ReportWire

Tag: ukraine

  • Ukrainians are in 'mortal danger' if the West abandons them, warns first lady

    Ukrainians are in 'mortal danger' if the West abandons them, warns first lady

    [ad_1]

    UKRAINIANS are in “mortal danger” if the West abandons them, the country’s first lady has warned.

    Olena Zelenska said her people will be left to die if the world stops sending financial aid in the fight against Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion.

    1

    Olena Zelenska says Ukraine needs support from the WestCredit: Getty

    It comes after Republican senators in the US blocked a bill to provide nearly £50 billion in fresh support to Ukraine.

    “We really need the help,” Mrs Zelenska told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg.

    “In simple words, we cannot get tired of this situation, because if we do, we die. And if the world gets tired, they will simply let us die.”

    The White House has warned that their funding for Ukraine could soon run out.

    The first lady added: “It hurts us greatly to see the signs that the passionate willingness to help may fade.

    “It is a matter of life for us. Therefore, it hurts to see that.”

    Republicans want President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress to grant extra funding for US border measures in exchange for their support.

    UK Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron travelled to the USA this week to rally support for Ukraine.

    He warned US Republicans that blocking fresh financial backing would be a “Christmas present” for Mr Putin.

    President Biden echoed his words saying the failure to agree aid would be a “gift” for Mr Putin.

    [ad_2]

    Sophia Sleigh

    Source link

  • Putin’s Russia is closing in on a devastating victory. Europe’s foundations are trembling

    Putin’s Russia is closing in on a devastating victory. Europe’s foundations are trembling

    [ad_1]

    We need to talk about Ukraine. While the world’s attention has been focused on the war between Israel and Hamas, grim tremors have been shaking that rich, black soil. Ukraine’s counteroffensive has failed – or, in Volodymyr Zelensky’s words, “did not achieve the desired results”.

    As exhausted Ukrainians fall back from Russia’s ramparts and minefields, the initiative is swinging to the invaders. Russia is advancing through the skeletal remains of what used to be Marinka, a city in Donetsk, perhaps of greater psychological than strategic importance. Missiles are again hitting Kyiv. Ukraine’s first lady, Olena Zelenska, has taken to the BBC to warn that her country is in “mortal danger”.

    Now, it is the Ukrainians’ turn to dig in, to try to hold what they have. As in 1914, a fortified line runs the length of the front, from the Dnieper delta to the Russian border. And, as then, military technology favours the defender, so that tiny gains are bought at terrible cost.

    The First World War eventually ended in part because the Allies had greater manpower. Brutally, they were able, especially after America had fully mobilised by the beginning of 1918, to throw more men at the front lines than the Central Powers.

    This time, the demographic advantage is with Russia, whose population is three-and-a-quarter times the size of Ukraine’s. Russia has switched a third of its pre-war civilian production to weapons and ammunition, and may now have the edge when it comes to drones – that modern equivalent of the barbed wire and machine guns that gave the defending side such a lethal advantage in the Flanders mud.

    The long-term costs to the Russian people of this shift to a wartime economy are dreadful. Vladimir Putin has condemned his long-suffering muzhiks to years of penury and hunger. But, for now, it has done the trick. Russia has made it through to winter without a Ukrainian breakthrough.

    We are all prone to hindsight bias, and there will no doubt be articles about how it was always going to be tough to unseat entrenched defenders. But this stalemate was far from predictable when the counteroffensive was launched in June.

    I was one of those who expected Ukraine to break through to the Sea of Azov, a move that might well have ended the war. During 2022, Ukraine had demonstrated that Russia could not resupply Crimea across the Kerch Strait. Breaking the land bridge would have left the Russian garrison on the peninsula cut off. Ukraine could have turned off its electricity and food, and a negotiating space would have opened.

    Why did I get it wrong? I had been talking not only to Ukrainians, but to British military observers with direct knowledge of the battlefield. They had watched the extraordinary Ukrainian gains in Kharkiv and Kherson in 2022 – gains that had emboldened the West to offer the kinds of matériel that they had previously held back from sending, lest it fall into enemy hands.

    Ukraine now had long-range missiles, mine-clearing kit and modern tanks. At the same time, the Prigozhin mutiny had shown how soft Russia was behind the hard shell of its front lines.

    But the invaders had learnt from their earlier mistakes. While Ukraine rushed to train its men in how to operate their new weapons last spring, Russia seeded mile after mile of landmines, built fortifications, dug trenches and amassed drones.

    Putin needs only to hang on for another 12 months. Even if Donald Trump is not elected – the former president makes no secret of his admiration for the Russian tyrant, once going so far as to declare that he trusted Putin before the US security services – Republican congressmen have turned against the war. Last week, they blocked President Biden’s £88 billion aid package to Ukraine.

    Their concern is supposedly financial, but a bigger motive may be their partisan dislike of Biden, the same ignoble impulse that led an earlier generation of Republican congressmen to oppose Harry Truman’s war in Korea. For the MAGA wing, there is also a lingering resentment of the cameo role that Ukraine played in the Trump impeachment drama.

    You can’t have missed the spring in Putin’s step. For a long time, he was too scared to stray beyond Russia’s borders. Quite apart from an international arrest warrant, he had a well-founded fear of assassination. His only foreign ventures were to former Soviet states, and two friendly dictatorships: Iran and China.

    But, this week, he visited two neutral dictatorships – the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The footage shows beyond doubt that it was the despot in person, not a body double. What gave him confidence to travel to places that have security links with the West? Is it possible that some tentative entente has been reached? Might the Saudis have been asked to sound him out, discretely and deniably, as a possible prelude to peace talks?

