Moves (Page 10)

Since the legendary shouting fit between the US President Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader has been scrambling to try and fix what looked first like a near-total break in the connection between the US and Ukraine.

Zelensky, urged by Western officials, including the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, has tried to restore his relations with Trump.

The US president acknowledged as much in his second post-inauguration speech to Congress on March 5, saying that he appreciated Zelensky’s readiness to work for peace under US management.

But that happened only 24 hours after he decided to end all military aid to Ukraine. And since then, the new chairman of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, and national security adviser, Mike Waltz, have confirmed that knowledge sharing with Kyiv, which was vital to Ukraine’s ability to beat corporate targets inside Russia, has also been suspended.

Neither of these two techniques will have an instant game-changing impact on the war, but they surely increase pressure on Ukraine to take whatever deal Trump will inevitably produce with Putin.

So far, so bad for Zelensky. Yet Trump’s maneuvering does not only affect Ukraine. It has also had a profound impact on the relationship between the US and Europe.

On March 2, in the aftermath of the White House debacle, Starmer convened an emergency meeting in London with a select number of European leaders, as well as the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

This” coalition of the willing” has been in the making for some time now. Its members straddle the boundaries of the EU and NATO, including – apart from the UK – non-EU members Norway and Turkey.

Since the relatively disappointing first-ever EU meeting solely focused on defense on February 3– which was more notable for the absence of a European vision for the continent’s role and place in the Trumpian world order – Europe has embarked on a course of more than just rhetorical change.

The UK was first out of the blocks. Ahead of Starmer’s visit to Washington, the UK government announced on February 25 an increase of defense spending to 2.5 % of GDP by 2027. This was then followed on March 2 with a pledge of additional air defence missiles for Ukraine worth £1.6 billion ( US$ 2.1 billion ).

Europe responds

In a crucial boost to defence spending at the EU level, the president of the European commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced the” Rearm Europe” plan on March 4. It is projected to mobilize around 800 billion euros ($ 867.8 billion ) for European defense.

This includes a “national escape clause” for EU members, exempting national defence expenditures from the EU’s deficit rules. It also offers a new loan instrument worth up to 150 billion euros, allows for the use of already allocated funds in the EU budget for defense projects, and proposes partnerships with the private sector through the Savings and Investment Union and the European Investment Bank.

Perhaps most significantly, in Germany, the two main parties likely to form the next coalition government announced a major shift in the country’s fiscal policy on March 5, which will allow any defense spending above 1 % of GDP to be financed outside the country’s strict borrowing rules.

This marks an important point of departure for Germany. Apart from what it means in fiscal terms, it also sends an important political signal that Germany – the continent’s largest economy – will use its financial and political muscle to strengthen the emerging coalition of the willing.

]embedded content]

These are all important steps. Taken together, and provided that the current momentum is maintained, they are likely to accelerate Europe’s awakening to a world in which US security guarantees as no longer absolute.

The challenges that Europe faces on the way to becoming strategically independent from the US are enormous. But they are not insurmountable.

The conventional military threat posed by an aggressive and revanchist Russia is more easily manageable with the planned boost to conventional forces and air and cyber defences. Close cooperation with Ukraine will also add critical war-fighting experience, which can boost the deterrent effect.

Europe for now, however, remains vulnerable in terms of its nuclear capabilities, especially if deprived of the US nuclear umbrella and faced with Russia’s regular threats to use its nuclear arsenal – the world’s largest nuclear power by warhead stockpiles.

But here, too, new strategic thinking is emerging. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has indicated his willingness to discuss a more integrated European nuclear capability.

And in Germany, a country with an otherwise very complex relationship with nuclear weapons, such a European approach has been debated, increasingly positively, for some time, starting during Trump’s first term in office between 2017 and 2021.

Tectonic shift

A stronger, and strategically more independent Europe, even if it will take time to emerge, is also crucial for the war in Ukraine. Increased European defense spending, including aid for Ukraine, will help Kyiv in the short term to make up for at least some of the gaps left by the suspension – and possible complete cessation – of US military support.

In the long term, however, EU accession would possibly open up the route to a security guarantee for Ukraine under&nbsp, article 47.2 of the Lisbon Treaty&nbsp, on the European Union.

This so-called mutual defense clause has been derided in the past for lacking any meaningful European defence capabilities. But if the current European momentum towards beefing up the continent’s defenses is sustained, it would acquire more teeth than it currently has.

