Author: John Hanno

NBC News

Biden admin carefully examining legal issues around providing arms to Ukraine

A Republican congressional aide said there was bipartisan frustration with the pace of aid, but Biden admin officials said legal review was not slowing things down.

By Ken Dilanian, Carol E. Lee, Courtney Kube and Dan De Luce

February 25, 2022

A Ukrainian serviceman walks by a deactivated Russian military multiple rocket launcher on the outskirts of Kharkiv, Ukraine, on Feb. 25, 2022.Vadim Ghirda / AP

Amid widespread calls to help Ukraine resist a Russian invasion, the Biden administration is carefully examining legal questions about whether the United States can provide certain weapons and intelligence, multiple Congressional officials briefed on the matter tell NBC News.

Biden administration officials insist the lawyering is part of a normal review process, while Republicans in Congress — and some Democrats — have complained that it is slowing down what should be an immediate effort to ramp up weapons deliveries to Ukrainian forces.

“There is no legal review or debate that is slowing anything down,” said Emily Horne, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council. “We are actively continuing to provide assistance to Ukraine.”

Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said Friday, “We know [the Ukrainians] have self-defense needs, we’re going to do our best to fill them. We are continuing to provide ways for them to defend themselves.”

But lawyers at the National Security Council have raised questions about whether providing lethal aid such as Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and even actionable intelligence that could help Ukraine target Russian forces, would make the United States a party to the conflict under international law, the officials say.

“The reasoning is it’s ‘escalatory’ — that’s the phrase I keep hearing,” said one Republican congressional aide. “I would characterize the frustration as bipartisan and wide-ranging.’

A senior Biden administration official disputed that, saying, “No NSC lawyers have raised objections to the provision of security assistance to Ukraine.”

A Democratic congressional aide had yet another take.

“Lots going on behind the scenes,” he said. “Careful about the partisans slinging mud. Lots and lots of rules on exports of lethal aid. Everyone wants to help, but there are those pesky laws that are in place because past administrations were too fast and loose with weapons transfers and sales.”

The internal legal debate over aid was first reported by FP.com.

The Biden administration did help Ukraine obtain a small number of stingers through Latvia and Lithuania, but the missiles came from the stocks of those countries, not directly from the U.S. Ukraine wants many more, but the U.S. so far has not accommodated that request. Officials say it takes time to train people to use the weapons system.

Hours after Russia launched its attack on Ukraine, the country’s defense minister issued an appeal for countries to send Ukraine anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons through Poland.

“We need as much Stinger and anti-tank weapons as possible,” Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov said in a video. “In order to provide for reliable procurement of equipment, you may deliver it to Poland. From there we will transport them across the land and quickly saturate our defense.”

Lawmakers, former U.S. national security officials and retired U.S. military officers have complained that the Biden administration has moved too slowly at times to provide military aid to Ukraine, despite repeated appeals from Kyiv. The White House held up a military aid package in December, to try to give more time for diplomacy with Moscow, NBC News previously reported. The military assistance was eventually released in January. 

The White House has rejected the criticism, saying it has acted rapidly to provide more than $650 million in military assistance over the past year.  Officials have also noted that President Donald Trump delayed a military aid package to Ukraine and never provided Stinger missiles or other air defenses, which require many months of training.

NBC News reported this week that decisions by three presidents — Obama, Trump and Biden — left Ukraine with substandard air defenses that are no match for Russian forces.

Now lawmakers and other observers are calling on the White House to answer Ukraine’s appeal for weapons and equipment, urging President Biden to ramp up military aid as the Ukrainians face a massive Russian onslaught.

Fmr. Defense Secy. Panetta: U.S. needs to ‘do everything we can’ to prevent ‘a total humanitarian disaster’

FEB. 25, 2022

“We’ve got to accelerate delivery of capabilities to the Ukrainians,” said Ben Hodges, a retired lieutenant general who oversaw U.S. Army forces in Europe.

“We’ve got to have something that looks like a Berlin airlift,” said Hodges, now at the Center for European Policy Analysis think tank. “Javelins and especially stingers would be very effective.”

Rep. Jason Crow, D.-Colo., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said: “I think we should continue to supply defensive weapons, ammunition, and other supplies via overland routes into Ukraine as quickly and expansively as possible.”

Republicans in Congress have proposed legislation that would create a “Ukraine Resistance Fund” to help Kyiv resist Russian efforts to seize control of the country.

“We’ve never been urgent enough, and we need to make sure that none of the Ukrainian resistance fighters have any fear that they are going run out of ammo,” Republican Sen. Ben Sasse said on Morning Joe. “There needs to be an urgency and the president needs to lead on that.”

Republicans in Congress argue Biden should have sent more weapons sooner. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, for instance, has been saying for some time — including privately in conversations with Biden — that the U.S. needed to get more weapons to Ukraine in advance of a Russian invasion. Republicans see similarities with what they view as the administration’s failure to plan coherently for extracting Americans and Afghan partners after Afghanistan fell to the Taliban. 

Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an email to NBC News that the administration needs to take urgent action to arm the Ukrainians.

“I have been saying for months that we needed to send more lethal assistance to Ukraine, including Stingers, ammo, small arms and other equipment that could help the Ukrainian people defend their country,” he said. “Now is not the time for feet dragging. This administration committed to supporting a resistance movement and they must follow through on the pledge.”

Democrats counter that given Trump’s record on Ukraine — he was impeached for delaying a lethal aid package for personal political reasons — Republicans have no leg to stand on in this debate.

