Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 12

BREAKING – Trump “Fed Up” w/Putin: NEW DEADLINE 10-12 Days – Col. Daniel Davis

YouTube link here.

One point Davis makes in his analysis is to speculate on why Trump is saying things that don’t make any sense. He wonders if it might be the product of a cognitive problem with Trump. Personally, I don’t think it’s necessarily a product of a cognitive problem, I think it’s a product of Trump’s compulsive bullshitting, especially to cover up his incompetence. – Natylie

Ben Aris: The war in Ukraine is over and its EU aspirations are dead for now

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 7/24/25

Ukraine’s war with Russia increasingly looks like it is lost. Ukraine is losing ground in the battle with Russia, albeit slowly. At the same time, the formal negotiations on the first cluster in Kyiv’s EU accession bid were supposed to start on July 18, but that failed to happen. However, since Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy signed a law that defangs Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms it now looks unlikely the process will be restarted.

Ukraine’s situation has rapidly decayed in just the last week. It now appears that Zelenskiy has given up on any hope of joining the EU anytime soon and has refocused on consolidating his control over domestic politics. At the same time, the European Nato-pays for Ukraine weapons “big announcement” from July 14 is also rapidly unravelling, leaving Ukraine without the weapons it desperately needs, especially air defence ammo. And the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) has recently suffered a string of setbacks on the battlefield that bode ill for the rest of the summer’s campaign.

AFU losing ground

The Armed Forces of Russia (AFR) retook full control of the Luhansk region for the first time since the start of the war on July 1, and at the weekend, as yet unconfirmed reports say that Pokrovsk fell to Russian forces on July 22, a key logistical hub that supplies the AFU’s entire eastern front line.

Ukraine has fought heroically for the last three years, surprising everyone by holding off the bigger and more powerful AFR against all odds.

But despite Trump’s efforts to broker a peace, the ceasefire talks are dead. At the third Istanbul meeting on July 23, nothing of significance was discussed, let alone agreed.

“The Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul predictably ended with nothing but another prisoner exchange. The Ukrainians again proposed a meeting between Zelenskiy and Putin, Trump and Erdogan, but in response they got the predictable answer: first, they need to agree on all contentious issues, and the meeting of the leaders will be a formality for signing the treaty,” The Bell commented in a note. “Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s announced plan to rearm Ukraine is falling apart at the seams – its only understandable part, the delivery of Patriot air defence systems to Kyiv, will not take place before the spring of 2026.”

Ukraine continues to suffer from a chronic shortage of men, money and materiel. As the war drags into its fourth year, the tide is turning inexorably against Kyiv as heroism and innovation give way to the simple equation of who has more men and the greater industrial production capability. Ukraine loses to Russia on both counts. It was Russia and America’s ability to out-produce Germany and make more planes, tanks and bullets – the famous lend-lease programme – to defeat the Nazis that eventually proved decisive in WWII. Putin put the entire Russian economy on a war footing in the first year of the war and is now reaping the dividends. The EU has only just started talking about making those investments with VCL’s ReArm speech (video) on March 4, after it became clear the Trump administration would close the US security umbrella that Europe has sheltered under since the start of the Cold War. Moreover, the European defence sector is suffering from decades of woeful under-investment and is in no position to replace the US held, as was described in detail in the Draghi report.

Russia is being fully supported by its allies; Ukraine is not. A reported 28 containers of arms and ammo arrived in Moscow last week from North Korea, and a new decoy drone has reportedly appeared on the battlefield this month that is made entirely out of Chinese components. The Russian Ministry of Defence just released video of a drone factory that is entirely based on upgraded Iranian technology. Russia will soon be in a position where it can launch 2,000 Shahed explosive drones a day, according to German intelligence, up from the 750 it current uses.

As bne IntelliNews has been reporting for the last three years, despite the outbreak of the largest war since WWII in its backyard, the EU has persistently refused to sign off on the defence sector procurement contracts needed for private-sector arms-makers to upgrade their factories, and is now scrambling to expand production. For example, the Franco-British power Storm Shadow missiles Ukraine has been using went out of production 15 years ago and manufacture will only be restarted sometime later this autumn.

