Showing posts with label Ukraine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ukraine. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 06, 2026

Venezuela, Gaza, Ukraine: Is The UN Failing?



BY JULIETTE MCINTYRE AND TAMSIN PHILLIPA PAIGE

The United Nations turned 80 in October last year; a venerable age for the most significant international organisation the world has ever seen.

But events of recent years – from last weekend’s Trumpian military action to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022, to the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza – represent major challenges to the UN system.

Many are now asking whether the United Nations has any future at all if it cannot fulfil its first promise of maintaining international peace and security.

Has the UN reached the end of its lifespan?

The UN Security Council

The organ of the UN that plays the main role maintaining peace and security is the UN Security Council.

Under the rules established by the UN Charter, military action – the use of force – is only lawful if it has been authorised by a resolution from the UN Security Council (as outlined in Article 42 of the Charter), or if the state in question is acting in self-defence.

Self-defence is governed by strict rules requiring it to be in response to an armed attack (Article 51). Even then, self-defence is lawful only until the Security Council has stepped in to restore international peace and security.

The Security Council is made up of 15 member states:

five permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – also known as the P5) ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

Resolutions require nine affirmative votes and no veto from any permanent member, giving the P5 decisive control over all action on peace and security.

This was set up expressly to prevent the UN from being able to take action against the major powers (the “winners” of the second world war), but also to allow them to act as a balance to each other’s ambitions.

This system only works, however, when the P5 agree to abide by the rules.

Could the UN veto system be reformed?

As aptly demonstrated by the Russians and Americans in recent years, the veto power can render the Security Council effectively useless, no matter how egregious the breach of international law.

For that reason, the veto is often harshly criticised.

As one of us (Tamsin Paige) has explained previously, however, self-serving use of the veto power (meaning when a member state uses its veto power to further its own interests) may be politically objectionable but it is not legally prohibited.

The UN Charter imposes no enforceable limits on veto use.

Nor is there any possibility of a judicial review of the Security Council at the moment.

And herein lies one of the most significant and deliberate design flaws of the UN system.

The charter places the P5 above the law, granting them not only the power to veto collective action, but also the power to veto any attempt at reform.

Reforming the UN Security Council veto is thus theoretically conceivable – Articles 108 and 109 of the charter allow for it – but functionally impossible.

Dissolving and reconstituting the UN under a new charter is the only structural alternative.

This, however, would require a level of global collectivism that presently does not exist. One or more of the P5 would likely block any reform or redesign that would see the loss of their veto power.

An uncomfortable truth

It does, therefore, appear as though we are witnessing the collapse of the UN-led international peace and security system in real time.

The Security Council cannot – by design – intervene when the P5 (China, France, Russia, the UK and US) are the aggressors.

But focusing only on the Security Council risks missing much of what the UN actually does, every day, largely out of sight.

Despite its paralysis when it comes to great-power conflict, the UN is not a hollow institution.

The Secretariat, for instance, supports peacekeeping and political missions and helps organise international conferences and negotiations.

The Human Rights Council monitors and reports on human rights compliance.

UN-administered agencies coordinate humanitarian relief and deliver life-saving aid.

The UN machinery touches on everything from health to human rights to climate and development, performing functions that no single state can replicate alone.

None of this work requires Security Council involvement, but all of it depends on the UN’s institutional infrastructure (of which the Security Council is an integral part).

The uncomfortable truth is we have only one real choice at present: a deeply flawed global institution, or none at all.

The future of the UN may simply be one of sheer endurance, holding together what can still function and waiting for political conditions to change.

We support it not because it works perfectly, or even well, but because losing it would be much worse.

Should we work towards a better system that doesn’t reward the powerful by making them unaccountable? Absolutely.

But we shouldn’t throw out all of the overlooked good the UN does beyond the Security Council’s chambers because of the naked hypocrisy and villainy of the P5.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Zelensky Leaves Washington With Trump’s Security Guarantees, But Are They Enough?

European leaders flanking Zelensky and Trump at the White House. Aaron Schwartz/Consolidated News Photos Pool/EPA

BY SONIA MYCAK
RESEARCH FELLW IN UKRANIAN
STUDIES, AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY

The last time Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the White House earlier this year, he was berated by Donald Trump.

On Monday, he returned with European leaders by his side. He emerged with some signs of progress on a peace deal to end Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The presence of the European leaders no doubt had a great impact on the meeting. After Trump’s recent summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, they were concerned he was aligning the United States with the Russian position by supporting Putin’s maximalist demands.

We see from Trump’s statements over the last couple of months, the only pullback from his erratic pronouncements, largely based on Russian disinformation, seems to come when a body politic around him brings him back to a more realistic and informed position. So, this show of European unity was very important.

Security guarantees remain vital

There was considerable progress on one critical part of the negotiations: security guarantees for Ukraine.

It is significant that the US is to be involved in future security guarantees. It was not that long ago Trump was placing all the responsibility on Europe. So, this signals a positive development.

I listened to the briefing Zelensky gave outside the White House in Ukrainian for Ukrainian journalists. He explained it will take time to sort out the details of any future arrangement, as many countries would be involved in Ukraine’s future security guarantees, each with different capabilities to assist. Some would help Ukraine finance their security needs, others could provide military assistance.

Zelensky also emphasised that funding and assistance for the Ukrainian military will be a part of any future security arrangement. This would involve strategic partnerships in development and production, as well as procurement.

Zelensky made a point of this at a news conference in Brussels prior to Monday’s meeting. It is a priority for Ukraine to have a military strong enough to defend itself from future Russian attacks.

Reports also indicate the security guarantees would involve Ukraine buying around US$90 billion (A$138 billion) of US military equipment through its European allies. Zelensky also suggested the possibility of the US buying Ukrainian-made drones in the future.

According to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, there was also discussion about an Article 5-type security guarantee for Ukraine, referring to the part of the NATO treaty that enshrines the principle of collective defence for all members.

However, contrary to popular belief, NATO’s Article 5 does not actually commit members of the alliance to full military intervention if any one member is attacked. It allows NATO states to decide what type of support, if any, to provide. This would not be enough for Ukraine.

Ukraine has already seen the result of a failed security arrangement. In the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia guaranteed to respect Ukraine’s borders and territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

However, look what happened. Russia invaded in 2014 without any serious consequences, and then launched a full-scale invasion in 2022.

Given this, any future security guarantee for Ukraine will need to be rigorous. Ukrainians are very cognisant of this.

Loss of Ukrainian territory

Prior to his Alaska summit with Trump, I would have said Putin is not interested in any kind of deal. We saw how in previous meetings in Istanbul, Russia sent low-level delegations, not authorised to make any decisions at all.

However, I think the scenario has changed because, unfortunately, in Alaska, Trump aligned himself with Putin in supporting Russia’s maximalist demands. It’s highly likely Putin now believes he has an advocate for those demands in the White House.

This could mean Putin now perceives there is a realistic chance Russia could secure Donbas, the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

I don’t believe Ukraine would ever agree to any formal or legal recognition of a Russian annexation of Crimea or any of the other four regions that Russia now partly occupies – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

Zelensky has been adamant Ukraine would not cede territory to Russia in any peace deal. And he alone cannot make such a decision. Changing any borders would need a referendum and a change to the constitution. This would not be easy to do. For one thing, it’s a very unpopular move. And Ukrainians living in Russian-occupied territory would not be given a free and fair vote.

Putin’s war against Ukraine is an attempt at illegally appropriating very valuable land. In Alaska, he demanded Russia essentially be gifted the entire regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, including land not currently occupied by the Russian military.

