueprint for a new European order, one in which military conquest is rewarded with economic rehabilitation and strategic legitimacy. It offers Ukraine security guarantees but at the cost of its sovereignty, neutrality, and future aspirations.

While it may offer a path to an immediate ceasefire — and relief for millions of war-weary civilians — it does so by codifying the results of aggression. As one European diplomat told Reuters: “This isn’t peace. It’s the institutionalization of defeat.”

Whether the proposal gains traction — particularly with Trump’s potential return to the White House in 2025 — remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Witkoff has forced the world to confront an uncomfortable question: At what price do we end a war — and what kind of world do we create when we do?

Source: The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The New York Times, Reuters, and BBC as of November 20–21, 2025.

   

Media Review: Human Rights, Selective Outrage, and the Politics of Condemnation

Media Review: Human Rights, Selective Outrage, and the Politics of Condemnation

    Monday, May 26, 2025   No comments

In the realm of global politics, the language of morality is often wielded not as a principle, but as a weapon—selectively applied, conveniently ignored. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more glaring than in the recent reactions of Western leaders to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. When Russia retaliated against a Ukrainian drone assault by launching strikes that killed 12 people, leaders like U.S. President Donald Trump were quick to label Vladimir Putin as “absolutely crazy” and a “killer.” Yet, just days later, Israel launched a brutal airstrike on a school in Gaza sheltering displaced families, killing at least 54 Palestinians—mostly children—and silence or cautious equivocation followed. In fact, these same leaders continue to fund, arm, and diplomatically shield Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man already indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes. This double standard reveals a painful truth: in the eyes of Western powers, not all human lives are equal, and not all victims are mourned.

The facts are indisputable. According to reports from Al Jazeera, the BBC, and eyewitness accounts, Israeli airstrikes targeted the Fahmi al-Jargawi school in Gaza City, killing dozens, many of whom were burnt beyond recognition. These were not militants or combatants; they were civilians—babies and children asleep in makeshift shelters after fleeing other bombardments. Just days earlier, another Israeli strike obliterated the home of Palestinian doctor Alaa Al-Najjar, killing all nine of her children. She was saving other lives in a hospital while her own were buried in rubble. The loss was not just personal—it was emblematic of a systemic campaign of destruction. As the Arabic-language article poignantly described, “this is not a story of one family, it is the recurring scene of Gaza.”

Meanwhile, when Russia responded to a coordinated assault involving 96 drones launched by Ukraine toward Moscow, killing 12 civilians in a retaliatory strike, the condemnation from Western capitals was swift and categorical. Putin was called irrational, genocidal, and in Trump’s words, “absolutely CRAZY.” While no act of violence against civilians can be morally justified, the disparity in the global reaction is stark. What makes the death of 12 Ukrainians worthy of universal outrage and sanctions, while the burning of 36 Palestinian children in their sleep barely moves the needle of Western conscience?

The answer lies not in law or logic, but in power and politics. Israel is a key ally of the United States and other Western nations. It receives billions in annual military aid, enjoys diplomatic protection at the United Nations, and is portrayed as a bastion of democracy in a volatile region. Russia, by contrast, is a geopolitical rival. Condemning its actions aligns with the strategic and ideological interests of the West. But in elevating political allegiance over human dignity, Western leaders have exposed the hollowness of their professed values.

The roots of this selective empathy is found in supremacism. As Israeli journalist Gideon Levy notes, the Israeli public is conditioned to view Palestinians not as humans, but as threats—mere shadows on a moral map that excludes them. This dehumanization enables the normalization of mass death, the obliteration of entire neighborhoods, and the bombing of hospitals and schools. Western complicity compounds this tragedy by offering political and military support without meaningful accountability. When the victims are viewed as less than human, their deaths demand no justice.

The implications are devastating—not just for Gaza, but for the moral credibility of the West itself. If the universal declaration of human rights only applies to those within a favored political camp, then it is not universal at all. If war crimes are condemned in Moscow but ignored in Tel Aviv, then the West is not defending international law—it is manipulating it. And if leaders like Netanyahu are embraced while others are vilified for similar or lesser acts, then the claim to moral leadership rings hollow.

In Gaza, as one article lamented, people no longer wait for justice from the world. “We write, we witness, we record,” it says, “so that if we die today, history will know who killed us—and why no one trembled.” It is a chilling testament to the abandonment of an entire people, not just by their occupiers, but by the global community that claims to uphold their rights.