CBS News

Ted Cruz says Russia is invading Ukraine because of Biden’s “enormous” mistakes

By Kathryn Watson – February 25, 2022

Republican Senator Ted Cruz on Thursday said Russia is invading Ukraime “because of enormous mistakes that the Biden administration has made.”

“What we’re seeing right now is the most serious military conflict in Europe since World War II,” Cruz told CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa on Thursday. “It is devastating, and unfortunately, I expect it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. What is frustrating is that what is happening right now was entirely avoidable. The reason that Russia is invading Ukraine is because of enormous mistakes that the Biden administration has made, and two in particular.”

In particular, Cruz, who was interviewed by Costa at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida,  blamed the president’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan last summer, claiming it made the Oval Office look weak to America’s enemies. He also pointed to the president’s earlier decision to waive sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would bring natural gas from Russia to Germany. Russia has long wanted to remake the old Soviet Union, but Cruz argued recent Biden administration actions have made that dream easier. 

“President Biden made a political decision to surrender to Putin, to waive sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is what has facilitated this invasion,” he said. 

Mr. Biden lifted sanctions on Nord Stream 2 last year, and Cruz placed a hold on the president’s State Department nominees until this week, when the president imposed sanctions on the company constructing the pipeline and its leadership. Germany announced it would halt Nord Stream 2 earlier this week, amid heavy international pressure, but Cruz argued Russia needs to hear with certainty the pipeline will never be used. 

“The way to stop the invasion is for Russia to believe that they will not be able to get their gas to Europe if they continue this invasion. And the only way to do that is impose the sanctions, and Joe Biden just did that, finally, but now the problem is Putin doesn’t believe those sanctions will stay,” Cruz said. 

Still, “there may be nothing” that stops Putin’s invasion at this point,” Cruz said. 

Moving forward, Cruz said sanctions “should include every tool we have,” and he added that “under no circumstances should American troops be fighting Russians in Ukraine.”

Given the chance, Cruz declined to directly criticize Trump’s comments about Putin and Russia in recent days. Trump called Putin “smart” in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” on Tuesday, after the Russian president gave a speech that laid out his justification for Russia’s move into Ukraine. “I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So Putin is now saying it’s independent, a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper.” 

“His rhetoric I — with some regularity — disagree with,” Cruz said of Trump, but added that when it comes to Russia-related policy, Trump was superior to Mr. Biden. 

• Trump’s response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine reveals divisions among Republicans

Deadline

Late Night Hosts Rip Tucker Carlson’s Segment Praising Putin — Which Was Later Played On Russian TV

Tom Tapp – February 24, 2022

This week, amid overwhelming evidence that Russia would soon invade Ukraine, state-controlled Russian television network RT published an article on and aired a segment from Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight in which the show’s host pushed back on the idea that Vladimir Putin is someone Americans should dislike. What’s more, RT took the trouble of translating the clip into Russian, ostensibly for its domestic market.

“It may be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious, what is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much?” said Carlson on his show Tuesday night. “Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia?…Is he making Fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs?”

Carlson answered his own queries.

“These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is ‘no.’ Vladimir Putin didn’t do any of that,” he said. “So, why does permanent Washington hate him so much?”

Covering Ukraine: Five U.S. Journalists Talk About Their Experiences On-Air & In Country As Invasion Unfolded

Jimmy Kimmel responded on Jimmy Kimmel Live last night with a few questions of his own.

“So in order for you to despise a man who murders his rivals, who murders and poisons people, and who’s actively trying to destabilize our country, he has to do something to you personally? He has to eat your dog? That makes sense.

“How did we go from being the country that made Red Dawn and Rocky IV to this? It boggles the mind.”

He continued, “Can you imagine Ronald Reagan turning on Fox News?”

Russia Banned From Eurovision Song Contest 2022

Meanwhile, Stephen Colbert last night joked about what the White House’s announced sanctions would mean for Carlson’s show.

“That means no Russian money can come into the U.S. There goes Tucker Carlson’s sponsors,” he said.

The criticism of Carlson’s remarks did not stop there.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was born in Ukraine and a key witness in former President Trump’s first impeachment trial, directed a string of tweets at Carlson regarding the segment. His comments set the hashtag #tuckyorose trending.

The moniker is, of course, a play on Tokyo Rose, a name U.S. service-members gave to the English-speaking all-female troupe who broadcast pro-Japanese propaganda on the radio during WWII.

Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who also served in the military, added his own expression of shock in response to Carlson’s commentary.

“In 35 seconds here, @TuckerCarlson basically said: ‘Putin isn’t your enemy. Your fellow American is.’ This is beyond dangerous, to say the least,” Kiniznger tweeted.

In addition to Russian TV, state-owned propaganda web site Sputnik News yesterday used Carlson’s segment as the subject of a piece entitled “Tucker Carlson Slams Biden for Focusing on Putin, Ukraine Instead of US Domestic Problems.”

The piece maintains that U.S. sanctions were implemented “over [Russia’s] decision to recognise [sp.] the people’s republics in Donbass,” not over Russia amassing close to 200,000 troops on the border of a democratic state in Europe — that being Ukraine. The story further asserts that, while the sanctions will “affect Russian state debt, banks, and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline,” they will at the same time “bring no benefit, but entail negative consequences for the American people.”

Donald Trump made his own Pro-Putin comments on a radio show Tuesday. Trump called the Russian president’s pre-invasion moves “brilliant…genius…smart.” His effusiveness was also the target of late-night hosts’ humor.