With the benefit of hindsight, Zelensky may have walked away less empty handed from his clash with Trump last week than it seemed initially. If nothing else, Europeans have since then demonstrated not just in words but also in deeds that they are no longer in denial about just how dangerous Trump is and how much they are now on their own.

Threatened by both Moscow and Washington, Europe is now on the cusp of a second zeitenwende, the “epochal tectonic shift” that the then German chancellor Olaf Scholz acknowledged after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

They may finally even have found an answer to the question he posed at the time:” How can we, as Europeans and as the European Union, remain independent actors in an increasingly multi-polar world”?

Stefan Wolff is professor of international security, University of Birmingham and Tetyana Malyarenko is professor of international relations and Jean Monnet Professor of European Security, National University Odesa Law Academy

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

It’s daunting to evaluate a book written by someone who, in 2024, received the Nobel Prize in Literature. The prize was awarded for Han Kang’s “intense artistic narrative that confronts traditional traumas and exposes the weakness of human existence”: a information that applies equally to this newly translated job.

We Do Not Part tells the story of Kyungha, a poet of 20th-century North Korean record, and her longterm companion Inseon, a film filmmaker and artist. Both women are increasingly choosing loneliness over the busy professional and social life they had lived.

Kyungha has very little withdrawn from her expert life. She is suffering from depression and anxiety, anxious night and exhausted single time. She is losing touch with those she loves.

Inseon had moved from Seoul to the rural area of Jeju many years prior to treatment for her aged mother. After her mother’s dying, she chose to remain on the island and move from screen-based function to furniture-making.

The tale is told in three sections. The longer second portion, titled Bird, opens with a fantasy series. It goes on to tell a relatively straight tale of past and present. The shorter center element, Night, is a deep dive into the evils of story. The ending, Flame, is quite small, told in bits. The book ends with what seems to be a vision, where the two people light a candle in the dark, in the abyss of winter.

The desire that opens the book is of” thousands of black tree roots jutted from the world. … Stooped and listing, they gave the impression of a thousand men, women and ragged kids huddling in the snow”.

Trees that represent individuals, children who are ragged: these are worryingly dark pictures. In the twisted truth of the dreamland, Kyungha wonders:” Was this a grave? … Are those headstones”?

The vision moves on, and she finds that she is walking through liquid. Second her feet are sweaty, then she is ankle-deep, and then the “graves” are submerged, being washed away by the water, and she alone may try to preserve any that can be saved.

This sets the stage for all that is to come: proof of murders, nature turned into a period for terrible situations, a bone-chilling consciousness of pain.

Wish project

This may sound like an unpromising access point for a book, but let me tell visitors that the story offers genuine rewards. I was a contact undone by the first pages, but the beauty of the language kept me going. The intelligent, interesting portraits of the generosity, integrity and courage of the two important characters, to, provided an interesting path on which to adopt the narrative.

In the early chapters, Kyungha presents as a person suffering from PTSD. She has been flirting with death for some time. What is keeping her alive is that she can’t find a way to write what she believes to be” a proper letter of farewell, a true leavetaking”.

The elements and circumstances seem to conspire against her peace. Through the novel’s first chapters, Kyungha is surviving a hot humid summer. All she is able to do is shower, shred the drafts of her farewell letters, and lie on the floor imagining snow.

She has been brought to this point as a result of her researching and writing about a massacre in a place she names G— ( perhaps Gwangju, the site of a massacre in May 1980, which Han Kang addressed in her 2014 novel Human Acts ). Kyungha’s account of how she is – barely – managing day-to-day life reads like a textbook case of vicarious trauma. She speculates that translating the dream-image into an art work might break its grip.

Kyungha approaches Inseon, who has a long record of producing interesting if financially unviable projects. Inseon agrees to collaborate with her on this dream project. But four years go by without them ever managing to synchronise their schedules or begin the work.

Then, after some months of silence, a text from Inseon pings into Kyungha’s phone. It asks her to come to a Seoul hospital. Inseon is there, being treated for an accident involving an electric saw. She has turned to her old friend to ask Kyungha to travel to Jeju and save her budgie, which will otherwise die of thirst.

A quest

The novel then enters what can loosely be read as a quest narrative. It is now mid-winter and a wild snowstorm is on the way. Inseon’s home is in a village a long way from the airport, and snow is threatening to shut down the roads.