Justice cannot be selective. Empathy cannot be conditional. If Western leaders are to retain even a shred of moral authority, they must confront their own hypocrisy. The lives of Palestinian children matter as much as those in Kyiv. War crimes are war crimes, whether committed by an adversary or an ally. And silence, when the bombs fall on schools and hospitals, is not neutrality—it is complicity.

Trump's views on the war in Ukraine posted on social media while Zelenskyy cancels visit to Saudi Arabia; Putin wants to restore trust

Trump's views on the war in Ukraine posted on social media while Zelenskyy cancels visit to Saudi Arabia; Putin wants to restore trust

    Wednesday, February 19, 2025   No comments

 Trump's views on the war in Ukraine posted on social media while Zelenskyy cancels visit to Saudi Arabia; here are some key points from Trump's statement:

• He stated that Zelensky, who “had modest success as a comedian,” could not have won the Ukrainian conflict, but the United States gave him money.
• Called Zelensky a “dictator without elections” and accused him of refusing to hold a vote.
• Stated that without the participation of the United States, Zelensky "will never be able" to negotiate peace with Russia.
• Stated that Zelensky dragged the US into a war that "could not be won."
• Zelensky "played Biden by the book" and now refuses to participate in the elections due to low ratings.
• Accuses Zelensky of wanting to continue the conflict with Russia for financial gain.
• At the same time, he emphasized that while Zelensky is hesitating, his administration is conducting “successful negotiations” with Russia on ending the conflict in Ukraine.

Zelenskyy's reaction shows that he is trying to find some grounding to push back, but is hesitating

We are not surprised when they say that 90% of aid is provided by the US. We understand that the truth is actually a little different. And I would like the Trump team to have more truth, because all this certainly does not have a positive effect on Ukraine.

They are bringing Putin out of isolation, and I think Putin, the Russians, want it very much. In the discussion with them yesterday, there were signals that they are being portrayed as victims. This is something new. I would not like to criticize official US representatives. But this is a war against you. Everyone admits this, even those who are loyal to the Russians. The Secretary of State says that this is a "conflict." This is official, they showed it to me. But this still needs to be verified. This is a softening of their policy.

Given the change of posture in Washington, Zelenskyy is still trying to figure out his next moves; and his first was to cancel his visit to Saudi Arabia, as per this news report:

– Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he has canceled his planned official visit to Saudi Arabia and indicated that a visit would happen in March instead after Kyiv was excluded from US-Russian talks in Riyadh on Tuesday.

Zelensky said on Monday that he was due to visit Saudi Arabia later this week.

“We were not invited to this Russian-American meeting in Saudi Arabia. It was a surprise for us. I think it was a surprise for many,” Zelensky told a news conference in the Turkish capital Ankara after the US-Russian talks in Riyadh.

“We are completely honest and open. I don’t want any coincidences. That’s why I won’t go to Saudi Arabia,” Zelensky said, adding that he would visit Riyadh on March 10.

Zelensky stressed that he wants the war to end “but we want it to be fair and for no one to decide anything behind our backs.”

He also stressed that “no decisions can be made without Ukraine on how to end the war in Ukraine, and on what terms.”

Meeting Erdogan in Turkiye, which became his destination after he canceled his visit to Saudi Arabia, he heard from the Turkish leader who told him that he supports Trump's proposal for peace because that intersects with Turkiye's plan which was proposed three years ago.

Erdogan: Trump's Ukraine initiative intersects with Türkiye's efforts

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the diplomatic initiative launched by US President Donald Trump to quickly end the war in Ukraine through negotiations intersects with the policy pursued by Turkey for the past three years.

During a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ankara on Tuesday, Erdogan recalled previous initiatives by NATO member Turkey, which hosted negotiations between Moscow and Kiev twice in 2022.

Zelensky said that the United States, Ukraine and Europe must participate in the talks on providing security guarantees to Kiev in order to ensure a just peace.

Putin: The goal of talks with Washington in Riyadh is to restore trust

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the goal of the talks held by Russia and the United States in Riyadh is to "restore trust between Moscow and Washington," explaining that "it is difficult to resolve many issues, including the Ukrainian crisis, without raising the level of trust."