Stephen Colbert did a piece on The Late Show that used manipulated sound bites to joke that Trump’s love for “murderous villains” is more expansive, as it also includes Voldemort, Scar from The Lion King, Osama bin Laden and the Devil himself.

Insider

Trump, who was impeached for withholding nearly $400 million in military aid from Ukraine, said ‘this deadly Ukraine situation would never have happened’ if he were in office

Lauren Frias – February 24, 2022

• Donald Trump said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine wouldn’t have happened if he were still president.
• Trump was impeached in 2019 after freezing nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine.
• He previously said Crimea was part of Russia and praised Vladimir Putin’s actions as “genius.”

Former US President Donald Trump, who was impeached for withholding nearly $400 million in military aid from Ukraine, said the country’s current crisis “would never have happened” if he were still in office.

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine early Thursday, with Russian troops swarming into the country from its northern, eastern, and southern borders. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a Thursday-evening address that 137 Ukrainians had died and 306 had been wounded as a result of the invasion.

Trump released a statement Thursday, saying, “If I were in Office, this deadly Ukraine situation would never have happened!”

Trump earlier this week praised Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy.”

“I went in yesterday, and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said when asked about the news. “I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper.”

His comments stood in contrast to those of US officials, who warned that Putin’s recognition of two Kremlin-backed separatist regions in Ukraine was part of an effort to create a false pretext and invade the country.

Trump was impeached in 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The articles of impeachment were related, in part, to Trump’s efforts to strong-arm Zelensky into launching politically motivated investigations against the Bidens ahead of the 2020 election and withholding vital military aid while doing so.

The hold on the security assistance was lifted after Politico reported on Trump’s actions and House Democrats launched an investigation into the matter.

In 2018, Trump again shocked American allies by eschewing years of US foreign policy and telling G7 leaders that the territory of Crimea was part of Russia. His remarks were especially jarring to the leaders of other member states given that it was Russia’s decision to annex Crimea in 2014 that led to its expulsion from the G8.

But Trump told reporters before that year’s G7 summit that he believed Russia should be admitted back into the alliance, and he also reportedly wondered aloud at the summit why world leaders sided with Ukraine over Russia.

Before Trump’s statement Thursday, he made similar remarks during a Fox News interview. Just as the Russian offensive in Ukraine was beginning to unfold, he blamed the situation on the 2020 US election, which he called “rigged.”

“Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing,” Trump said on Fox News, adding that the invasion “never would have happened with us — had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened.”

The New York Times – Opinion

Laundered Money Could Be Putin’s Achilles’ Heel

By Paul Krugman, Opinion Writer – February 24, 2022

The United States and its allies aren’t going to intervene with their own forces against Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I’ll leave it to others with relevant expertise to speculate about whether we’ll send more arms to the Ukrainian government or, if the Russian attack achieves quick success, help arm the Ukrainian resistance.

For the most part, however, the West’s response to Putin’s naked aggression will involve financial and economic sanctions. How effective can such sanctions be?

The answer is that they can be very effective, if the West shows the will — and is willing to take on its own corruption.

By conventional measures the Putin regime doesn’t look very vulnerable, at least in the short run.

True, Russia will eventually pay a heavy price. There won’t be any more pipeline deals; there will be hardly any foreign direct investment. After all, who will want to make long-term commitments to a country whose autocratic leadership has shown such reckless contempt for the rule of law? But these consequences of Putin’s aggression will take years to become visible.

And there seems to be only limited room for trade sanctions. For that, we can and should blame Europe, which does far more trade with Russia than America does.

The Europeans, unfortunately, have fecklessly allowed themselves to become highly dependent on imports of Russian natural gas. This means that if they were to attempt a full-scale cutoff of Russian exports they would impose soaring prices and shortages on themselves. Given sufficient provocation, they could still do it: Modern advanced economies can be incredibly resilient in times of need.

But even the invasion of Ukraine probably won’t be enough to persuade Europe to make those sorts of sacrifices. It’s telling, and not in a good way, that Italy wants luxury goods — a favorite purchase of the Russian elite — excluded from any sanctions package.

Financial sanctions, reducing Russia’s ability to raise and move money overseas, are more easily doable — indeed, on Thursday President Biden announced plans to crack down on Russian banks. But the effects will be limited unless Russia is excluded from SWIFT, the Belgium-based system for payments between banks. And a SWIFT exclusion might in practice mean a stop to Russian gas supplies, which brings us back to the problem of Europe’s self-inflicted vulnerability.

Yet the world’s advanced democracies have another powerful financial weapon against the Putin regime, if they’re willing to use it: They can go after the vast overseas wealth of the oligarchs who surround Putin and help him stay in power.

Everyone has heard about giant oligarch-owned yachts, sports franchises and incredibly expensive homes in multiple countries; there’s so much highly visible Russian money in Britain that some people talk about “Londongrad.” Well, these aren’t just isolated stories.

Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman have pointed out that Russia has run huge trade surpluses every year since the early 1990s, which should have led to a large accumulation of overseas assets. Yet official statistics show Russia with only moderately more assets than liabilities abroad. How is that possible? The obvious explanation is that wealthy Russians have been skimming off large sums and parking them abroad.

The sums involved are mind-boggling. Novokmet et al. estimate that in 2015 the hidden foreign wealth of rich Russians amounted to around 85 percent of Russia’s G.D.P. To give you some perspective, this is as if a U.S. president’s cronies had managed to hide $20 trillion in overseas accounts. Another paper co-written by Zucman found that in Russia, “the vast majority of wealth at the top is held offshore.” As far as I can tell, the overseas exposure of Russia’s elite has no precedent in history — and it creates a huge vulnerability that the West can exploit.