Ukraine has been holding its own in the drone war that started in early 2023, but it has lost the missile war that is currently underway since May. Russia now produces some 1,200 missiles a year, whereas Ukraine makes only a handful. That makes Kyiv entirely dependent on its Western allies for things such as the Patriot air defence, which is the only weapon it has that can bring Russian missiles down, but with US President Donald Trump’s exit Ukraine becomes defenceless. Even if the US fully equipped Ukraine with all the Patriot batteries it wants – and Trump has made it clear he will not send any US Patriot batteries to Ukraine – then US weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin only makes some 600-650 Patriot interceptor rockets a year, less than half the number of missiles Russia can fire.

Increasingly, Ukraine’s allies are admitting the only effective countermeasure to Russia’s growing arsenal of missiles is to strike launch sites and production facilities deep inside Russian territory with Nato-supplied long-range missiles – something that the West has repeated ruled out for fear of provoking a direct clash between Russia and Nato.

EU bid looks dead

The EU was due to open the first cluster to formal EU accession negotiations at the end of last week on July 18, but in a long interview with European Pravda, then EU Accession envoy Olha Stefanishyna admitted that “multiple” countries – not just Hungary – had concerns about Ukraine’s commitment and the talks did not begin.

Stefanishyna told European Pravda, that the EU is “not currently prepared to take the decisions” Ukraine expects, and she was reassigned the same day and became the special envoy to Washington.

Ukraine’s EU accession bid has now stalled, and it suddenly became a lot more uncertain if it will ever be restarted after Zelenskiy pushed through and signed into law the highly controversial Law 12414 on July 22 that guts Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms.

Zelenskiy immediate faced a backlash from his EU partners. There was a mild rebuke in a joint statement from G7 ambassadors in the first hours saying they were “closely following” the situation. But within 48 hours those comments became rapidly more strident.

“As a corrupt country Ukraine will not make it into the EU,” Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said on July 24. “The fastest way for Ukraine to lose the support of both the EU member states and the public in the member states is to go back to the bad old days of corruption.”

Analysts have pointed out that reassigning Stefanishyna, who has been talking to Brussels for more than five years, at this crucial point in the EU talks will only undermine Brussel’s confidence further and suggests that Bankova (Ukraine’s equivalent of the Kremlin) has given up for now on beginning formal talks about becoming a member of the EU.

Protests in Kyiv and other cites immediately broke out (video) following the passage of Law 12414, even before Zelenskiy had signed the bill into law later the same day. By the second day the protest crowd swelled forcing Zelenskiy to start looking for compromises.

On July 23, the president suggested new legislation to defuse the rapidly escalating tensions between the government and the citizens. He gave the heads of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies two weeks to prepare the necessary legislative changes to “optimise work without duplicating functions,” according to Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.

“The President gave us two weeks for meetings, for negotiations … so that in two weeks we could come to him and say how we will work. What changes are needed so that everyone can work without duplicating functions,” Klymenko said at a meeting with journalists on July 24. However, few believe at this point Zelenskiy will back down and cancel Law 12414.

While most of the attention has been focused on how the new law will defang Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies, the more worrying aspect of the law is it concentrates all law enforcement power in the hands of the president alone. As some commentators are anticipating a Ukrainian military defeat in the near term, they speculate that Zelenskiy is gathering more threads of power to himself to cope with the inevitable public backlash if he sues for peace.

“Have we woken up in a police state today?” asked Ihor Zhdanov, the former Minister of Youth, in an editorial posted by Interfax on July 23.

“The adoption of yesterday’s law is not just a restriction on the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). The matter is much more serious,” he said. “Today, the “presidential power pool” already includes the Prosecutor General’s Office, the State Bureau of Investigation, the Security Service of Ukraine and the National Police. NABU, SAPO and Bureau of Economic Security (BES), with no director appointed yet, are on the way.”