Nonetheless, Kyungha agrees to take up the quest. She finds herself in an unfamiliar location with a looming frightening weather event and no practical knowledge about how to reach Inseon’s home. As she struggles to reach the destination, she finds herself spiraling like the snow in this winter storm.

There is neither precision nor even clarity here: Much as the story leaps back through decades, then feels its way back to now, Kyungha stumbles through a landscape that she cannot map and plunges precipitately off the paths. Snowdrifts obscure the roads and” snowflakes resembling a flock of tens of thousands of birds appear like a mirage and sweep over the sea”.

Scratched, bruised and almost frozen, Kyungha finds herself at Inseon’s door, where she is completely isolated:” When I looked back”, she says,” the lone path that bore my deep footprints lay in silence”.

And there she remains, trapped by the weather, haunted by the stories of those she had interviewed for her book on the G— massacre. Stories of running from bullets, bodies being piled up, hiding for years in forests and caves: all the unendurable things that people nonetheless endured.

The wounds of history

The second part of the novel begins with a version of the initial dream of the sea and tree trunks that are metaphors of the dead. Kyungha wakes from this dream to find herself in a sort of ontological uncertainty. Inseon has ( impossibly ) joined her at the cottage. Kyungha can’t determine whether this is another dream, or if Inseon has died and is visiting her as a spirit, or if she herself has died is only imagining that she is alive and present.

What is not in doubt, though, is the historical record. Kyungha finds that she is not the only person who has been researching state-sanctioned massacres. Inseon has been busy investigating what is known as the April 3rd uprising and the long massacre that followed from 1947 to 1954.

This massacre was organized and undertaken by the US military and the new Republic of Korea, based on the flawed notion that the Jeju islanders were communists. It resulted in the deaths of around 30, 000 people.

Nietzsche warned that “if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you”. Han Kang’s version of this idea is, as she writes in We Do Not Part, that “looking squarely at the injury made it all the more excruciating”.

Here it is Inseon’s nightmares that dominate: This is where her family and people died and where their traces remain. But both women are carriers of nightmare stories. Both stagger under the weight. They have both looked squarely at the excruciating injuries of state-sanctioned murder and they carry the wounds of those histories.

This is an issue Han Kang has been tracing through her novels. Her stories engage, one way or another, with the problem of violence. As she writes in Human Acts, she sees the tendency to “uniform brutality” as something “imprinted in our genetic code”.

But she also notes, in her Nobel Lecture, that we humans” simultaneously stand opposite such overwhelming violence”. Yes, we do terrible things, but we also do generous and compassionate things. We live simultaneously in the scarred world of human history and in the less-damaged natural world.

We Do Not Part portrays massacres and trauma, contrasted with trees and seawater, walks in forests and glorious hymns to snow. It is a novel that depicts a beautiful world, one worth living in, and for. It is a novel that looks, perhaps too squarely, at recent history, while finding consolation in small acts of kindness and community, and in the assurance that, however we understand the phrase, we do not part.

Jen Webb is a distinguished professor of creative practice in the Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Canberra.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Being a left-winger in South Korea has always been difficult, according to former shop employee and labor advocate Yoon Jong-oh.

The rulers in cost for most of the first four years after the Republic of Korea gained independence in 1948 saw communists under every sleep and, especially, did not like workers organizers one little – much less give them a say in regional politics.

The” 386 generation” of rebels from Yoon’s generation, who were born in the 1960s and started organizing and protesting for democracy in the 1980s before turning 30.

Their political union began to elude liberals as they came into power. But, despite the passage of years, some people failed to forgive and forget extreme behavior– including some&nbsp, dalliances with North Korea&nbsp, – that 386ers and their sympathizers tried to dismiss as young indiscretions.

The Asian left is also facing popular distrust and a fresh wind of misery is blowing in halfway through the next decade of the 21st century as a result of an attempt at the top of the major opposition Democratic party, which had self-identified as centrist but diverse, to remove and stand out from determined progressives like Yoon.

Representative Lee Jae-myung, the party’s leader, is moving to the right as a possible “political display to court confused voters” is drawing near as a possibility of a snap election.

Moving to the’ center-right’

On February 19, Lee said that the Democratic Party is” no progressive” and made an appearance on a pro-Democratic Party YouTube channel. We actually hold a place that is” about center-right.” The liberal station needs to be just established”, Lee added.

Lee’s abrupt move to the right has drawn criticism from all over the hallway.