But can democratic governments go after these assets? Yes. As I read it, the legal basis is already there, for example in the Countering America’s Enemies Through Sanctions Act, and so is the technical ability. Indeed, Britain froze the assets of three prominent Putin cronies earlier this week, and it could give many others the same treatment.

So we have the means to put enormous financial pressure on the Putin regime (as opposed to the Russian economy). But do we have the will? That’s the trillion-ruble question.

There are two uncomfortable facts here. First, a number of influential people, both in business and in politics, are deeply financially enmeshed with Russian kleptocrats. This is especially true in Britain. Second, it will be hard to go after laundered Russian money without making life harder for all money launderers, wherever they come from — and while Russian plutocrats may be the world champions in that sport, they’re hardly unique: Ultrawealthy people all over the world have money hidden in offshore accounts.

What this means is that taking effective action against Putin’s greatest vulnerability will require facing up to and overcoming the West’s own corruption.

Can the democratic world rise to this challenge? We’ll find out over the next few months.

Yahoo! News

Explainer: How rich is Putin, and can the West sanction his money in Ukraine crisis?

Niamh Cavanagh, Producer – February 24, 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday launched a “full-scale” attack in Ukraine, reportedly blasting missiles and bombs in cities at dawn. It came hours after the Kremlin leader declared war on Ukraine in a televised address calling for the “de-Nazification” of the country.

The response by the West has been swift. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson vowed that he would impose “massive” sanctions on Russia that would “hobble” its economy. Johnson said the details of the sanctions would be coordinated with the country’s international allies. He called for the West to end its dependence on Russian oil and gas as a response to the invasion of Ukraine. On Tuesday, Germany made the decision to shut down the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, an $11 billion project between Russia and Germany.

But many believe that these sanctions will do little to thwart Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the sanctions amounted to too little, too late, to curb Putin’s aggressive moves. Many are calling for tougher sanctions aimed directly at Putin and his inner circle, which raises questions about just how wealthy the Russian president is, and where the bulk of that wealth is spread around the world.

In a scene out of a James Bond film, just days before it was believed that Western nations would impose sanctions on Russia, a $125 million superyacht believed to be owned by Putin was swiftly sailed from German waters to the Russian territory of Kaliningrad. The luxury yacht, named Graceful, had been left at a port in Hamburg for repair work before it abruptly left on Feb. 7.

One report revealed that the yacht was receiving several modifications, including a swimming pool extension and the enlargement of two balconies.

In 2017, Fortune magazine said Putin was believed to be the richest man in the world, with a net worth of $200 billion. Hermitage Capital Management CEO Bill Browder, who previously worked as a fund manager in Russia, said in 2015: “After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and the amount of money that hasn’t been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on, all that money is in property, bank, Swiss bank accounts, shares, hedge funds, managed for Putin and his cronies.”

Last year, a palace worth $1.37 billion was featured in a viral video by Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny — who has since been jailed for allegedly embezzling donations, an accusation that he has vehemently denied. Navalny said the luxury Black Sea property was paid for “with the largest bribe in history. [They] built a palace for their boss with his money.” One builder described the palace as if the Egyptian pyramids were being built. “I reckon around 1,500 people worked at the construction site at that point,” the builder told the BBC in 2011. “There were Russians, Uzbeks; there were soldiers. There was a rush to get it finished.” According to others who worked at the site, the property included a Japanese garden, a gym made out of marble, an underground ice hockey rink and a vineyard.

A recent investigation by Forbes put forward a number of theories about how Putin could have amassed and hidden his fortune. One theory relates to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a Russian oligarch who was once believed to be the richest man in Russia, with an estimated $15 billion fortune.

In 2003, however, he was imprisoned on charges of tax evasion and fraud. He continually denied these accusations. Khodorkovsky’s fortune was frozen and his companies were broken up. But Browder, who is wanted by Putin after being sentenced to nine years in prison in 2019 for tax evasion in Russia and funneling money overseas, told Forbes he believes the arrest could have allowed Putin to cut new deals with other oligarchs. “The deal was, ‘You give me 50 percent of your wealth and I’ll let you keep the other 50 percent,’” he said. “If you don’t, [I’ll] take 100 percent of your wealth and throw you in jail.”

Another theory is that Putin increased his fortune by using his position in government to help his family and close friends. Forbes suggested that those in his inner circle would offer him money or stakes in a company they acquired as a result of his help. One of Putin’s friends, Arkady Rotenberg, received more than $7 billion in state contracts in the lead-up to the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014.

According to an investigation by Reuters in 2015, Putin’s daughter Katerina, then 29, had corporate holdings worth about $2 billion with her reported husband, Kirill Shamalov, son of Nikolai Shamalov, a longtime friend of the president. Financial analysts revealed that the wealth of Putin’s daughter stemmed mainly from a large publicly disclosed stake in a major gas and petrochemical corporation that Kirill acquired from another friend of Putin’s, Gennady Timchenko — who was hit with sanctions from the U.K. earlier this week. Along with the holdings, Putin’s daughter reportedly owned a villa in France worth $3.7 million. Not much is known about his other daughter’s wealth.