In statements to reporters, made on Wednesday, a day after the talks in Saudi Arabia, Putin confirmed that the meeting of the two delegations in the Saudi capital "was friendly," as he expressed his "appreciation for the results of the talks between the Russian and American representatives."

Putin added that the Russian delegation confirmed to its American counterpart during the talks that it is "open to joint work," announcing that Russia "will inform its friends in the BRICS group of the results of the Russian-American negotiations."

In the same context, Putin said that Moscow and Washington "have taken the first step to resume work in a variety of areas of common interest," explaining that this "includes the Middle East, taking into account the continued Russian presence in Syria and the Palestinian issue."

He noted that there are "many issues to be resolved, in which both the United States and Russia are involved, despite the fact that we, of course, attach fundamental importance to the situation on the Ukrainian track."

Regarding other issues, "such as the economy, joint work in global energy markets and space," Putin confirmed that they were "a subject of study and discussion during the meeting in Riyadh."

The Russian president also expressed "readiness to return to the negotiating table," stressing that Moscow "has never refused to negotiate on Ukraine, and does not impose anything on anyone."

In this context, Putin revealed that his American counterpart, Donald Trump, told him during the phone conversation they had on February 12, that "the United States proceeds from the fact that the negotiation process will be conducted with the participation of both Russia and Ukraine, and that no one excludes Ukraine from it."

In light of this, Putin considered that what he described as "the hysteria that has afflicted Kiev," due to its absence from the talks between Moscow and Washington in Riyadh, "is out of place."

As for the meeting with Trump, Putin confirmed that "the desire to hold the meeting is mutual between the two presidents," adding: "But I repeat, once again... we must prepare for this meeting, so that there is a result."

Putin expressed his "surprise at the restraint the US president has shown towards his European allies, who are behaving in an inappropriate manner," he said.

Media Review: Syrian opposition received Ukrainian support to undermine Russia and its allies

Media Review: Syrian opposition received Ukrainian support to undermine Russia and its allies

    Wednesday, December 11, 2024   No comments

The Washington Post reported that “the Syrian opposition that seized power in Damascus last weekend received drones and other support from Ukrainian intelligence agents who sought to undermine Russia and its Syrian allies,” according to sources familiar with Ukrainian military activities abroad.

The sources told the newspaper that “Ukrainian intelligence sent about 20 experienced drone operators and about 150 drones to the rebel headquarters in Idlib, Syria, four to five weeks ago to assist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.”

Western intelligence sources believe, according to the newspaper, that Kiev’s assistance played only a modest role in the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but it was notable as part of a broader Ukrainian effort to covertly strike Russian operations in the Middle East, Africa and inside Russia itself.

“Ukraine’s covert aid program in Syria was an open secret, though senior Biden administration officials have repeatedly said they were unaware of it,” she added. “The motivation behind it is clear: Facing a Russian onslaught inside their country, Ukrainian intelligence looked for other fronts where it could bloody Russia’s nose and undermine its clients.”

  

Clare Daly, Member of the European Parliament: The Nations of the world will not be lectured amy more by Europe about Human Rights

Clare Daly, Member of the European Parliament: The Nations of the world will not be lectured amy more by Europe about Human Rights

    Monday, November 13, 2023   No comments

Clare Daly about the hypocrisy regarding Western talking heads' "standing with Ukraine" & silence on Gaza.

"We are in a situation now in Gaza, where we have genocide openly declared and carried out. where the numbers of civilians slaughtered and murdered in 30 days in Gaza exceeds the civilian death toll in Ukraine."

Media reports: Ukraine's allies proposed striking “Iranian drone production factories in Iran, Syria and Russia”

Media reports: Ukraine's allies proposed striking “Iranian drone production factories in Iran, Syria and Russia”

    Friday, October 06, 2023   No comments

Days after the British newspaper published in a report, details obtained from a secret document submitted by Ukraine to its Western allies in the Group of Seven, which included a proposal to target "Iranian drone production factories in Iran, Syria and Russia", a drone attack hit Syria killed more than 80 people and injured hundreds more.

The British newspaper "The Guardian" revealed a secret document that indicated that Ukraine's Western allies had proposed launching missile strikes on drone production factories in Iran, Syria, and Russia.

In the context of a newspaper report on “European components in Iranian drones,” The Guardian revealed a 47-page document that the Ukrainian government submitted to the G7 governments last August.