This land has extensive Ukrainian military fortifications. Giving up this territory would leave Ukraine completely exposed to future Russian invasions – the country would effectively have no military protection along its eastern border regions. This would put Russia in a very advantageous position in future plans to regroup and attack again.

Even if Zelensky felt compelled to agree to some kind of temporary occupation and a frozen conflict along the current front lines, I don’t believe Ukraine could give up any land still under Ukrainian control.

In a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Ukrainians favoured a negotiated settlement to the war as soon as possible. In my view, this reflects the fact the United States, under the Trump administration, is proving to be an unreliable partner.

A settlement that rewards Russia for its genocidal war against Ukraine would set a very dangerous precedent, not only for the future of Ukraine but for Europe and the rest of the world.

At recent negotiations between the two sides in Istanbul, the head of the Russian delegation reportedly said “Russia is prepared to fight forever”.

That has not changed, no matter what niceties have occurred between Trump and Putin. They are prepared to continue to fight.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Monday, August 11, 2025

This Isn’t How Wars Are Ended − A Veteran Diplomat Explains How Trump-Putin Summit Is Amateurish And Politically Driven

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet in Alaska on Aug. 15, 2025. Here, they arrive for a group photo at the G20 Summit in Osaka on June 28, 2019. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images. Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images

BY DONALD HEFLIN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EDWARD R. MURROW
CENTER AND SENIOR FELLOW OF DIPLOMATIC 
PRACTICE, THE FLETCHER SCHOOL, TUFTS UNIVERSITY

A hastily arranged summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is set for Aug. 15, 2025, in Alaska, where the two leaders will discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not attend, barring a last-minute change. The Conversation’s politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed longtime diplomat Donald Heflin, now teaching at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, to get his perspective on the unconventional meeting and why it’s likely to produce, as he says, a photograph and a statement, but not a peace deal.

How do wars end?

Wars end for three reasons. One is that both sides get exhausted and decide to make peace. The second, which is more common: One side gets exhausted and raises its hand and says, “Yeah, we’re ready to come to the peace table.”

And then the third is – we’ve seen this happen in the Mideast – outside forces like the U.S. or Europe come in and say, “That’s enough. We’re imposing our will from the outside. You guys stop this.”

What we’ve seen in the Russia-Ukraine situation is neither side has shown a real willingness to go to the conference table and give up territory.

So the fighting continues. And the role that Trump and his administration are playing right now is that third possibility, an outside power comes in and says, “Enough.”

Now you have to look at Russia. Russia is maybe a former superpower, but a power, and it’s got nuclear arms and it’s got a big army. This is not some small, Middle Eastern country that the United States can completely dominate. They’re nearly a peer. So can you really impose your will on them and get them to come to the conference table in seriousness if they don’t want to? I kind of doubt it.

How does this upcoming Trump-Putin meeting fit into the history of peace negotiations?

The analogy a lot of people are using is the Munich Conference in 1938, where Great Britain met with Hitler’s Germany. I don’t like to make comparisons to Nazism or Hitler’s Germany. Those guys started World War II and perpetrated the Holocaust and killed 30 or 40 million people. It’s hard to compare anything to that.

But in diplomatic terms, we go back to 1938. Germany said, “Listen, we have all these German citizens living in this new country of Czechoslovakia. They’re not being treated right. We want them to become part of Germany.” And they were poised to invade.

The prime minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain, went and met with Hitler in Munich and came up with an agreement by which the German parts of Czechoslovakia would become part of Germany. And that would be it. That would be all that Germany would ask for, and the West gave some kind of light security guarantees.

Czechoslovakia wasn’t there. This was a peace imposed on them.

And sure enough, you know, within a year or two, Germany was saying, “No, we want all of Czechoslovakia. And, P.S., we want Poland.” And thus World War II started.

Can you spell out the comparisons further?

Czechoslovakia wasn’t at the table. Ukraine’s not at the table.

Again, I’m not sure I want to compare Putin to Hitler, but he is a strongman authoritarian president with a big military.

Security guarantees were given to Czechoslavakia and not honored. The West gave Ukraine security guarantees when that country gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. We told them, “If you’re going to be brave and give up your nuclear weapons, we’ll make sure you’re never invaded.” And they’ve been invaded twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The West didn’t step up.

So history would tell us that the possibilities for a lasting peace coming out of this summit are pretty low.

What kind of expertise is required in negotiating a peace deal?

Here’s what usually happens in most countries that have a big foreign policy or national security establishment, and even in some smaller countries.

The political leaders come up with their policy goal, what they want to achieve.

And then they tell the career civil servants and foreign service officers and military people, “This is what we want to get at the negotiating table. How do we do that?”

And then the experts say, “Oh, we do this and we do that, and we’ll assign staff to work it out. We’ll work with our Russian counterparts and try to narrow the issues down, and we’ll come up with numbers and maps.”

With all the replacement of personnel since the inauguration, the U.S. not only has a new group of political appointees – including some, like Marco Rubio, who, generally speaking, know what they’re doing in terms of national security – but also many who don’t know what they’re doing. They’ve also fired the senior level of civil servants and foreign service officers, and a lot of the mid-levels are leaving, so that expertise isn’t there.

That’s a real problem. The U.S. national security establishment is increasingly being run by the B team – at best.

How will this be a problem when Trump meets Putin?

You have two leaders of two big countries like this, they usually don’t meet on a few days’ notice. It would have to be a real crisis.

This meeting could happen two or three weeks from now as easily as it could this week.

And if that happened, you would have a chance to prepare. You’d have a chance to get all kinds of documents in front of the American participants. You would meet with your Russian counterparts. You’d meet with Ukrainian counterparts, maybe some of the Western European countries. And when the two sides sat down at the table, it would be very professional.

They would have very similar briefing papers in front of them. The issues would be narrowed down.

None of that’s going to happen in Alaska. It’s going to be two political leaders meeting and deciding things, often driven by political considerations, but without any real idea of whether they can really be implemented or how they could be implemented.

Could a peace deal possibly be enforced?

Again, the situation is kind of haunted by the West never enforcing security guarantees promised in 1994. So I’m not sure how well this could be enforced.

Historically, Russia and Ukraine were always linked up, and that’s the problem. What’s Putin’s bottom line? Would he give up Crimea? No. Would he give up the part of eastern Ukraine that de facto had been taken over by Russia before this war even started? Probably not. Would he give up what they’ve gained since then? OK, maybe.

Then let’s put ourselves in Ukraine’s shoes. Will they want to give up Crimea? They say, “No.” Do they want to give up any of the eastern part of the country? They say, “No.”

I’m curious what your colleagues in the diplomatic world are saying about this upcoming meeting.

People who understand the process of diplomacy think that this is very amateurish and is unlikely to yield real results that are enforceable. It will yield some kind of statement and a photo of Trump and Putin shaking hands. There will be people who believe that this will solve the problem. It won’t.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

Trump Terminates Program Tracking Mass Abductions Of Ukrainian Children

President Donald Trump scolds Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their contentious Oval Office meeting on Feb. 28. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

BY JOHN HUDSON

WASHINGTON (THE WASHINGTON POST) -- The Trump administration has terminated a U.S.-funded initiative that documents alleged Russian war crimes, including a sensitive database detailing the mass deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, according to U.S. officials familiar with the directive and documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The move has barred the transmission of evidence to prosecutors pursuing multiple criminal cases, including the International Criminal Court’s landmark indictment of Russian President Vladimir Putin for what it has called the “unlawful transfer” of children from occupied areas of Ukraine, U.S. officials said.