That’s what reporters in the West have uncovered. But what’s the official Russian party line about the president’s wealth? An annual list of declared earnings in the Kremlin stated that Putin is paid 8.6 million rubles per year, or $234,000, as president of Russia. In 2015, Putin famously claimed he did not know how much his salary was, saying: “They just give it to me, and I put it away in my account.”

The properties he declared in 2019 included two apartments, three Russian-made Soviet-era cars — two GAZ-M21s and a Lada Niva — and a Skiff trailer (also made in Russia), reported the Russian state-controlled media site RT. The value of the three cars adds up to no more than an estimated $27,000. In 2002, Lada Niva was awarded zero stars out of a possible four for safety after a dummy passenger was hit by the glove compartment so hard that it showed a risk for a traumatic brain injury.

Despite all the items listed, no international buildings or apartments were featured in Putin’s declaration, nor were any mega-yachts now berthed safely in Russian waters. So if Putin did amass the bankroll that Fortune magazine believes he has, where is the money, and how can Western countries come up with sanctions aimed directly at Putin’s real assets?

The Week

Why war in Ukraine means the end of the liberal world order

Samuel Goldman, National correspondent – February 24, 2022

On the afternoon of Aug. 5, 1990, President George H.W. Bush appeared at a press conference on the South Lawn of the White House. After reviewing developments related to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Bush took questions from reporters. The last elicited the most memorable words of the crisis, and perhaps of Bush’s whole presidency. “This will not stand,” Bush insisted, “this aggression against Kuwait.”

Bush’s awkward grammar and delivery made the remark an object of satire, most famously in the Coen Brothers film The Big Lebowski. It was memorable, though, less because it was funny than because Bush’s words expressed a particular vision of international politics. Born in the wake of the Second World War but made plausible by the collapse of Soviet power, that vision promised an American-led world in which states would fight only in defense of recognized territorial boundaries, limiting their rivalries to economics, sports, and culture. In his address to a joint session of Congress in September, Bush would describe that vision as a “new world order”. Others spoke of a “new global community“, the “end of history“, or the “rules-based international order.”

Despite the apparent success of the First Persian Gulf War, the new world order never lived up to its billing. Within just a few years, a series of wars in the former Yugoslavia demonstrated that the ghosts of Europe could not so easily be exorcised. Elsewhere in the world, ethnic, ideological, and religious clashes continued with little relief. Sept. 11 reminded us that we were not immune to those tensions. The wars of occupation that followed raised justified doubts about whether our leadership possessed the competence or wisdom to meet the grandiose standards that they set for themselves. By the 2010s, the revival of great power competition with China was conventional wisdom. And the election of Donald Trump raised serious questions about whether the American public was willing to continue paying the economic, military, and political costs of liberal hegemony.

Still, the Russian invasion of Ukraine that began on this week is different to these previous crises. Rather than a distressing violation of the post-Cold War norm, it feels like a decisive end to the era that Bush proclaimed on the White House Lawn. That feeling is partly a consequence of so-called recency bias, which makes the most proximate events seem more important than temporally distant ones. But there are at least three reasons to think something fundamental has changed — with consequences we still can’t foresee.

First, the Russian attack is a paradigmatic case of interstate aggression, a form of warfare that was supposed to be relegated to the history books. As the very partial list above indicates, the last 30 years have not exactly been a paradise of peace. But there have been relatively few direct military clashes between internationally recognized sovereign states. Instead, much of the violence has been associated with civil wars, failed states, and non-state actors, albeit often proxies for neighbors or more distant states.

In recent speeches, to be sure, Vladimir Putin has made clear that he does not regard Ukraine as a legitimate state. In that respect, the conflict might be compared to ongoing tensions over Taiwan, which China considers a breakaway region. The differences aren’t only that other major powers (including the US) also don’t recognize Taiwan, or that China hasn’t actually attacked it. It’s that Russia promised to “respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” in the so-called Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Despite the impressive language they often deploy, international agreements don’t really have the force of law. Still, it’s significant that Russia is renouncing an explicit international commitment, notwithstanding its claim to be defending the instant “republics” of Donetsk and Lukhansk.

Ironically, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 is another major exception to the general decline of interstate war. In that case, though, the United States sought at least the pretense of U.N. authorization and international participation, following the script established by the First Gulf War. Russia’s conduct, by contrast, is not merely aggressive but also unilateral. Even China, has so far avoided endorsing the operation in principle, even as they continue to deflect criticism and offer indirect economic support.

Location also matters. Ukraine lies squarely in the zone where the worst atrocities of the 20th century were committed. Historian Timothy Snyder dubbed these environs “Bloodlands“. Passed for decades between imperial, national, Nazi, and Soviet control, Eastern Europe presents the worst-case scenario of a world without recognized borders or effective sovereignty. (Direct memories of massacre and oppression are one of the reasons nationalist movements remain so powerful in the region). Even if it failed to take hold elsewhere, the post-Cold War settlement was designed explicitly to prevent those conditions from recurring where they had already done so much damage. That makes Russian revisionism fatal to the “new world order” in a way that bloody fighting in the Balkans — let alone Africa or the Middle East— was not.

Most of all, though, the present situation is distinguished by American powerlessness. As my colleagues Noah Millman and Damon Linker have argued, there’s just not a lot that the United States and its European allies can do, and trying too hard to “do something” risks exacerbating the problem. The looming, if fortunately still distant threat of nuclear war is the decisive reason. The depletion of military resources and political will after the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan is another. Finally, high inflation raises the cost of sanctions on Russia’s main export. According to recent reports, the Biden administration will not target energy, for fear of driving up already high prices at the pump and alienating European allies that rely on Russian natural gas. Liberal theorists have long argued that war is less likely between trading partners. They’re right, but not with the geopolitical results they might hope.