Shin Dong-wook, a mature director for the decision People’s Power Party, blasted Lee’s statement, calling it an “impersonation of conservatism.” According to Shin, Lee is shedding” reptile tears” to appeal to confused citizens, as Lee’s scores become “boxed in” to the traditionally liberal demographic.

Despite Lee’s immediate remarks, some Democratic Party members have expressed concerns that their party’s identity might become less identifiable.

Lee In-young, the DP’s five-term top senator, said,” The DP is not the PPP.” ” I have read the party mandate and manifesto several times, and I still do not know which part to visit conservative. The DP is a compilation of the social struggle to advance democratic norms.

The ruling PPP is viewed as conservative while the DP is generally viewed as a liberal force in South Korea’s two-party social circle. Yet, some experts argue that the DP may truly be labeled democratic and that South Korea’s social spectrum has frequently shifted to the right.

Yoon Tae-ryong, an honorary professor at Konkuk University and without any affiliation to Yoon Jong-oh, wrote in a column published in local media that” South Korea’s entire political spectrum has shifted unnaturally to the right as conflict on the Korean Peninsula has persisted for 76 years. Instead of a conflict between the conservative and far-right forces, the party politics of today is one between the far-right and the progressives.

Ji Byung-geun, a political science professor at Chosun University, made similar observations. The DP is not a true progressive party, Ji told Asia Times.” If you look at the traditional standards that we use to determine which party is progressive, it is not one.”

They “made policy choices that are traditionally progressive parties unthinkable,” Ji continued, citing former President Kim Dae-jung’s decision to support the International Monetary Fund’s structural reform initiatives and former President Roh Moo-hyun’s decision to participate in the Gulf War. The DP, he said, “moves within the range of center-left to center-right”.

Historical barriers to progressivism

From the end of World War II through the majority of the rest of the 20th century, crackdowns on leaders and a focus on economic development were a source of resistance, as Professor Ji points out.

Although the first truly progressive party earned parliamentary seats in 2004, the number of progressive seats has significantly dwindled since then, Ji noted.

Representative Yoon Jong-oh, one of the far-lefters in the National Assembly, is the leader of the minor opposition Progressive Party. He was a labor organizer before moving to the United States. He claimed that the political climate in the country has historically provided” a challenging environment for left-leaning parties.”

After a hard-scrabble youth, Yoon entered local politics in 1998 in industrial Ulsan. He supported progressive policies and agendas, including universal healthcare, universal school meals, and a wealth tax scheme, despite not having any affiliation with a party at the time.

Yoon, 61, stated in an interview that” these]policy requests were regarded as radically progressive” back then. ” However, they are very much universal”.

The former labor activist recalls oppressive experiences in South Korea’s pre-democratization society. We worked nonstop for a local automaker when I was there. Our breaks were 30 minutes. On Saturdays, we worked. Low wages were displayed.

Yoon asserts that the developmental dictatorship of South Korea produced a society where national development and interests predominated over individual rights and happiness. It was taboo to go against the government’s developmental drive and advocate for labor rights.

Threat from North Korea

According to Ji, the professor, the relative ideological proximity of the progressive parties to the socialist regime in North Korea serves as a political vulnerability, making them easy targets for crackdowns under the National Security Act.

Indeed, Yoon points to South Korea’s authoritarian past and the ongoing Threat from North Korea as limiting the expansion of progressive politics.

He claimed that in the past, South Korea “lacked the perception of individual rights,” because the ruling party put the country first on the basis of wealth. The National Security Act was a tool for denying these rights.

Signed in 1948, the National Security Act sought to eradicate pro-North Korean and anti-state forces. However, historical accounts demonstrate how authoritarian governments abuse them to thwart political opposition and thwart democratization movements.

Right-leaning governments still use the “pro-North Korea frame” to impede progressive parties, Yoon contends.

” Think about President Yoon Suk Yeol’s most recent martial law decree”, said Representative Yoon. ( These two Yoons are not related either. ) The conservative president “labeled all those who oppose him and those who support workers ‘ rights as pro-North Korean forces.” The president’s administration “oppresses labor movements and civic groups to prolong its grip on power”.

This is not unique to the recently impeached government, according to the progressive politician.

All conservative regimes persecuted civil society and stifled the progressive movement, putting them under a pro-North Korean frame, even President Yoon Suk Yeol is more blunt. That is how they disbanded the Unified Progressive Party”, Representative Yoon added.