Researchers and experts involved in the initiative, spearheaded by Yale University’s Humanitarian Research Lab, were informed last month that the State Department had quietly terminated their contract — one of thousands eliminated at the behest of Trump appointee Peter Marocco and the U.S. DOGE Service, the budget-slashing arm of tech billionaire Elon Musk.

At that time, the researchers lost access to a trove of information, including satellite imagery and biometric data tracking the identities and locations of as many as 35,000 children from Ukraine.

Most alarming to U.S. lawmakers briefed on the matter is the suspected deletion of the research lab’s database amid the scramble to comply with the administration’s termination notice — an action likely to set back efforts to find the missing children and hold to account those responsible for their abduction.

“We have reason to believe that the data from the repository has been permanently deleted,” a group of lawmakers led by Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) warned in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. “If true, this would have devastating consequences.”

“This vital resource cannot be lost,” says a copy of the letter, obtained by The Post.

Another fear, lawmakers say, is that if the database were relocated rather than deleted, its contents now may be compromised and the digital forensic evidence inadmissible in court.

A State Department spokesperson confirmed that funding for the initiative had been terminated but refused to answer whether the data had been deleted or compromised, referring “any questions” to MITRE, the nongovernmental organization that manages the initiative’s database.

When contacted, MITRE also refused to answer questions about the database’s status, referring questions back to the “Dept. of State.”

A Yale University spokesperson confirmed that funding for the database has been “discontinued” but would not say if the database remains intact.

Researchers who have spent years collecting and synthesizing data for the initiative, known as the Conflict Observatory, say the stakes are high.

“The Trump administration, through either its incompetence or its intent, has now cast doubt on the validity of three years and $26 million of taxpayer-funded war crimes evidence,” said a researcher on the project who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

There are implications also for President Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said any agreement to stop the fighting must include Russia’s return of missing Ukrainian children and accountability for those responsible for their abduction. Rubio also recently told reporters that the return of the children would be an important issue to “unravel.”

Trump and Putin on Tuesday held a call to discuss a ceasefire proposal and efforts to restore U.S.-Russia relations. Since returning to office, Trump has taken a critical view of Zelensky, calling him a “dictator” and accusing him of starting the conflict despite Russia’s role in initiating hostilities.

The Observatory, overseen by the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, began researching alleged Russian war crimes in May 2022, months after the war began. Yale’s work with the Observatory produced 13 public reports on Russia’s actions during its invasion of Ukraine and contributed to six ICC indictments against Russian officials, including Putin.

Former secretary of state Antony Blinken hailed the Observatory as a critical resource to “capture and shine a light on open-source evidence of Russia-perpetrated war crimes and other atrocities being committed in Ukraine.”

In 2023, ICC judges issued an arrest warrant for Putin and the country’s commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, saying the two bore individual responsibility for the war crimes of “unlawful deportation” and “unlawful transfer” of children from occupied areas of Ukraine.

The move was largely symbolic since Russia, like the United States, does not accept the ICC’s jurisdiction. But the warrant has created difficulties for Putin traveling to countries that cooperate with the court. It also gave credence to Ukraine’s long-standing claims that Russia has carried out the removal of thousands of children from Ukrainian territory.

The forced relocation of Ukrainian children to Russia or deeper into Russian-controlled territory has become one of the most fraught issues over the past three years of the war. In 2022, Putin issued a decree making it quicker and easier for Russians to adopt Ukrainian children. Lvova-Belova is among the Russians who have adopted a Ukrainian child since Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Russia has long insisted it is moving children out of front-line areas to protect them, often sending them to summer camps in occupied Crimea or coastal regions of Russia. Ukraine describes the process of moving children to Russia as an attempt to erase their Ukrainian identity and indoctrinate them with Russian ideologies.

The Observatory’s repository includes detailed dossiers, photos, names and other metadata related to children from Ukraine being adopted and fostered by Russia. Researchers believe the dossiers will be critical for returning the children.

The repository was in the process of being transferred to Europol, a European Union law enforcement agency, to assist law enforcement agencies inside and outside Ukraine in the prosecution of crimes. But the Trump administration’s termination of the program last month blocked the data transfer before it could be completed.

“This data is absolutely crucial to Ukraine’s efforts to return their children home,” wrote a group of U.S. lawmakers, including Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin (Maryland), Jim McGovern (Massachusetts), Nikema Williams (Georgia), Tom Suozzi (New York) and others.

The lawmakers said the Observatory provides an “essential service” that “does not require the transfer of weapons or cash to Ukraine.”

“We must, immediately, resume the work to help Ukraine bring these children home,” they said.

Even if the funding to the Observatory is restored, the integrity of its data repository remains in question.

In some cases, the Observatory found evidence that Ukrainian children were present in Russia from information on Russian websites. The data was meticulously collected so that it could be used as evidence, even if the names of children and information were later deleted from the Russian websites.

“Capturing the version of a digital artifact’s metadata at the time it was deemed relevant to an alleged crime is the basis of being able to admit it in a court of law,” said the researcher.

During a listening session with State Department employees last month, Marocco, the official in charge of foreign assistance, cited the $13 million spent on the Yale-led initiative as an example of “waste,” according to notes taken by a meeting attendee and obtained by The Post.

Termination of the program, reported earlier by news outlets the i Paper and the New Republic, comes as the Trump administration seeks to improve relations with Moscow in the hopes of ending the war in Ukraine, which has killed and injured hundreds of thousands of people on both sides of the conflict and cost the U.S. billions of dollars in support for Kyiv.

To accelerate his bid for a ceasefire, Trump has dispatched his senior envoy, Steve Witkoff, to Russia multiple times and approved early-stage talks with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia several weeks ago.

Trump’s Justice Department also recently decided to withdraw the United States from a multinational group designed to hold officials in Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Iran responsible for crimes in Ukraine, the New York Times reported.

While Trump’s supporters have backed his diplomatic push, his termination of the Observatory has disturbed some of his political allies, including conservative Christian organizations that have called for the administration to reverse its decision.

“The abduction of children strikes a nerve that I hope will help awaken more Americans to the horrors of the Russian invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine,” Galen Carey, vice president of government relations at the National Association of Evangelicals, told The Post. “I hope, too, that the funding cutoff will be seen as a mistake and quickly corrected.”

Tuesday, March 11, 2025

US-Ukraine Deal Highlights Ukraine’s Wealth Of Critical Minerals, But Extracting Them Isn’t So Simple

Graphite is mined from a quarry that is about 120 meters deep in Zavallya, Ukraine. Arsen Dzodzaiev/Anadolu via Getty Images

BY SCOTT L. MONTGOMERY
LECTURER, JACKSON SCHOOL
OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Ukraine’s mineral wealth has been a key factor in its negotiations with the U.S. as the two countries work out details for a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine’s war with Russia.

After a rocky start to those negotiations, officials from the U.S. and Ukraine announced an agreement on March 11, 2025. The U.S. agreed to resume support and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, with some conditions, and both agreed to work toward “a comprehensive agreement for developing Ukraine’s critical mineral resources to expand Ukraine’s economy and guarantee Ukraine’s long-term prosperity and security.”

The initial announcement from Ukraine’s government included that critical minerals would also “offset the cost of American assistance,” but that line was removed from the joint announcement. Getting Russia to agree to a ceasefire would be the next step.