This combination of factors explains the unfamiliar, nightmarish quality of the last few days. For the first time in a generation, major world events are proceeding without even the illusion of American approval or control. When Putin announced the beginning of combat operations early on Thursday morning (Moscow time), Americans also woke up to a new world. The old order had serious flaws and blindspots, including a naive refusal to acknowledge Russian interests and vulnerabilities that is a partial cause — although not an excuse — for the present crisis. Still, I think we’ll miss it now that it’s gone.

Time

The Russian Assault on Ukraine Poses Huge Risks for the Rest of Europe and the World

Joe Biden Announces Sanctions Against Russian Oligarchs and Banks

By W.J. Hennigan – February 24, 2022

The Russian military launched a multi-pronged assault on cities throughout Ukraine early Thursday morning, defying months of diplomatic efforts by the U.S. and its allies to deter the invasion, and triggering the greatest military crisis on the European continent since the Cold War. U.S. President Joe Biden denounced the attacks as “unprovoked and unjustified” and said, “The world will hold Russia accountable.”A Russian tank enters a region controlled by Moscow-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. Nanna Heitmann—Magnum Photos

Beginning in the predawn hours, explosions struck Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and other major cities as air raid sirens rang out. Cruise missiles hit airfields, military depots and the headquarters of the Ukrainian armed forces in the east of the country, according to the country’s Interior Ministry. U.S. officials believe the air attacks were the first facet of a phased operation that would be followed up by a ground invasion involving more than 150,000 Russian forces that have been amassing on Ukraine’s borders since late last year.https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.502.0_en.html#goog_201618846

Residents Flee Ukraine After Russian Military AttackNext Video

Read More: What to Know About Russia’s Military Operations in Ukraine

The large-scale military action began immediately after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the start of a “special military operation” with the goal of executing a “demilitarization” of Ukraine, suggesting that Moscow did not intend to stop until the country’s armed forces had capitulated. That would mark the end of Ukraine’s post-Soviet independence and its three decades as a fledgling democracy, one in which Putin’s longtime allies still hold seats in parliament.

In his statement announcing the invasion Thursday, Putin warned against any efforts to deter Moscow’s forces. “Anyone who tries to interfere with us, or even more so, to create threats for our country and our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history,” Putin said. “We are ready for any turn of events.”

Now that the Russian military operation in Ukraine has begun, there are looming fears about the risks that come with it for the rest of Europe and the world. Over the last several weeks, the U.S. and European allies have moved troops, naval ships and warplanes eastward on the continent, near where the Russian military is operating, to deter Putin from further aggression. Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but it borders four nations that are—Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. Biden and other NATO allies have pledged to protect their eastern and central European members under the NATO treaty’s mutual defense commitments.

Read More: How the West Can Stop Putin

The standoff between the U.S. and Russia, two nations that command the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, has no modern precedent. Even during the Cold War, the nations’ military forces were never so closely positioned amid an active conflict. The volatile situation, and its unpredictable consequences, are precisely why U.S. and European leaders spent months trying to stave off war.

It remains unclear how far Russian forces are willing to go in Ukraine. During a rambling, bitter speech Monday, Putin declared Ukraine to be an “inalienable part of [Russia’s] history, culture and spiritual space.” He said he has no plans to occupy the country, but U.S. and NATO officials say they need to be prepared, regardless of what the Russian president says. “Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the United States and its allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive way,” Biden said in a statement.

Hours before the invasion started, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a speech that he had tried to initiate a phone call Putin on Wednesday but had been ignored. “We are ready to have talks with anybody, including you, in any format, on any platform,” Zelensky said in a speech addressed to the Russian people. “I know that they won’t show my address on Russian TV, but Russian people have to see it. They need to know the truth, and the truth is that it is time to stop now, before it is too late.”

Read More: What Putin’s Moves Toward War in Ukraine Reveal

As Russian missiles rained down in Ukraine, Biden held a phone call with Zelensky and told him the U.S. intended to provide support and assistance to his country and his people. At around 7 a.m. in Kyiv, Zelensky declared martial law throughout Ukraine and urged citizens to stay in their homes and remain calm. “Don’t panic. We are strong. We are ready for anything,” he said in a statement.A family takes shelter in a metro station in Kyiv in the morning of Feb. 24, 2022. DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images

Biden Administration officials have said that more than 50,000 Ukrainians could die in the crossfire of an invasion that leads all the way into the Ukrainian capital. U.S. paratroopers in Poland have been told that tens of thousands of refugees could come over the country’s border with Ukraine. “The question everyone has to ask—if this is going to be a large-scale war, if there is Ukrainian resistance and the conflict is prolonged over weeks and months—is whether the fighting can be contained to Ukraine or whether it will spill over into the rest of Europe,” said Tom Graham, a former top Russia aide to President George W. Bush and now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In the months before the invasion, Russia issued a series of maximalist demands, calling on the U.S. and its allies to withdraw military forces from eastern Europe and promise never to accept Ukraine into the NATO alliance. The Russian Foreign Ministry even published these demands in a pair of draft treaties and urged U.S. envoys to sign them during talks in December and January. In effect, the treaties would redraw the map of Europe, recognizing Russia’s claims to a sphere of influence over many of the countries it dominated before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The U.S. and NATO dismissed those demands as non-starters even as they continued talks with Russia about the positioning of troops and weapons systems in Europe.