South Korea’s Constitutional Court disbanded The Unified Progressive Party in 2014 under the National Security Act for allegedly “holding a hidden purpose of realizing North Korean-style socialism.” Lee Seok-ki, a UPP lawmaker, was accused by the National Intelligence Service of planning a pro-North Korean rebellion, and he was given a prison term.

Yoon is a veteran of the military in a nation where military service is still required. Having reached the rank of sergeant as a combat intelligence specialist in an airborne special forces brigade, he dares anyone to impugn his loyalty to the country.

Before the UPP was disbanded and lost, he ran for local office under the UPP. He was the only minor left-wing candidate to win a seat in South Korea’s 2024 Legislative Elections while representing the successor party, the Progressive Party.

Professor Ji argues that institutional constraints systematically disadvantage progressive parties from winning legislative and presidential elections.

The electoral system in South Korea is a “winner-takes-all system.” Such a system favors two-party politics and impedes ideological diversity across the aisle”, the academic said. It is a system that doesn’t properly represent the populace.

South Korea uses a system that combines constituency-based representation with proportional representation. While the system was inaugurated in 2020 with the intention of ensuring fair representation to minor parties, it ultimately backfired. Minor parties were further marginalizing minor parties as they swept constituency seats and established satellite parties to secure the most proportional seats.

A brighter future for progressivism?

Lawmaker Yoon believes a runoff electoral system would help the South Korean legislature better reflect the public’s ideological distribution.

” South Korea employs over 20 million people and employs 1 million farmers. However, he claimed that the majority of lawmakers are former lawyers, professors, journalists, and executives of major conglomerates.

” We have to change the electoral system, but the established power is clenching onto the existing system, and not letting go”, he added. For the development of progressive parties in South Korea, institutional improvements are essential.

The lawmaker maintains hope despite these setbacks.

” South Korea’s political soil was unfavorable for the seeds of progressivism to grow. I have persevered, and I’ve now reached the point where I can say what he said. I’ll make an ongoing appeal to the people, stand with them, and work to improve their means of income. ” &nbsp,

The DP’s shift to the right and the political turmoil brought on by President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law decree offer opportunities for leverage, according to Yoon and other progressives.

We, the Progressive Party, can become a strong leftist stronghold that fights for the rights of ordinary people and hardworking laborers, Yoon said.

” People today need a force that stands up to the far-right hardcore conservatives. We can act like that force, the lawmaker continued.

Professor Ji has more skepticism.

” I think the DP’s decisions to position itself center-right and abandon the left was very strategic. They think the progressive bloc has a bad future, he said.

Continue Reading

In line with his recent techniques to calm tensions with Russia and guide Ukraine’s post-war course, US President Donald Trump has taken concrete actions to lessen Kyiv’s ability to defend itself from Moscow’s sluggish travel for invasion.

Major administration officials announced the expulsion of two military-related programs after announcing a “pause” in the shipping of US$ 1 billion worth of weapons, including one that was intended to stop Russian cyberattacks on Ukraine’s besieged military.

The director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliff, stated on Wednesday ( March 5 ) that the cutoff in intelligence support was a result of the “pause” in US aid to Ukraine’s military.

” I think the pause that allowed that ( suspension ) happen, I think will go away,” he said on the military front and the intelligence front. And I believe we will continue to cooperate with Ukraine as we have done in the past to stop the brutality that is occurring.

National Security Advisor Mike Waltz responded to a question immediately about intelligence-sharing with Kyiv by pausing, assessing, and looking at everything in our safety relationship.

However, according to leaking from the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had ordered US causes to halt a program designed to deter Russian cyberattacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and fight against Soviet computer-controlled facilities.

Both choices will unavoidably harm Ukraine’s defense abilities, which have been under pressure from a slow but relentless Russian offensive. The troops of Ukraine will be blinded to Russian air and ground manoeuvres by the intellect gap. The most powerful piece of intelligence is obtained from the US, so Europe may make up for it.

According to Neil Barnett, CEO of Istok Associates Ltd, a UK-based knowledge consulting business,” I don’t think there’s any way to deny that,”” It’s certainly going to be a big loss for the Russians.”

” The British may try to close the void,” he continued. We have “listening content,” the statement read. However, he continued,” We certainly don’t have all of the features that the Americans have.”

Ukraine’s power, energy, and communication networks have also been subject to regular attacks. According to observers, US security operations, which include the potential to ruin Russian infrastructure, are partially intended to deter further Russian attacks.