There’s no doubt that Ukraine has an abundance of critical minerals, or that these resources will be essential to its postwar reconstruction. But what exactly do those resources include, and how abundant and accessible are they?

The war has severely limited access to data about Ukraine’s natural resources. However, as a geoscientist with experience in resource evaluation, I have been reading technical reports, many of them behind paywalls, to understand what’s at stake. Here’s what we know.

Ukraine’s minerals fuel industries and militaries

Ukraine’s mineral resources are concentrated in two geologic provinces. The larger of these, known as the Ukrainian Shield, is a wide belt running through the center of the country, from the northwest to the southeast. It consists of very old, metamorphic and granitic rocks.

A multibillion-year history of fault movement and volcanic activity created a diversity of minerals concentrated in local sites and across some larger regions.

A second province, close to Ukraine’s border with Russia in the east, includes a rift basin known as the Dnipro-Donets Depression. It is filled with sedimentary rocks containing coal, oil and natural gas.

Before Ukraine’s independence in 1991, both areas supplied the Soviet Union with materials for its industrialization and military. A massive industrial area centered on steelmaking grew in the southeast, where iron, manganese and coal are especially plentiful.

By the 2000s, Ukraine was a significant producer and exporter of these and other minerals. It also mines uranium, used for nuclear power.

In addition, Soviet and Ukrainian geoscientists identified deposits of lithium and rare earth metals that remain undeveloped.

However, technical reports suggest that assessments of these and some other critical minerals are based on outdated geologic data, that a significant number of mines are inactive due to the war, and that many employ older, inefficient technology.

That suggests critical mineral production could be increased by peacetime foreign investment, and that these minerals could provide even greater value than they do today to whomever controls them.

Why the US is so interested

Critical minerals are defined as resources that are essential to economic or national security and subject to supply risks. They include minerals used in military equipment, computers, batteries and many other products.

A list of 50 critical minerals, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows that more than a dozen relied upon by the U.S. are abundant in Ukraine.

A majority of those are in the Ukrainian Shield, and roughly 20% of Ukraine’s total possible reserves are in areas currently occupied by Russia’s military forces.

Critical minerals Ukraine currently mines

Three critical minerals especially abundant in Ukraine are manganese, titanium and graphite. Between 80% and 100% of U.S. demand for each of these currently comes from foreign imports..

Manganese is an essential element in steelmaking and batteries. Ukraine is estimated to have the largest total reserves in the world at 2.4 billion tons. However, the deposits are of fairly low grade – only about 11% to 35% of the rock mined is manganese. So it tends to require a lot of material and expensive processing, adding to the total cost.

This is also true for graphite, used in battery electrodes and a variety of industrial applications. Graphite occurs in ore bodies located in the south-central and northwestern portion of the Ukrainian Shield. At least six deposits have been identified there, with an estimated total of 343 million tons of ore– 18.6 million tons of actual graphite. It’s the largest source in Europe and the fifth largest globally.

Titanium, a key metal for aerospace, ship and missile technology, is present in as many as 28 locations in Ukraine, both in hard rock and sand or gravel deposits. The size of the total reserve is confidential, but estimates are commonly in the hundreds of millions of tons.

A number of other critical minerals that are used in semiconductor and battery technologies are less plentiful in Ukraine but also valuable. Zinc occurs in deposits with other metals such as lead, gold, silver and copper. Gallium and germanium are byproducts of other ores – zinc for gallium, lignite coal for germanium. Nickel and cobalt can be found in ultramafic rock, with nickel more abundant.

No figures for Ukraine’s reserves of these elements were available in early 2025, with the exception of zinc, whose reserves have been estimated at around 6.1 million tons, putting Ukraine among the top 10 nations for zinc.

Critical minerals that aren’t being mined – yet

Geologists have identified potentially significant volumes in Ukraine of three other types of critical minerals important for energy, military and other uses: lithium, rare earth metals and scandium.

None of these had been mined there as of early 2025, though a lithium deposit had been licensed for commercial extraction.

The largest potential lithium reserves exist at three sites in the south-central and southeastern Ukrainian Shield, where the grade of ore is considered moderate to good. How much lithium these reserves hold remains confidential, but technical reports suggest it’s on the order of 160 million tons of ore and 1.6 million to 3 million tons of lithium oxide. If most of this could be recovered in a profitable way, it would place Ukraine among the top five nations for lithium.

Smaller volumes of tantalum and niobium, also used in steel alloys and technology, have also been identified in these reserves. Most of Ukraine’s lithium occurs as petalite, which, unlike the other main lithium mineral, spodumene, requires more expensive processing.

Rare earth elements in Ukraine are known to exist in several sites of volcanic origin and in association with uranium in the south-central portion of the Ukrainian Shield. These haven’t been developed, though sampling has indicated commercial potential in some sites, while other sites appear less viable

Rare earth elements in high demand for superior magnets and electronics – neodymium, praseodymium, terbium and dysprosium – are all present in varying amounts in these areas. Other critical minerals are associated with these deposits, especially zirconium, tantalum and niobium, in undetermined but potentially significant amounts.

Finally, scandium, used in aluminum alloys for aerospace components, has been identified as a byproduct of processing titanium ores. Ukraine’s scandium does not appear to have been studied in enough detail to evaluate its commercial potential. However, world production, about 30 to 40 tons per year, is forecast to grow rapidly.

Ukraine’s mineral future

It’s clear that Ukraine is endowed with valuable resources. However, extracting them will require roads and railways for access, infrastructure such as electricity and mining and processing technology, investment, technical expertise, environmental considerations and, above all, cessation of military conflict.

Those are the true determinants of Ukraine’s mining future.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Monday, March 03, 2025

How Trump’s Compulsion To Dominate Sabotages Dealmaking, Undermines Democracy And Threatens Global Stability

President Donald Trump, center, and Vice President JD Vance meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Feb. 28, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

BY KARRIN VASBY ANDERSON
PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATION 
STUDIES, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

Journalists covering the Feb. 28, 2025, Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described it as a “jaw-dropping” “spectacle” and a “striking breach of Oval Office comity.” Slate’s Fred Kaplan asserted, “Nobody has ever seen anything like it.”

People shouldn’t have been surprised.

The Oval Office encounter was expected to be an on-camera meeting between the president and the Ukrainian head of state before the signing of a crucial minerals deal between the two countries that was meant to be a key step toward ending the war in Ukraine.

But as reporters described it, the initially routine meeting devolved into a “fiery exchange” in which Trump and Vice President JD Vance “berated” and “harangued” Zelenskyy after he pushed back on Vance’s assertion that Trump’s diplomatic skills would ensure that Russian President Vladimir Putin would honor a ceasefire agreement.

Trump’s compulsion to dominate both allies and enemies seems to have caused him to jettison the negotiation the moment that Zelenskyy declined to perform subservient fealty. The meeting, which was ended by Trump with no agreement signed, illustrated why authoritarians are lousy dealmakers, particularly when autocratic instincts are exacerbated by what’s known as toxic masculinity.

Toxic masculinity is a version of masculinity that discourages empathy, expresses strength through dominance, normalizes violence against women and associates leadership with white patriarchy. It devalues behaviors considered to be “feminine” and suggests that the way to earn others’ respect is to accrue power and status.

As a communication scholar who studies gender and politics, I have written about Trump’s displays of toxic masculinity and authoritarian tendencies in a variety of situations, during and after his first presidential term.

Trump’s reaction to Zelenskyy in the Oval Office illustrates how these inclinations stymie the president’s purported dealmaking abilities, undermine democratic values and make the world a more dangerous place.