As part of the discussion to take measures against Iranian drones, the newspaper revealed, citing the document, that among the proposals presented by Ukraine’s Western allies “launch missile strikes on the production factories of these drones in Iran and Syria, as well as on a potential production site located on the territory of the Russian Federation.” ".

The newspaper indicated in its report that such a measure “is likely to be refrained from by Western powers,” quoting from the document that “the Ukrainian Defense Forces can implement what was mentioned above, if the partners provide the necessary means of destruction.”

According to the secret document that Kiev sent to its Western allies, it called for “the use of long-range missiles to attack production sites in Iran, Syria, and Russia.”

It is noteworthy that, in mid-February, “The Guardian” had quoted American officials as saying that Iran had become a “global superpower in the field of drones.”

Analysts at the US Intelligence Agency also said that Iran “has emerged as a global leader in producing effective drones at an affordable price.”

Dozens dead in a drone attack on a military college in Homs

The Syrian Minister of Health, Hassan Al-Ghobash, announced Thursday that the initial toll was not final, amounting to 80 martyrs, including 6 women and 6 children, and about 240 injuries as a result of the terrorist attack on the Military College in Homs.

On Friday morning, Syrian official media counted the deaths of 89 people and the wounding of 277 others.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-government organization, reported on Friday that the death toll had risen to 123, including 54 civilians, including 39 children and a woman related to officers. It was also estimated that 150 others were injured.

After the incident, the Syrian Foreign Ministry announced its condemnation of the "heinous crime" committed by "terrorist organizations." It stressed that it expresses the perpetrators’ persistence in their “brutal terrorist approach,” due to which the Syrian people have suffered over the past years.

It added, in her statement, that this attack “will not deter” Syria from moving forward in its effort to “eradicate the scourge of terrorism and its sponsors.”

The Syrian government declared three days of official mourning for the souls of the martyrs of the terrorist attack.

Media reports: the technology used in the attack originated in France; and Syria's army responds

The Syrian army launched artillery and missile bombardment, mainly targeting the headquarters of the Turkestan Party and the Migrant Brigade, in Jericho, Jisr al-Shughur, Idlib, Binnish, and Sarmin, in response to the terrorist attack that targeted the Military College in Homs.

According to media reports, the Turkestan Party and the Muhajireen Brigade "are the two factions that possess drone technology."

The information also indicated that parts of advanced drones “were transferred to the two factions three months ago, and France was the one that provided them with this technology.”

According to media sources, the information confirmed that a drone had been launched from areas under the control of the Turkestan Party, prior to targeting the Military College in Homs.

Early Warning

It hsould be noted that on October 4, Deputy Head of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria, Admiral Vadim Collet, reported that “terrorist groups are preparing to launch attacks on military sites belonging to both Moscow and Damascus.”

According to Collet, these groups are active in the provinces of Idlib, Aleppo, and Latakia.

Collet explained that the data the center received from Syrian intelligence agencies showed that the groups “Turkistan Islamic Party” and “Ansar al-Tawhid” were preparing to carry out “attacks on Russian and Syrian military bases using locally made drones.”

The two groups will use "long-range multiple missile launch systems," according to Collett.

The Deputy Head of the Russian Reconciliation Center added that the leadership of the Russian group and the Syrian Armed Forces "will take the necessary proactive measures in order to prevent armed provocations by terrorists."

The center's announcement comes after statements made by the head of Russian Foreign Intelligence, Sergei Naryshkin, to the effect that the United States of America is "preparing to assist militants to carry out terrorist attacks in Syria."

According to Naryshkin, these attacks affect "crowded public places and Syrian government institutions."

Over time, the conenctions among many of the otherwise seemingly isolated armed conflicts or coups, in Ukraine, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Niger, Mali, and other places,  become more evident.

For instance, it has been reported that Ukrainian special forces have been conducting operations outside Ukraine, including in Africa.

Since the start of the armed conflict in that country, Ukraine used drones very well, first to stop Russian troops advances toward Kyiv, using Turkish made drone, and there after using drone for attacks beyond the frontline, including attacks on Moscow. Ukrainian drone in Sudan last month reveals that Ukraine is now operating beyond its borders.

  

News media review: Zelensky visited Poland during his return from Washington, but no official in the country received him

News media review: Zelensky visited Poland during his return from Washington, but no official in the country received him

    Sunday, September 24, 2023   No comments

A report in the Singaporean newspaper “The Straits Times” said on Sunday that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, returning from the United States, stopped in Poland, but no officials met with him.