    If so, we risk a Suez-level disaster for the Western democracies. Any deal that rewards Russian aggression will signal to the rest of the world that Nato, with all its collective wealth and weaponry, could not succeed in the minimal goal of rescuing a country that its two most powerful members, the US and the UK, had undertaken to protect.

    The case for intervention in Ukraine is not that it is a liberal democracy. Sure, it is vastly more liberal than Russia, but it falls well short of our standards. Russophile parties have been banned, and there is a worry that the crackdown might extend to pro-Western opposition politicians, too. This week, I was at a meeting of global Centre-Right parties at which Petro Poroshenko, the former president, was meant to speak. At the last minute, he and two of his MPs were banned from leaving Ukraine – and though Poroshenko patriotically declined to make a fuss, it left me wondering, not for the first time, why Zelensky refuses to draw other parties into a wartime coalition.

    Then again, Poland was run by an authoritarian government in 1939. That did not alter the fact that it was attacked without provocation after we had guaranteed its independence – just as we guaranteed Ukraine’s independence in 1994 when it surrendered its nuclear arsenal.

    While we are not ourselves at war this time, we are so invested in the Ukrainian cause that a Russian victory – and absorbing conquered territory is a Russian victory, present it how you will – would mean a catastrophic loss of prestige for the West and the ideas associated with it: personal freedom, democracy and human rights.

    Conflicts will spread as regimes that never cared for liberal values in the first place realise that there is no longer a policeman on the corner. Venezuela’s outrageous claims against Commonwealth Guyana are just the start of this process.

    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion… but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence,” wrote Samuel Huntington. “Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    But this is not yet over. Ukraine has driven Russia out of the western Black Sea, which is open again to international shipping. We should be on our guard against the tendency that George Orwell observed during the Second World War, whereby intellectuals over-interpret each new military development – a tendency, he believed, not shared by ordinary people. Just as there was excessive pessimism immediately after Russia invaded, and excessive euphoria when Kherson was retaken, so we should not infer too much from this setback.

    It is still possible to imagine a peace deal that does not overtly reward aggression. Perhaps the eastern oblasts could win autonomy under loose Ukrainian suzerainty; perhaps an internationally supervised referendum might be held in a demilitarised Crimea.

    But if Russia ends up annexing land by force, it is not just the West that will lose; it is the entire post-1945 international order.

    The world is getting colder. The nights are drawing in.

    Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then enjoy 1 year for just $9 with our US-exclusive offer.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Putin’s inner circle shows signs they’re worried about his power slipping

    Putin’s inner circle shows signs they’re worried about his power slipping

    [ad_1]

    Kremlin officials are increasingly making moves that suggest they’re concerned about a growing resistance to Russia’s war in Ukraine, especially from relatives of soldiers fighting there.

    Reports indicate Russian officials worry that these public expressions of dissent could chip away at Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s popularity and thus his hold on power.

    Along with staging public protests, family members of Russian troops have called for their loved ones to be returned home through videos and written declarations posted on social media platforms. One of the most well-known outlets used by disgruntled relatives of soldiers is a Telegram channel known as “Way Home.”

    Last weekend, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense reported that the Kremlin has likely attempted to silence these voices by offering them payoffs. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) think tank has also written about the Kremlin’s attempts to counter messages from users of “Way Home” by using fake profiles to smear them online.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen during a summit on November 23, 2023, in Minsk, Belarus. Reports indicated that Kremlin officials are becoming concerned about the increase in messages protesting the war from relatives of Russian soldiers.
    GETTY IMAGES

    The ISW further reported that the Kremlin’s biggest concern about the angry relatives might be that their protests could negatively impact Putin’s 2024 presidential campaign, which he officially announced on Friday.

    “Putin’s presidential campaign will reportedly not focus on the war in Ukraine, and the Kremlin likely considers the relatives of mobilized personnel to be a social group that may pose one of the greatest threats to his campaign,” the ISW wrote.

    However, the Kremlin’s efforts to quell the dissent from relatives of soldiers have not succeeded.

    Early this week, the independent Russian investigative site Important Stories described a letter signed by around 100 family members of soldiers fighting in Avdiivka. Their letter demanded that Putin stop committing his forces to “meat assaults” against Ukraine’s military.

    On Thursday, WarTranslated—an independent media project that translates materials about the war into English—shared a video on X, formerly Twitter, of a video originally posted on “Way Home.” The clip showed a large group of wives and relatives of soldiers holding signs with anti-war messages.

    “We’re determined to bring our men back at any cost,” a woman in the video said.

    George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government professor Mark N. Katz told Newsweek that the concern felt by officials around Putin could extend beyond the presidential election in March.

    “The Kremlin does indeed appear concerned that the relatives (especially mothers and wives) of soldiers could undermine Russian public support for the war effort simply through telling the stories of what’s been happening to their loved ones,” Katz said in an email.

    Since presidential elections in Russia are widely thought to be rigged, Katz said he doesn’t think that Putin himself is nervous about the eventual results. He also noted that “Moscow can manufacture figures” if voter turnout is low due to people staying home in protest.

    “Still, the long-term impact of stories about horrific conditions faced by Russian soldiers is something that could serve as the basis for undermining public support for Putin, or at least for his war effort,” Katz said.

    David Silbey, an associate professor of history at Cornell and director of teaching and learning at Cornell in Washington, echoed much of those sentiments.

    “I don’t think Putin’s terribly worried about internal unrest at the moment, but he’s always succeeded by staying ahead of the curve, so my sense is that the Russian leadership is trying to make sure that this doesn’t build into anything,” Silbey told Newsweek.

    He added: “What they don’t want to see is highly visible street protests.”