Diplomat, dealmaker or mafia don?

Trump staged the public Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy to showcase his ostensible prowess as – in his words – an “arbitrator” and “mediator.” Trump insisted during the first 40 minutes that “my whole life is deals” and asserted that he has what it takes to make Putin conform to a peace agreement with an embattled Ukraine.

Apparently eager to project a persona as a successful diplomat and powerful dealmaker, Trump rejected a reporter’s suggestion that “you align yourself too much with Putin” and not with democratic values.

Trump contended that in order to successfully negotiate, he couldn’t alienate either Putin or Zelenskyy. “If I didn’t align myself with both of them,” he said, “you’d never have a deal.” Instead, he claimed, “I’m aligned with the United States of America and for the good of the world. I’m aligned with the world.”

Vance initially echoed Trump’s message, casting Trump as a consummate diplomat and arguing, “What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy.”

But Vance’s tone shifted the moment Zelenskyy challenged Trump’s framing.

Zelenskyy provided historical examples of U.S. diplomatic failures and observed that Trump and other presidents had been unable to contain Putin. Vance responded by castigating Zelenskyy for not “thanking the president” and repeatedly instructed him to “say thank you” as the exchange grew more volatile.

Trump, seemingly angered after Vance pointed out Zelenskyy’s lack of deference, dropped his diplomatic tone and informed Zelenskyy: “You’ve got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don’t have any cards.”

After the meeting, both the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Slate’s Kaplan compared Trump to a mafia don. The Daily Beast writer David Rothkopf suggested he was more like “the Luca Brasi for mob boss Vladimir Putin,” invoking Don Corleone’s henchman in the movie “The Godfather.”

The comparison to famous fictional mafiosos was apt. As a scholar who studies both film and politics, I have observed how both fictionalized depictions of the mafia and MAGA Republicanism are deeply patriarchal and autocratic cultures that demand loyalty, breed abuse and foster corruption.

After Trump suspended negotiations, canceled lunch and expelled the Ukrainian delegation from the White House, Reuters reported that “most Republicans rallied behind Trump and Vance.”

Democrats, a few Republican outliers and the majority of European leaders backed Zelenskyy.

The art of the deal’s demise

Trump cemented his reputation as an accomplished dealmaker in the 1980s, when he published the largely ghostwritten New York Times bestseller “Trump: The Art of the Deal.”

Many of his supporters voted for Trump in 2016 because they wanted a “dealmaker in chief,” as one poll characterized it, who could get things done in a fractured Congress.

In his second term, despite having a Republican congressional majority, Trump has established himself as the nation’s sole authority, embracing toxic masculinity’s theory of power and respect. Doing an end run around Congress and flouting the law, Trump initiated scores of policy changes via executive order and asserted that neither lawmakers nor judges have the authority to challenge or constrain him.

Trump’s blow-up at Zelenskyy is much more than a foreign policy snafu. It’s a preview of what will happen when toxic masculinity drives U.S. foreign policy.

Toxic masculinity on the world stage

In his meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy modeled a version of masculine strength characterized by empathy, discipline and mutual respect. Focusing on the needs of his people, Zelenskyy showed Trump pictures of Ukrainian prisoners of war abused in Russian custody and advocated for the return of thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia.

Trump initially acknowledged that Russian abuses were “tough stuff,” but concern for Ukrainians seems to have vanished after Zelenskyy politely challenged Trump.

Decrying Zelenskyy’s insufficient gratitude and escalating the conflict, Trump asserted: “You’re gambling with World War III. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.”

Vance similarly shifted focus from the needs of Ukrainian civilians to paying homage to Trump, demanding that Zelenskyy “offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who is trying to save your country.”

A common tactic employed by abusers is to demand that the person they are bullying show them gratitude.

In their berating, bullying and humiliation of Zelenskyy, the president and vice president used the language and rhetoric of abusers in an apparent attempt to try to force the proud and dignified leader of a country at war to grovel and get in line.

Their lack of discipline and decorum also upended the negotiation, jeopardizing a deal aimed at halting the fighting in Ukraine and advancing U.S. interests.

In my view, the toxic masculinity on display in the Oval Office on Feb. 28 was a bald demonstration of something new and alarming to a public accustomed to decorum and diplomacy in that formal setting.

For many, the enduring image of that meeting is an anxious Zelenskyy being hectored by a furious Trump.

But there’s another image that captures equally well the dynamic unfolding in the room. Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova sat in a chair just in front of the assembled members of the media. Papers held steady in her lap with one hand, the normally unflappable member of the diplomatic corps buried her head in her other hand, unable to even look at what was happening.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Friday, October 11, 2024

Africans Recruited To Work In Russia Say They Were Duped Into Building Drones For Use In Ukraine

FILE – This undated photograph released by the Ukrainian military shows the wreckage of a Russian-fired Shahed drone that it said was downed near Kupiansk, Ukraine. (Ukrainian military’s Strategic Communications Directorate via AP, File)

BY EMMA BURROWS AND LORI HINNANT

The social media ads promised the young African women a free plane ticket, money and a faraway adventure in Europe. Just complete a computer game and a 100-word Russian vocabulary test.

But instead of a work-study program in fields like hospitality and catering, some of them learned only after arriving on the steppes of Russia’s Tatarstan region that they would be toiling in a factory to make weapons of war, assembling thousands of Iranian-designed attack drones to be launched into Ukraine.

In interviews with The Associated Press, some of the women complained of long hours under constant surveillance, of broken promises about wages and areas of study, and of working with caustic chemicals that left their skin pockmarked and itching.

To fill an urgent labor shortage in wartime Russia, the Kremlin has been recruiting women aged 18-22 from places like Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, South Sudan, Sierra Leone and Nigeria, as well as the South Asian country of Sri Lanka. The drive is expanding to elsewhere in Asia as well as Latin America.

That has put some of Moscow’s key weapons production in the inexperienced hands of about 200 African women who are working alongside Russian vocational students as young as 16 in the plant in Tatarstan’s Alabuga Special Economic Zone, about 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) east of Moscow, according to an AP investigation of the industrial complex.

“I don’t really know how to make drones,” said one African woman who had abandoned a job at home and took the Russian offer.

The AP analyzed satellite images of the complex and its internal documents, spoke to a half-dozen African women who ended up there, and tracked down hundreds of videos in the online recruiting program dubbed “Alabuga Start” to piece together life at the plant.
A hopeful journey from Africa leads to ‘a trap’

The woman who agreed to work in Russia excitedly documented her journey, taking selfies at the airport and shooting video of her airline meal and of the in-flight map, focusing on the word “Europe” and pointing to it with her long, manicured nails.

When she arrived in Alabuga, however, she soon learned what she would be doing and realized it was “a trap.”

“The company is all about making drones. Nothing else,” said the woman, who assembled airframes. “I regret and I curse the day I started making all those things.”

One possible clue about what was in store for the applicants was their vocabulary test that included words like “factory” and the verbs “to hook” and “to unhook.”

The workers were under constant surveillance in their dorms and at work, the hours were long and the pay was less than she expected — details corroborated by three other women interviewed by AP, which is not identifying them by name or nationality out of concern for their safety.

Factory management apparently tries to discourage the African women from leaving, and although some reportedly have left or found work elsewhere in Russia, AP was unable to verify that independently.

A drone factory grows in Tatarstan

Russia and Iran signed a $1.7 billion deal in 2022, after President Vladimir Putin invaded neighboring Ukraine, and Moscow began using Iranian imports of the unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, in battle later that year.