The report added: “Zelensky gave Polish volunteers government awards during his stop in Poland yesterday, Saturday, but he did not meet any official, as relations between the two countries became tense due to grain supplies.”

Marcin Brzydak, head of the Polish Presidency's International Policy Office, said in an article in the Singaporean newspaper, The Straits Times, that "his office did not receive any official request to hold a meeting during Zelensky's stay in Poland."

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki had previously warned President Zelenskiy of “new insults to Warsaw.”

Is NATO expansion a cause for the war in Ukraine?

Is NATO expansion a cause for the war in Ukraine?

    Monday, July 17, 2023   No comments

Prof. Robert G. Rabil and attorney Francois Alam wrote a provocative essay to underscore the danger of ignoring Russia's legitimate national security interests. They concluded that "gripped by a false sense of morality enveloped in hubris and Machiavellian calculations, Washington risks taking the world over the precipice of the abyss. This must be prevented." 

The writers see that after America pledged to the Soviet Union that NATO would not approach its borders in 1990, we see that in 1997 NATO called on Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join the alliance at the Madrid summit. In a second round in 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia became members of NATO. Then came the US position on the Rose, Orange and Square revolutions in Georgia, in the years 2003, 2004 and 2014, to put Washington and Moscow in violent confrontation.

The authors also believe that, in order to clarify Moscow's position in the current war in Ukraine, it is useful to look at history. The Donbass region has been part of the formation of Russia since Moscow defeated the Mongols in the 15th century. Crimea and its vicinity also had a special place to highlight the power of the tsarist empire. As for Peter the Great, he was the first to establish a Russian naval base on the Sea of Azov. During the reign of Catherine the Great, Moscow established its strategic naval base in Sevastopol, which served as the main base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

The authors considered that America's insistence on ensuring the victory of Ukraine, and considering America's security and stability as part of the security and stability of Ukraine, as well as providing Kiev with the most dangerous conventional weapons, is nothing but an open invitation to World War III and the mutual destruction of the West and Eurasia, and ignoring the fact that NATO's expansion to the east means besieging Russia in its heartland. And ignoring the attempts of the Russian leadership to dissuade the West from its plan.

The authors conclude by saying that supporting Ukraine's victory in such a blatant way is a great incentive for World War III. They stress that the Americans must stop this madness, and the coalition must realize that the way to peace is not through weapons.

The article is linked here: Americans Must Stop the March to World War III over Ukraine

The Ukrainian counteroffensive is finally on

The Ukrainian counteroffensive is finally on

    Thursday, June 08, 2023   No comments

The Biden administration and NATO leaders are now saying that they supplied with Ukraine with all that is necessary and that they asked for. Such statements make the outcome of this counterattack decisive, not only militarily, but, importantly, politically. 

When talks about the Ukrainian counteroffensive was heating up months ago, a prediction was made that that it is unlikely to happen as a full scale attack and if it did, it will be decided by geography, planning according to the presence of natural barriers such as lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. With that thinking, and with Ukrainian stated goal of taking over Crimea, the Zaporozhye direction was the logical frontline that will be used to break through Russian defense lines. 

With the destruction of the major dam (Kakhovskaya HPP), the Kherson frontline is taken out the equation. 

More reasons to focus on the developments in the Zaporozhye front.

Newsweek: How Ukraine Followed the ISIS Playbook

Newsweek: How Ukraine Followed the ISIS Playbook

    Wednesday, May 31, 2023   No comments

Newsweek reports that Ukraine is using commercial drones to score frontline victories, uploading videos with commercial GoPro cameras, accurately capturing enemy tank destruction, sniper kills and grenade blasts.

Inspired by the innovations made by ISIS during its rapid rise in Syria nearly 10 years ago, the terrorist group pushed out sophisticated, polished, and sometimes violent videos as part of a broader recruitment campaign, and distributed emotionally appealing footage to exploit vulnerable sentiment. I have the target.

In her speech, she referred to "Ukrainian brigades, such as the White Wolves, who film footage to publish on social media platforms, with the aim of bringing battles closer to real-life fighting games."

This unit publishes videos showing how its forces succeeded in destroying Russian targets. One such clip, posted on Twitter, published by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), shows an aerial view of military vehicles exploding after being hit from above, according to the magazine.