Read More: How Putin’s Denial of Ukraine’s Statehood Rewrites History

Since forces began massing along Ukraine’s borders in October, though, Putin insisted he had no plans to launch an invasion. The Ukrainian government didn’t seem to believe the invasion was going to happen even as the Russians added additional troops and combat aircraft, and even stored blood supplies at military field hospitals near its borders. Then, on Monday, Putin publicly recognized the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine controlled by Moscow-backed separatists. He then directed Russian troops to occupy the territory for “peacekeeping functions.”A screen grab captured from a video shows Russian military tanks advance in the Russian separatist-controlled part of the Donbas region on February 23, 2022. Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

The decision effectively abrogated the Minsk ceasefire agreement signed after Putin illegally annexed the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in southern Ukraine in 2014. He has supported pro-Russia separatist militias in several eastern Ukrainian cities since. Russia has used these proxy forces to sow disorder in the country and attempt to gain political control in Kyiv.

The Biden Administration had initially pursued diplomacy in hopes of resolving the crisis. But the lack of progress, and the continued build-up of Russian forces, prompted the U.S. to draw up more aggressive strategies to deter Putin. Over the past month, Biden has more than doubled the number of American ground troops in Poland, to around 9,000, and in Romania, to nearly 2,000. The U.S. now has more than 90,000 troops on the continent, most of whom are positioned outside Eastern Europe.

The White House has already imposed economic costs on Moscow, enacting wide-ranging sanctions targeting Russian oligarchs and banks. Germany also said it halted the certification process of the lucrative Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is designed to pump natural gas 750 miles from Russia to Germany. Biden promised that a more sweeping package of sanctions would be put in place on Thursday after talking with the G7 leaders.

Read More: The Untold Story of the Ukraine Crisis

The U.S. president spent weeks warning about these sanctions in an attempt to deter Putin from choosing what the administration calls a Russian “war of choice” with Ukraine. Now the world enters a perilous, unpredictable new phase. “This is a European great power attacking the capital of another sovereign European country,” said Timothy Naftali, a historian at New York University and author of Khrushchev’s Cold War: The Inside Story of an American Adversary. “This is an event more reminiscent of World War II than of the Cold War.”

—With reporting by Simon Shuster, Brian Bennett and Massimo Calabresi

Daily Mail.com

REVEALED: Russia’s mobile crematoriums designed to ‘evaporate’ dead soldiers and hide true scale of war – as distraught mothers say their sons were tricked into joining Putin’s army and told they were going to Ukraine for practice drills

By Jennifer Smith, Chief Reporter – February 24, 2022 

• The mobile crematoriums look like ordinary trucks but have hidden incinerators inside 
• They are among Russia’s war vehicles and are following its troops in Ukraine, a sinister indicator of what is to come 
• UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace on Thursday said he would be ‘deeply worried’ if he was a Russian soldier
• Meanwhile frantic Russian mothers are complaining in their droves that their sons were duped into the war
• The Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers says young men were told they were going to the border for drills
• Once they arrived, their contracts were changed to say they were there to fight and now none can be reached
• Putin launched airstrikes on Ukraine this morning in an act of war that has stunned and saddened the world 
• NATO is sending troops to the region and the US has sent 14,000 troops to Germany to be on standby 
• President Biden on Thursday said the US would be imposing  sanctions on Russian oligarchs and banks 

Among Russia‘s war arsenal in Ukraine are a series of mobile crematoriums that are designed to disintegrate the bodies of dead soldiers and civilians and hide the true scale of war, it was claimed on Thursday as Putin advanced with his assault on Ukraine.

The crematoriums have been deployed along with tanks and war jets for years, and a video of them was posted online in 2013. That footage resurfaced on Thursday with a grim new poignancy now that all-out war has been declared. The exterior of the trucks looks like regular vehicles, but they contain hidden incinerators. 

Western defense experts say they may be used to incinerate the bodies of soldiers in an effort of hiding the true death toll of the war

Meanwhile, the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia has claimed many of Putin’s young soldiers now fighting in Ukraine were tricked into enlisting and told they were heading to the border for practice drills before being sent into bloody conflict.

+11View gallery

This image taken from a 2013 video of the ‘mobile crematoriums’ shows how the incinerator hidden within the truck opens up to dispose of soldiers’ bodies. These crematoriums are among the vehicles that are thought to be following Russian troops around in an effort to hide the true scale of war Russia’s mobile crematoriums seen in Defense Dept. footage in 2013.

MORE VIDEOS

• Watch videoExplosion seen at an airbase in Russia’s Rostov region
• Watch videoWoman crushed to death in Mexico City gym by 400-pound barbell
• Watch videoAlleged Chechen ‘kill squads’ spotted moving through Ukrainian forest
• Watch videoMoment Snake Island Ukranian border guards spotted Russian warship

Young Russian soldiers who were captured by Ukrainian forces on Thursday after war broke out with dawn airstrikes 

The committee is non-governmental and was formed in 1989. On Thursday, they released a statement saying many of the young men who enlisted in the army were tricked into doing so, then beaten if they tried to back out. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin unapologetically launched war on Thursday and warned the West not to interfere 

‘We’ve had a flurry of calls from scared mothers all over Russia. They are crying, they don’t know if their children are alive or healthy,’ Andrei Kurochkin, the deputy chairman of the group, told Russian site Takie Del.

‘If there is a war, then professionals should deal with it, not untrained green guys,’ he said, adding it was a ‘complete catastrophe’ to have soldiers fighting a war ‘under duress.’