The Alabuga Special Economic Zone was set up in 2006 to attract businesses and investment to Tatarstan. It expanded rapidly after the invasion and parts switched to military production, adding or renovating new buildings, according to satellite images.

Although some private companies still operate there, the plant is referred to as “Alabuga” in leaked documents that detail contracts between Russia and Iran.

The Shahed-136 drones were first shipped disassembled to Russia, but production has shifted to Alabuga and possibly another factory. Alabuga now is Russia’s main plant for making the one-way, exploding drones, with plans to produce 6,000 of them a year by 2025, according to the leaked documents and the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.

That target is now ahead of schedule, with Alabuga building 4,500, said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who works at the institute.

Finding workers was a problem. With unemployment at record lows and many Russians already working in military industries, fighting in Ukraine or having fled abroad, plant officials turned to using vocational students and cheap foreign labor.

Alabuga is the only Russian production facility that recruits women from Africa, Asia and South America to make weapons according to experts and the AP investigation.

About 90% of the foreign women recruited via the Alabuga Start program work on making drones, particularly the parts “that don’t require much skill,” he said.

Documents leaked last year and verified by Albright and another drone expert detail the workforce growing from just under 900 people in 2023 to plans for over 2,600 in 2025. They show that foreign women largely assemble the drones, use chemicals and paint them.

In the first half of this year, 182 women were recruited, largely from Central and East African countries, according to a Facebook page promoting the Alabuga Start program. It also recruits in South America and Asia “to help ladies to start their career.”

Officials held recruiting events in Uganda, and tried to recruit from its orphanages, according to messages on Alabuga’s Telegram channel. Russian officials have also visited more than 26 embassies in Moscow to push the program.

The campaign gave no reasons why it doesn’t seek older women or men, but some analysts suggest officials could believe young women are easier to control. One of the leaked documents shows the assembly lines are segregated and uses a derogatory term referring to the African workers.

The factory also draws workers from Alabuga Polytechnic, a nearby vocational boarding school for Russians age 16-18 and Central Asians age 18-22 that bills its graduates as experts in drone production. According to investigative outlets Protokol and Razvorot, some are as young as 15 and have complained of poor working conditions.

Surveillance, caustic chemicals — and a Ukrainian attack

The foreign workers travel by bus from their living quarters to the factory, passing multiple security checkpoints after a license plate scan, while other vehicles are stopped for more stringent checks, according to the woman who assembles drones.

They share dormitories and kitchens that are “guarded around the clock,” social media posts say. Entry is controlled via facial recognition, and recruits are watched on surveillance cameras. Pets, alcohol and drugs are not allowed.

The foreigners receive local SIM cards for their phones upon arrival but are forbidden from bringing them into the factory, which is considered a sensitive military site.

One woman said she could only talk to an AP reporter with her manager’s permission, another said her “messages are monitored,” a third said workers are told not to talk to outsiders about their work, and a fourth said managers encouraged them to inform on co-workers.

The airframe worker told AP the recruits are taught how to assemble the drones and coat them with a caustic substance with the consistency of yogurt.

Many workers lack protective gear, she said, adding that the chemicals made her face feel like it was being pricked with tiny needles, and “small holes” appeared on her cheeks, making them itch severely.

“My God, I could scratch myself! I could never get tired of scratching myself,” she said.

“A lot of girls are suffering,” she added. A video shared with AP showed another woman wearing an Alabuga uniform with her face similarly affected.

Although AP could not determine what the chemicals were, drone expert Fabian Hinz of the International Institute for Strategic Studies confirmed that caustic substances are used in their manufacture.

In addition to dangers from chemicals, the complex itself was hit by a Ukrainian drone in April, injuring at least 12 people. A video it posted on social media showed a Kenyan woman calling the attackers “barbarians” who “wanted to intimidate us.”

“They did not succeed,” she said.

Workers ‘maltreated like donkeys’

Although one woman said she loved working at Alabuga because she was well-paid and enjoyed meeting new people and experiencing a different culture, most interviewed by AP disagreed about the size of the compensation and suggested that life there did not meet their expectations.

The program initially promised recruits $700 a month, but later social media posts put it at “over $500.”

The airframe assembly worker said the cost of their accommodation, airfare, medical care and Russian-language classes were deducted from her salary, and she struggled to pay for basics like bus fare with the remainder.

The African women are “maltreated like donkeys, being slaved,” she said, indicating banking sanctions on Russia made it difficult to send money home. But another factory worker said she was able to send up to $150 a month to her family.

Four of the women described long shifts of up to 12 hours, with haphazard days off. Still, two of these who said they worked in the kitchen added they were willing to tolerate the pay if they could support their families.

The wages apparently are affecting morale, according to plant documents, with managers urging that the foreign workers be replaced with Russian-speaking staff because “candidates are refusing the low salary.”

Russian and Central Asian students at Alabuga Polytechnic are allowed visits home, social media posts suggest. Independent Russian media reported that these vocational students who want to quit the program have been told they must repay tuition costs.

AP contacted the Russian Foreign Ministry and the offices of Tatarstan Gov. Rustam Minnikhanov and Alabuga Special Economic Zone Director General Timur Shagivaleev for a response to the women’s complaints but received no reply.

Human rights organizations contacted by AP said they were unaware of what was happening at the factory, although it sounded consistent with other actions by Russia. Human Rights Watch said Russia is actively recruiting foreigners from Africa and India to support its war in Ukraine by promising lucrative jobs without fully explaining the nature of the work.

Russia’s actions “could potentially fulfill the criteria of trafficking if the recruitment is fraudulent and the purpose is exploitation,” said Ravina Shamdasani, a spokesperson for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, noting that Moscow is a party to the U.N. Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.

The AP contacted governments of 22 countries whose citizens Alabuga said it had recruited for the program. Most didn’t answer or said they would look into it.

Betty Amongi, Uganda’s Minister for Gender, Labour and Social Development, told AP that her ministry raised concerns with its embassy in Moscow about the Alabuga recruiting effort, particularly over the age of the women, because “female migrant workers are the most vulnerable category.”

The ministry said it wanted to ensure the women “do not end up in exploitative employment,” and needed to know who would be responsible for the welfare of the Ugandan women while in Russia. Alabuga’s Facebook page said 46 Ugandan women were at the complex, although Amongi had said there were none.

How accurate are the drones?

Bolstered by the foreign recruits, Russia has vastly increased the number of drones it can fire at Ukraine.

Nearly 4,000 were launched at Ukraine from the start of the war in February 2022 through 2023, Albright’s organization said. In the first seven months of this year, Russia launched nearly twice that.

Although the Alabuga plant’s production target is ahead of schedule, there are questions about the quality of the drones and whether manufacturing problems due to the unskilled labor force are causing malfunctions. Some experts also point to Russia’s switching to other materials from the original Iranian design as a sign of problems.

An AP analysis of about 2,000 Shahed attacks documented by Ukraine’s military since July 29 shows that about 95% of the drones hit no discernible target. Instead, they fall into Ukraine’s rivers and fields, stray into NATO-member Latvia and come down in Russia or ally Belarus.

Before July, about 14% of Shaheds hit their targets in Ukraine, according to data analyzed by Albright’s team.

The large failure rate could be due to Ukraine’s improved air defenses, although Albright said it also could be because of the low-skilled workforce in which “poor craftsmanship is seeping in,” he said.