For Ukraine, “the drive to create great videos from battlefield scenes is more existential: footage from the front lines of the war must attract enough viewers globally to ensure that the country’s fight against Russia is not forgotten, and to prove that the West’s financial and military support Kiev was not in vain," according to "Newsweek."

Professor Sean Huston, who teaches courses on propaganda, social conflict, and media studies at The Citadel, a military college in South Carolina, told Newsweek that the clip is "a great example of the manipulation of combat video and the strange overlap between video games and snapshots of life." The realism associated with the video techniques used by ISIS.

"ISIS has been focusing on using this type of propaganda video, which is unfortunately more attractive to a younger audience," Houston added.

It is not clear, or the magazine did not explain, if this inspiration was due the effective tactics of ISIS or the tactics were developed by the handlers of ISIS who are now involved in the war in Ukraine.

US officials to the New York Times: Ukraine most likely carried out the attack on the Kremlin carracterized by Moscow as an assassination attempt

US officials to the New York Times: Ukraine most likely carried out the attack on the Kremlin carracterized by Moscow as an assassination attempt

    Wednesday, May 24, 2023   No comments

That attack that was characterized by Moscow as an assassination attempt to kill Putin is  was likely carried out by Ukraine occirding to US officials who spoke to New York Times.

On Wednesday, The New York Times quoted US officials as saying that the Ukrainians were "most likely" to have carried out the attack that took place with rallies on the Russian presidential building (the Kremlin) on May 3.

The officials said that US intelligence reached its initial assessment through intercepted communications, and that the attack was likely orchestrated by one of Ukraine's special military or intelligence units.

They also indicated that it was not clear if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky or his senior officials knew about the operation prior to its launch.

It is noteworthy that Russia had accused the United States of being behind the attack on the Kremlin, noting that it had several options for a measured and balanced response to the attack.

Russian officials also demanded the liquidation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in response to the attack.

Kiev has denied any involvement in the attack on the Kremlin, accusing Moscow of deliberately highlighting it in the media to justify any possible escalation of the conflict inside Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that efforts by Kiev and Washington to deny any responsibility for the attack on the Kremlin are completely absurd, and that decisions regarding such attacks are not taken in Ukraine, but in Washington, and Kiev implements what is asked of it.

The Russian Foreign Ministry also confirmed that there is no doubt that the Kiev regime was behind the attack, noting that the actions of the Kiev regime - which it described as "criminal" - confirm its unwillingness to settle the ongoing conflict through political and diplomatic means, threatening those responsible for the attacks with strict and inevitable punishment.

Ukraine Official: Security of the entire Middle East region cannot be resolved without the complete de-occupation of Crimea

Ukraine Official: Security of the entire Middle East region cannot be resolved without the complete de-occupation of Crimea

    Tuesday, May 23, 2023   No comments

A cryptic statement linking Ukraine to the security of the Middle East, was made by the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Danilov. Here it is:

“The issue of the security of the entire Middle East region... cannot be resolved without the complete de-occupation of Crimea."

 

Analyzing the news and views released by Ukrainian and Russian sources about the status and importance of Bakhmut

Analyzing the news and views released by Ukrainian and Russian sources about the status and importance of Bakhmut

    Wednesday, May 17, 2023   No comments

Parsing the news and analysis released by Ukrainian and Russian sources about the status of Bakhmut, the year-long battle in the city appears to have limited strategic value, but became important to Ukrainian politicians as a prop to secure more military support.

Here are some facts that might help us understand the narratives about the battle of Bakhmut.

Bakhmut is an industrial city, part of the Donetsk region but also just 20 miles away from Luhansk, both regions are inhabited by majority ethnic Russians and were annexed by the Russian federation as autonomous republics. 

These regions have been at war with the government in Kiev since 2014. When the Russian troops entered Ukraine in 2022, Bakhmut became the frontline. Ukrainian troops used the underground structures and the hills overlooking the region establish durable defensive lines. Those defensive lines became challenged since Russian troops rotated out of the south (west of the river in Kherson region, and concentrated on the Bakhmut-Avdiivka line of contact. In a way, Bakhmut became important for both sides for different reasons:

The Ukrainians want to preserve Bakhmut because they wanted to show that they can not only hold the line, but also take back territory, including Crimea. If Ukrainian government loses Bakhmut right after claiming victory in Kherson, that would raise doubt about its ability to achieve its stated goals—liberate all territories including Crimea.