” If the US is reversing its cyber-offensive activities against Russia, it will likely open up more opportunities for Russia to concentrate on problems.” As a result of this policy, I anticipate more problems and challenges, according to Rob Hughes, an officer at RSA, an National business for computer and network security.

Each has so far been reluctant to enter Ukraine because it wants Russian forces to leave the country second, Russia because its conflict goals have been non-negotiable.

First steps in arranging these discussions were Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio meeting with Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign secretary, last week in Saudi Arabia. Rubio did not immediately inform Interactive of Trump’s intentions to cut back on Ukraine’s intelligence-sharing and cyberattacks.

Trump has apologised to the Russians in government by putting the blame on Kyiv instead of Moscow. This idea challenged the West’s past, largely held view that Russia was the sole cause of the conflict.

Trump even made a significant alteration to his opinion of the war, not just by blaming Ukraine but also by designating Volodymyr Zelensky, the nation’s appointed leader, as a “dictator.” This spelled the end of their already storied Oval Office bombing.

After the Russian president made reference to Russia’s past breaking politely agreed terms, Trump dressed down Zelensky during televised speaks. Trump advised Zelensky to jump at the chance of peace talks rather than shop. Trump absolutely yelled, “You’re gambling with millions of lives.

Notably, Trump has not launched any personal attacks against Putin, whose dictatorship has been characterized by widespread arrests, strong media regulation, and the not-so-mysterious deaths of critics and social rivals, including Alexei Navalny, who passed away in a Siberian prison last year.

Before Trump’s talk to the US Congress on Tuesday, when he listed what he thought his domestic and foreign policy successes after six weeks in office, both the choice to withdraw intelligence and prevent cyberattacks against Russia and according to reports from Washington.

Trump did not mention the cleverness freeze and coercive cyberwar suspension, maybe for a social reason. When a decision was made public, censure followed from both members of Trump’s personal judgement Republican Party and the opposition Democratic Party.

Republican Congressman for the state of Florida, Carlos Gimenez, said,” I really don’t know where that’s coming from. We can’t demonstrate Russian frailty.”

Trump is making” a crucial strategic error” only to “earn the devotion of a gangster like Vladimir Putin,” according to Chuck Schumer, a lawmaker from New York and the panel’s leader for the Democrat minority.

European allies expressed shock at the cleverness threshold, particularly in light of the situation. We see that important critical areas where US support is essential include intel-sharing, long-range detail fires, and heat protection weapons. At this point, those may be replaced by anyone else, according to Giedrimas Jeglinskas, the head of the Lithuanian parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee.

He continued,” If intelligence sharing is not resumed, it will negatively impact Russian troops ‘ ability to fight.”

Consistently, Russia has responded warmly to Trump’s altercation with Ukraine. European nations have all viewed Ukraine as a victim of an unwarranted Russian assault since the conflict started three years ago. Trump may now only want to end the conflict, so paying a little amount for Putin’s PR hat seems like a fair price. &nbsp,

Notably, Putin has not yet taken what might be regarded as mutual steps. Despite Trump’s alteration of voice and element, Russian government-controlled advertising continues to criticize him for not lifting severe economic sanctions put in place by the US and supporters over the past ten years.

Confidence ruled, as with many of Trump’s beginning foreign policy decisions. Trump quickly insisted he was serious about expelling the Palestinians and building a fresh” Riviera” on the wrecked southern site when Secretary of State Rubio attempted to walk back Trump’s plan to walk two million Palestinians from the war-ravaged Gaza Strip into Egypt and Jordan.

The Pentagon attempted to make the on X presentations about Ukraine work on Wednesday. To be clear, the tweet reads,” #SecDef has not canceled or delayed any digital operations against destructive Soviet targets, and there has been no stand-down order from that priority.”

Hegseth himself retweeted a blog from a TV channel on Monday, saying he had ordered a “temporary pause” on” some controversial offensive behavior” against Russia. Trump hasn’t addressed the matter.

Trump hasn’t addressed the disaster, saying that he has often made comments on what he perceives to be “fake news” on media outlets he views as opposed.

In the end, Trump overran Zelensky with verbal attack and made direct threats to its ability to defend its country. On Tuesday, he wrote a letter to Trump that both stated his desire to support peace negotiations and even gave US access to a potentially lucrative portion of his nation’s supply of crucial materials.

During his Tuesday speech to Congress, Trump read Zelensky’s bending to his will to a cheering group of Republican politicians.

Continue Reading