Another factor could be because Russia is using a Shahed variant that doesn’t carry a warhead of 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of explosives. Moscow could be launching these dummy drones to overwhelm air defenses and force Ukraine to waste ammunition, allowing other UAVs to hit targets.

Tourism, paintball games and a pitch on TikTok

The Alabuga Start recruiting drive relies on a robust social media campaign of slickly edited videos with upbeat music that show African women visiting Tatarstan’s cultural sites or playing sports.

The videos show them working — smiling while cleaning floors, wearing hard hats while directing cranes, and donning protective equipment to apply paint or chemicals.

One video depicts the Polytechnic school students in team-building exercises such as paintball matches, even showing the losing side — labeled as “fascists” — digging trenches or being shot with the recreational weapons at close range.

“We are taught patriotism. This unites us. We are ready to repel any provocation,” one student says.

The videos on Alabuga’s social media pages don’t mention the plant’s role at the heart of Russian drone production, but the Special Economic Zone is more open with Russian media.

Konstantin Spiridonov, deputy director of a company that made drones for civilian use before the war, gave a video tour of an Alabuga assembly line in March to a Russian blogger. Pointing out young African women, he did not explicitly link the drones to the war but noted their production is now “very relevant” for Russia.

Alabuga Start’s social media pages are filled with comments from Africans begging for work and saying they applied but have yet to receive an answer.

The program was promoted by education ministries in Uganda and Ethiopia, as well as in African media that portrays it as a way to make money and learn new skills.

Initially advertised as a work-study program, Alabuga Start in recent months is more direct about what it offers foreigners, insisting on newer posts that “is NOT an educational programme,” although one of them still shows young women in plaid school uniforms.

When Sierra Leone Ambassador Mohamed Yongawo visited in May and met with five participants from his country, he appeared to believe it was a study program.

“It would be great if we had 30 students from Sierra Leone studying at Alabuga,” he said afterward.

Last month, the Alabuga Start social media site said it was “excited to announce that our audience has grown significantly!”

That could be due to its hiring of influencers, including Bassie, a South African with almost 800,000 TikTok and Instagram followers. She did not respond to an AP request for comment.

The program, she said, was an easy way to make money, encouraging followers to share her post with job-seeking friends so they could contact Alabuga.

“Where they lack in labor,” she said, “that’s where you come in.”

Associated Press writers Michael Biesecker in Washington and Jamey Keaten in Geneva contributed to this report.

Monday, August 05, 2024

Mali Cuts Diplomatic Ties With Ukraine, Accusing It Of Aiding A Rebel Attack In The African Country

People gather Monday in front of a makeshift memorial in Moscow, erected last year after the death of Yevgeniy Prigozhin, head of the Wagner mercenary group. A commemoration ceremony was held to pay tribute to Wagner fighters recently killed in Mali by Tuareg rebels. (Yulia Morozova/Reuters)

BY BABA AHMED AND MARK BANCHEREAU

BAMAKO, MALI (ASSOCIATED PRESS)
— Mali’s government is cutting diplomatic ties with Ukraine over allegations that Kyiv aided an attack last month by armed groups in the West African country in which Malian soldiers and Russian mercenaries suffered heavy losses.

Mali’s government spokesman, Col. Abdoulaye Maiga, said in a statement Sunday that the decision to immediately cut ties was prompted by comments from a Ukrainian official indicating his country’s involvement in the insurgency in Mali.

Ukrainian military intelligence agency spokesman Andriy Yusov last week told Ukrainian broadcaster Suspilne that armed groups in Mali had received “all the necessary information they needed” from Kyiv to conduct the July attack.

Dozens of Russia’s Wagner mercenaries and Malian soldiers were killed by jihadis and rebels in July in northern Mali, in what one analyst described as the largest battleground blow to the Wagner group in years.

Ukraine’s foreign ministry said in a statement Monday that Mali had cut ties without a thorough review of the situation and without providing evidence of the country’s involvement in the attack.

Mali’s announcement follows another rebuke of Ukraine by neighboring Senegal, which also accused the country of supporting July’s attack.

Over the weekend, Senegalese authorities summoned Ukraine’s ambassador, Yurii Pyvovarov, accusing him of supporting the attack in a since-deleted video posted on the Ukrainian embassy’s Facebook account.

The accusations against Kyiv come at a time of fraying relations between the West and coup-affected Sahel nations. Following military takeovers in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger in recent years, the juntas have expelled French and U.S forces, and turned to Russia’s mercenary units for security assistance.

Banchereau reported from Dakar, Senegal. Associated Press reporter Samya Kullab contributed from Kyiv, Ukraine.

Sunday, July 21, 2024

How The Ukrainians – With No Navy – Defeated Russia’s Black Sea Fleet



BRIAN GLYN WILLIAMS
PROFESSOR OF ISLAMIC HISTORY
UMASS DARTHMOUTH

Since the Russian invasion began in 2022, Ukraine has successfully resisted its opponents on many fronts, but its most surprising success came in a theater where few expected Ukraine to prevail: the Black Sea.

In 2022, the consensus among military analysts was that Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s military would most likely crush Ukrainian forces in the air, on land and at sea. With a vast infusion of financial assistance and weapons from the U.S. and Western nations, Ukraine has, however, fought Russia to a standstill on land. On the sea, the Ukrainians have had greater success and have launched a revolution in weapons and tactics that offer both lessons and warnings for the world’s navies.

When Moscow’s invasion began, Ukraine’s only warship was a Soviet-era frigate that had to be scuttled in the Ukrainian port of Mykolaiv to prevent it from falling into Russian hands. Unchallenged on the seas, the Russian navy rained ballistic missiles down on Ukrainian cities, provided protection for military aircraft, blockaded Ukrainian ports and was preparing to launch an amphibious attack on Ukraine’s largest port, Odesa.

But, deploying a series of new tactics and weapons in what became known as the Battle of the Black Sea, the Ukrainians have been able to destroy 26 Russian vessels since the start of the war and force Russia’s powerful Black Sea Fleet to flee hundreds of miles to a safer harbor. This historic success offers a lesson in how weaker powers can take advantage of innovative thinking and new technology to defeat more powerful opponents.

First victory: Sinking the Moskva

From the invasion’s beginning in late February 2022, the Moskva, a guided-missile cruiser that served as the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, played a key role in Russia’s naval campaign against Ukraine. Perhaps its most famous action was in February 2022, when it captured the strategic Ukrainian naval base known as Snake Island – whose defenders reportedly responded to Russian calls for their surrender by saying “Russian warship, go f*** yourself.”

The vessel’s onboard defense systems and ability to operate from more than 60 miles off Ukraine’s coast seemed to make the Moskva, Russia’s third-largest active warship, virtually impervious to attack.

But at approximately 1 a.m. on April 14, 2022, the Ukrainians managed to pinpoint the Moskva’s location via a combination of radar and intelligence information shared by the U.S. A shore-based missile battery then launched two Ukrainian-built Neptune anti-ship missiles that destroyed the Moskva by igniting its ammunition. It was Russia’s first loss of a flagship since the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese war and the largest warship sunk in battle since World War II.

In the following days, the Russian navy’s smaller ships pulled back, staying 20 miles farther from the Ukrainian coast than they had been. This move severely limited their effectiveness and put an end to Russian plans to launch an amphibious attack on Odesa.

Throughout 2022, the Ukrainians used more missiles to blow up advanced Russian anti-aircraft systems in the Crimean Peninsula and to damage two more Russian ships. These victories, and the Ukrainians’ subsequent recapture of Snake Island, opened the shipping lanes in the western Black Sea for vital Ukrainian grain shipments to global markets.