Russian need to not only take Bakhmut, but move past Bakhmut to justify the redeployment of troops this active line of contact stretching from Dvorichne in the north to Velyka Novosilka in the south. 

Bakhmut is also important in terms of optics. Since it is seen as a year long battle, it enforces the narratives that Ukrainian troops can hold their ground and retake territories. This would explain why the head of the government made his tour of Europe now and not earlier or later: he can use the “success” Bakhmut to secure more military aid. Many analysists believe that if his troops do not take back new territories this year, Western aid will stop. So this cannot be a lost opportunity in that context.

The big picture, however is this: regardless of ends up holding Bakhmut, can these images of a liberated city apply to Kiev too? In other words, are Ukrainians willing to fight in every major city the same way they are fighter in Bakhmut?

The Kremlin announces that it was attacked by two Ukrainian drones in an attempt to assassinate Putin

The Kremlin announces that it was attacked by two Ukrainian drones in an attempt to assassinate Putin

    Wednesday, May 03, 2023   No comments

The Russian presidency announced, in a statement today, Wednesday, that the Kremlin was attacked by marches last night, in an attempt to assassinate President Vladimir Putin.

The Kremlin statement confirmed that "Putin was not harmed as a result of the terrorist attack, his agenda has not changed, and it continues as usual."

The statement said: "Two drones launched by the Ukrainian army were shot down, which led to the fall of their remnants in the area."

The statement indicated that "Moscow considers the attack on the presidential residence a planned terrorist act and an attempt to assassinate a head of state," and that it "reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place."

The presidential statement saw that the assassination attempt on the President of the Russian Federation comes on the eve of Victory Day in the May 9 parade, as foreign guests are also planned to be hosted.

In parallel, the mayor of the capital, Moscow, announced a ban on flying drones, starting today, Wednesday.

In late December 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the statements of US officials at the Pentagon regarding the "decapitation strike" against the Kremlin "represented a threat to the physical liquidation of President Vladimir Putin."

It is noteworthy that Ukraine's attempt to assassinate the Russian president comes after the progress made by the Russian armed forces in Ukraine.

Earlier today, a well-informed security source told the Russian agency "Sputnik" that "the Russian armed forces are using concentrated collective strikes using Lancet suicide drones, in order to remove the remnants of the Ukrainian long-range air defense systems in one fell swoop."

Two days ago, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced the destruction of 14 Ukrainian drones, the downing of a helicopter, and the liquidation of more than 825 Ukrainian soldiers and mercenaries, while the founder of the "Wagner" forces, Yevgeny Prigozhin, announced that his fighters had advanced about 150 meters in the city of Bakhmut, indicating that what remains is approximately 3 square kilometers. from the city lands.

The Russian forces had achieved field gains at the northern and southern outskirts of Bakhmut, which has been the center of fighting for months.

The military magazine "Military Watch" said earlier that the US "Patriot" air defense system, which Washington delivered to Ukraine, is unable to intercept Russian missiles, especially hypersonic ones.

Updated 5/3/2023:

After the attack, Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. The President of Russia, 2008-2012, Dmitry Medvedev, issued this statment:

After today's terrorist attack, there are no options left except for the physical elimination of Zelensky and his cabal.

It is not even needed to sign the act of unconditional surrender.

Hitler, as you know, did not sign it either. There will always be some kind of changer like the Zitz President

Admiral Dönitz...

 

Russia is now planning for long lasting war

Russia is now planning for long lasting war

    Thursday, April 06, 2023   No comments

 

The images coming out of Russia suggest that Russian leaders are now convinced that the conflict in Ukraine is going to drag for years and to sustain that, they are allocating resources to the production of modern weapons systems, most of which are designed for the kind of war that is fought in a place like Ukraine.

This must be bad news for NATO nations that have complained recently about their weapons’ supplies running low; some even complained that the Ukrainian military is being careless with the weapons and systems they are receiving. Images of western equipment destroyed or abandoned in the battle field has raised concerns.

China's time to become a global powerhouse is now, how will it manage its new role?

China's time to become a global powerhouse is now, how will it manage its new role?

    Wednesday, April 05, 2023   No comments

The West’s unlimited military support to Ukraine, its unbalanced Middle East relations, its ambiguous stance on the status of Taiwan, and its failure to honor its nuclear deal with Iran are propelling China to become a global leader. These three news stories should make the case for the role China will play in this decade.