The young men were told they were going to the border for drills, then had their contracts changed to signal that they were there for conflict.  

‘They are switching entire regiments to contract [soldiers,] although the guys did not submit any formal requests for this, and took no such initiative. 

UKRAINE LATEST 

• Global markets tanked with Russia’s ruble sliding to its lowest value ever
• The price of oil shot up to over $100 per barrel
• EU will freeze Russian assets, halt access to financial market and target ‘Kremlin interests’
• G7 called Putin a ‘threat to global order’ vowing ‘severe and coordinated economic and financial sanctions’ 
• Joe Biden announced new sanctions targeting Russian banks, exports and military 
• Russia’s largest bank Sberbank will be severed from the US financial system, and full sanctions are imposed on four other financial institutions 
• Boris Johnson called the invasion a ‘catastrophe for our continent’ and branded Putin a ‘dictator’ 
• China repeated calls for talks but refusing to criticize Russia’s attack 
• Moldova declared a state of emergency
• Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said invasion is ‘heavy blow’ to regional peace
• NATO ambassadors scheduled an emergency meeting on Thursday 
• UN Security Council will discuss a resolution condemning the invasion
• Ukraine demanded the world banish Russia from SWIFT banking system 

‘There are instances of physical violence, and beatings of those who refuse to become contract soldiers. And after that it’s completely unknown [what happens to them], because they take away their phones.

The group is now preparing to file a formal complaint with the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office. 

Photos of some of the soldiers emerged on Thursday as they were captured by Ukrainian forces. Many were extremely young-looking men. 

Terrifying videos from Ukraine show tanks rolling through Chernobyl while shelling rings out in Sumy, near the border with Russia. 

Ukrainians spent the night sheltering in subway stations, unable to get out on packed roads and trains, while hiding from airstrikes. 

It remains unclear if more are on their way. Ukraine has vowed to fight back with all its might. 

Troops are already closing in on the seat of Ukrainian power after taking control of the strategic Chernobyl nuclear power plant Thursday, and will seize it within 96 hours, bringing a ‘new Iron Curtain’ down on Europe, Volodymyr Zelensky warned.

Officials said Vladimir Putin plans to encircle Ukrainian forces in Kyiv and force them to either surrender or be destroyed, and the leadership of Ukraine will then fall in a week.

A former senior U.S. intelligence officer told Newsweek: ‘After the air and artillery end and the ground war really starts, I think Kyiv falls in just a few days.

‘The military may last slightly longer but this isn’t going to last long.’

A source close to the Ukrainian government said they agreed that Kyiv will be surrounded within 96 hours but believed the government will stay strong and not collapse.

In a bid to thwart the imminent capture of the city, Emmanuel Macron spoke to Vladimir Putin tonight, who gave the French leader an ‘exhaustive’ explanation of his justification for war.

The Kremlin said the call took place at Macron’s initiative, and he and Putin agreed to stay in contact.

President Volodymyr Zelensky promised to give any civilian who wants one a weapon.

President Joe Biden on Thursday condemned Vladimir Putin for his invasion of Ukraine and announced a series of new sanctions on Russian financial institutions that he said will have a ‘severe’ effect on the economy.

Rolling Stone

Arizona Governor Says He’d Rather Have a White Nationalist in State Legislature than a Democrat

William Vaillancourt – February 25, 2022

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey was questioned Thursday about his efforts to get Wendy Rogers elected to the state senate in 2020, and whether he has any regrets in light of how Rogers has been promoting white nationalist causes.

Arizona Mirror reporter Jeremy Duda asked the Republican governor his thoughts on Rogers during an event where Ducey announced a scholarship program for the state’s foster children.

“Are you still happy with that investment? Do you believe that was a good decision?” Duda asked, referring to the governor’s independent expenditures giving half a million dollars to Rogers’ campaign.

“What I need as a governor are governing majorities so that I can pass dollars into our social safety net so we can provide programs like this that will help children from all over our state… [and so] we can pass budgets that will put $8.6, $8.7 billion additional dollars into K-12 education,” Ducey claimed. “So that’s what I’ve wanted to do, is move my agenda forward. I’m proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish, and [Rogers] is still better than her opponent, Felicia French.”

When Duda asked him to elaborate on this last point, Ducey reiterated that Rogers “is better” than French, the Democrat whom she defeated in 2020.

Rogers is scheduled to speak Friday at the America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), the Mirror reported last week. AFPAC is an annual gathering of far-right figures organized by white nationalist Nick Fuentes, whom Rogers has praised in social media posts more than two dozen times, according to Left Coast Right Watch, an extremist monitoring group. Rogers promoted the event on Telegram last week, the Daily Beast reported.

Rogers has intertwined herself with the Q-Anon crowd, has espoused racist “great replacement” theories, has called for Christian theocracy, and is a member of the paramilitary group the Oath Keepers. She is also a ‘Big Lie’ proponent, falsely claiming that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent.

In the past, Ducey has sometimes distanced himself those on the fringes of his party, like when he ignored then-president Donald Trump’s demand that he not certify the results of Arizona’s 2020 presidential election. But on Thursday, rather than take the opportunity to speak out against Rogers, Ducey used children as an attempt to justify why he cares more about his party maintaining power than upholding principles. It seems like as long as Republicans hold a slim 16-14 edge in the Arizona state senate, Rogers will be welcome to continue her gross behavior without much, if any, criticism from the governor.