But Russians’ hopes that their navy would be safer farther out to sea were to be dashed when the Ukrainians began to hunt their ships with another new naval weapon: sea drones.

Attack of the sea drones

Starting in the spring of 2022, with little external help, the Ukrainians began to design and build the world’s first combat-deployed sea drone, known as the Magura-V5. This explosive-laden vehicle was designed to do what many thought impossible: travel long distances across stormy seas, undetected by radar, and deliver 500 to 700 pounds of explosives to distant targets.

The drones’ first test was to be a night raid on the heart of Russian power in the Black Sea, the naval base at Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea. At 4 a.m. on Oct. 19, 2022, six to eight remotely guided Magura sea drones entered the harbor and damaged the new flagship for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the frigate Admiral Makarov, and a minesweeper. One naval combat analyst described the first-ever sea drone assault on a naval base as “a turning point in naval strategy.”

Following this victory, the Ukrainians began deploying the drones more widely. Cameras on board the remotely guided craft sent back imagery of their attacks on a variety of Black Sea Fleet vessels, including tugboats, patrol boats, assault boats, corvettes, trawlers, minesweepers and landing ships. In one typical strike, several remotely piloted drones repeatedly struck and sank the Ivanovets, a missile corvette. The dramatic drone footage released by Ukraine’s secretive Group 13 shows the doomed ship’s crew firing into the water as the unmanned vehicles home in on their target. The footage on every bomb-packed drone abruptly ends as it drives into the ship’s hull and explodes.

A tactical retreat, but no safe port

The waves of drone attacks, combined with strikes from cruise missiles supplied to Ukraine by the United Kingdom and France, sank or damaged 26 Russian vessels. These losses ultimately forced the Russians to withdraw most of their fleet from Sevastopol in October 2023.

But if the Russians thought they were safe in their fallback port in distant Novorossiysk, they were wrong. Buoyed by the success of the Magura drones, the Ukrainians developed longer-range sea drones known as Seababies and Mamais. These more advanced drones were used to travel nearly 500 miles across the Black Sea to strike Russian vessels around the new base.

The Seababy drones have also been used to deploy naval mines to sink four ships, to attack the strategic Kerch Bridge linking Russia with Crimea and to carry rocket launchers for shooting missiles at Russian land and sea targets.

The Ukrainians’ sea drone successes are not only cause for celebration in Ukraine, but demonstrate the potential of new ideas and equipment to reshape naval warfare and the balance of military power at sea.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Sunday, June 16, 2024

80 Countries At Swiss Conference Agree Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity Must Be Basis Of Any Peace

Ukranian President VVolodymyr Zelenskyy, right, and Ghana's President Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo attend their meeting during the summit on peace in Ukraine, in Obburgen, Switzerland Sunday, June 16, 2024. (Allesandro della Valle/Keystone via AP)

BY JAMEY KEATON

OBBÜRGEN, SWITZERLAND (AP)
— Eighty countries called Sunday for the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine to be the basis for any peace agreement to end Russia’s two-year war, though some key developing nations at a Swiss conference did not join in. The way forward for diplomacy remains unclear.

The joint communique capped a two-day conference marked by the absence of Russia, which was not invited. Many attendees expressed hope that Russia might join in on a road map to peace in the future.

The all-out war since President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has killed or injured hundreds of thousands of people, unsettled markets for goods like grain and fertilizer, driven millions from their homes and carved a wedge between the West — which has sanctioned Moscow — and Russia, China and some other countries.

About 100 delegations, mostly Western countries, attended the conference that was billed as a first step toward peace. They included presidents and prime ministers from France, Germany, Britain, Japan, Poland, Argentina, Ecuador, Kenya and Somalia. The Holy See was also represented, and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke for the United States.

India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates — represented by foreign ministers or lower-level envoys — were among countries that did not sign the final document, which focused on issues of nuclear safety, food security and the exchange of prisoners. Brazil, an “observer,” did not sign on but Turkey did. China did not attend.

The final document said the U.N. Charter and “respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty … can and will serve as a basis for achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.” That has been a nonstarter for Putin, who wants Ukraine to cede more territory and back away from its hopes of joining the NATO military alliance.





Viola Amherd, the Swiss president, told a news conference the “great majority” of participants agreed to the final document, which “shows what diplomacy can achieve.” Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis said Switzerland would reach out to Russian authorities but did not say what the message would be.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hailed the “first steps toward peace” at the meeting and said Ukraine was in talks with some countries, which he did not name, that had offered to host a “second peace summit.” No timetable was laid out.

Zelenskyy earlier this month accused China, backed by Russia, of attempting to undermine the Swiss conference, a claim denied by Beijing.

Allies of Ukraine now face the task of trying to keep up momentum toward peace. Zelenskyy said national security advisers would meet in the future, and “there will be a specific plan” afterward.

Testifying to war fatigue and other preoccupations, only about half of U.N. member countries took part. It’s a far cry from March 2022, when condemnation of Russia’s invasion led to passage of a non-binding resolution at the U.N. General Assembly by 141 countries calling for Russian troops to leave Ukraine.

It wasn’t clear why some developing countries attending didn’t line up behind the final statement, but they may be hesitant to rankle Russia or have cultivated a middle ground between Moscow, its ally China and Western powers backing Kyiv.

“Some did not sign — even though very few — since they are playing ‘Let’s have peace based on concessions’ game, and they usually mean concessions by Ukraine, and basically accommodating Russian demands,” said Volodymyr Dubovyk, a Ukraine expert and senior fellow at Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington-based think tank. “They also like this ‘neutrality’ positioning.”

Dubovyk said the way forward for Ukraine was to receive aid — weapons and humanitarian assistance — that could improve its situation on the ground and thus give it a better negotiating position.

At the Swiss event, the challenge was to talk tough on Russia but open the door for it to join a peace initiative.

“Many countries ... wanted the involvement of representatives of the Russian Federation,” Zelenskyy said. “At the same time, the majority of the countries do not want to shake hands with them (Russian leaders) ... so there are various opinions in the world.”

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Union’s executive Commission, said peace won’t be achieved in a single step and asserted that Putin isn’t serious about ending the war.

“He is insisting on capitulation. He is insisting on ceding Ukrainian territory -- even territory that today is not occupied by him,” she said. “He is insisting on disarming Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable to future aggression. No country would ever accept these outrageous terms.”

Analysts suspected the conference would have little concrete impact toward ending the war because Russia, was not invited. China and Brazil have jointly sought to plot alternative routes toward peace.

Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, said Saturday that his rich Gulf country hosted talks with both Ukrainian and Russian delegations on the reunification of Ukrainian children with their families. It has so far resulted in 34 children being reunited.

The Ukrainian government believes that 19,546 children have been deported or forcibly displaced, and Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova previously confirmed that at least 2,000 were taken from Ukrainian orphanages.

In Kyiv, at a regular demonstration by relatives of soldiers captured by Russia, the response to the Swiss gathering was muted.

“I would really like to believe that this (conference) will have an impact, but some very important countries did not sign the communique,” said Yana Shyrokyh, 56, whose army serviceman son has been in captivity since 2022. “I would really like them to find powerful levers of influence on Russia.”
___

Associated Press journalists Derek Gatopoulos, Illia Novikov and Dmytro Zhyhinas in Kyiv, Ukraine, contributed to this report.
___

Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

KNOCK, KNOCK

By issuing subpoenas to five Times journalists, the Trump administration reveals its first response to unwanted national security coverage: ...