_____________

How China sees the expansion of NATO? 

This editorial in a Chinese media outlet close to the ruling class of China provides the answer.

 Finland joins NATO; Europe's overall security landscape more 'precarious'

With a Finnish flag rising first time outside the NATO headquarters, the Nordic nation officially became NATO's 31st member country at a meeting of the US-led bloc's foreign ministers, including US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, on Tuesday in Brussels, a historic shift away from the Nordic nation's traditional policy of neutrality, which Chinese experts believe now pushes Finland to the forefront against Russia and may spur Moscow to boost its nuclear deployment, thus making Europe's overall security landscape even more precarious.

___________

Political division in Taiwan regarding the position of Beijing and Washington

While Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen was visiting the United States, her predecessor Ma Ying-jeou was in China, where the country's two main parties were debating which superpower would side with her.

 

During a long overseas trip to the United States, the Taiwanese president delivered a consistent and blunt message about countering Chinese threats: Taiwan needs the United States to be supportive, the newspaper reported.

 

But while she was garnering American support, her predecessor, Ma Ying-jeou, was working on a very different agenda, and is currently on a tour of China, the first former president to ever make such a visit, according to the newspaper.

 

She noted that the symbolism of Ma Ying-jeou's visit to China was "amazing" and stood in stark contrast to Tsai's travels.

 

"Strongly echoing the rhetoric used by Chinese President Xi Jinping, Ma Jiu invoked the memory of China's past humiliation at the hands of foreign invaders, during a visit last week to the mausoleum of Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Republic of China who overthrew the last emperor in 1911," she added.

 

Speaking of a delegation of Taiwanese youths he was accompanying, Ma Jiu said that they "will strive peacefully to revitalize the relationship with China, and sincerely hope that the two sides of the Strait will make joint efforts to achieve peace and prevent war."

 

According to the newspaper, the conflicting flights indicate that the question of Taiwan's belonging in the world may reach a point of crisis, amid the most intense hostility between China and the United States.

 

Earlier in the day, the Chinese Maritime Safety Administration in Fujian announced that military authorities had begun patrolling the Taiwan Strait, following reports of a meeting between Taiwan's President and US House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

 

And Tsai arrived, on Tuesday evening, in Los Angeles, USA, to hold this meeting, after a diplomatic tour in Central America.

 

McCarthy had planned to follow the example of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat who visited Taiwan last August, angering China.

 

Yesterday, Chinese diplomacy saw that the meeting between the two parties would "cause more damage" to relations between Beijing and Washington.

 

_______

 

Macron: China can play a major role in achieving peace in Ukraine

 

French President Emmanuel Macron said today, Wednesday, at the start of a three-day state visit to China that Beijing can "play a major role" in finding a "path leading to peace" in Ukraine.

 

Macron told the French community in the Chinese capital: "China has proposed a peace plan, thus showing a will to take responsibility and try to forge a path leading to peace."

 

Macron added, "This war has trampled many of the principles of the United Nations Charter, which we, as members of the Security Council, must firmly defend."

He continued, "I see that defending it also means progressing together, and trying to find a path that leads to peace."

 

Last February, China proposed its plan for peace in Ukraine, which consists of 12 clauses that include calls for a cease-fire, respect for the legitimate interests of all countries in the field of security, and a settlement of the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.

 

It is noteworthy that French President Emmanuel Macron arrived, today, Wednesday, in China for a 3-day visit, according to what was announced by the Elysee Palace, on his first trip to this country since 2019.

 

Macron will hold talks, tomorrow, Thursday, with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, in which European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will participate in part, and will move to Canton in southern China on Friday.

 

Before leaving for China, the French President held a telephone conversation with his American counterpart, Joe Biden. During which they expressed their hope that "China will engage in joint efforts to accelerate an end to the war in Ukraine and establish a sustainable peace," according to French officials.

___________________

Reuters: The foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran will meet in Beijing tomorrow

An Iranian official and a Saudi-owned newspaper reported that the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran will meet in Beijing tomorrow, as the two regional powers seek to arrange the next steps for their diplomatic rapprochement, under a Chinese-brokered deal.

 "The two chief envoys agreed to meet on April 6 in Beijing, because China facilitated the agreement," a senior Iranian official told Reuters.