“In other words, all the country’s security forces are already under the control of the head of state, who is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief under martial law. Don’t you think, gentlemen, that we have already woken up in a police state?” said Zhdanov.

Georgia and Hungary

Zelenskiy’s decision to concentrate all policing power in his own hands with Law 12414 is seen as a red line for the EU. Brussels was reportedly already having doubts about Ukraine’s bid before the law, but its rushed adoption is a red line for Brussels. Like Georgia’s adoption of the so-called Kremlin-inspired “foreign agents” law that sparked mass protests in March, Ukraine’s Law 12414 will certainly stop the EU accession process, as it has done with Georgia, nominally another EU candidate, and could even bring down sanctions on Kyiv.

The practical upshot of the clash is that Moldova’s bid to join the EU, which was granted candidate status at the same time as Ukraine in June 2022, will now be decoupled in order not to penalise Chisinau which remains on course to meet Brussels demands.

However, both Georgia and Ukraine’s visa-free deals with the EU, one of the most valued wins from the EU accession process, are not thought to be in danger for the moment, say analysts. Visa-free status is Brussels’ trump card in any future negotiations, as it allows European diplomats to threaten the two governments with direct pressure from their own populations if Brussels threatens to rescind the right of unfettered entry to the EU. EU foreign policy chief and former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has already threatened to play this card in Georgia’s case.

European Pravda reports that there were secret negotiations between Kyiv and Brussels in the run-up to the July 18 cluster negotiation deadline.

The European Commission had been grappling with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s veto of Ukraine’s accession bid, but was slow to realise that whereas Orban had used his power to block the process as leverage to extort concessions from Brussels over issues like access to Russian oil exports, his position has hardened significantly more recently.

Having dominated Hungarian politics for a decade, Orban’s Fidesz party is now trailing in the polls to the opposition Tisza Party and its leader Peter Magyar, a former Fidesz insider who has become a prominent critic of Orbán’s government ahead of the crucial 2026 general election. Orban has built his opposition to Ukraine’s accession to the EU into the heart of his re-election campaign, and so is unlikely to make any concessions at all.

That has proved to be a huge problem for Kallas and the other EU leaders that were keen to bring Ukraine into the EU as fast as possible. The accession process is usually long and arduous, often taking a decade to complete, but the EC has made numerous concessions to accelerate Ukraine’s bid that could have been completed by 2030, according to European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos when she spoke only last week.

Not anymore. Kallas came up with a Plan B that boiled down to starting the negotiation process without Budapest’s approval, as under the EU Treaty a unanimous vote is not needed to open negotiations on the six chapters, only to close them. However, European Pravda reports that several members were nervous about this approach, as it is legally questionable. Budapest would almost certainly sue the commission – and most likely win – but that process would take at least three years, with a good chance of Orban no longer being in power.

Her alternative plan, to strip Hungary of its voting rights under Article 7 of the EU treaty, is even more legally dubious and if successful would have the side-effect of undermining the entire EU structure, which is founded on unanimous agreements amongst member states.

As bne IntelliNews has reported, the EU is already in danger of falling apart thanks to the combined pressure of the polycrisis and the war in Ukraine, but if Ukraine now drops out, Europe’s prestige will only be further damaged and the fissures will widen further. Last year the EU acted in concert with the US to oppose Russia; this year it has been reduced to the “E3” – the UK, France and Germany – leading the drive to support Ukraine and the US has taken itself out of the game completely.

All these problems were already undermined the attempt to start EU accession negotiations, before Zelenskiy’s Law 12414. According to European Pravda, after the June 18 deadline passed, Bankova seems to have made a decision to give up on the process, which would have taken a decade anyway, and focus on Ukraine’s domestic politics and on lobbying the White House instead.

That partly inspired last week’s Cabinet reshuffle, which as bne IntelliNews reported, downgraded the EU accession drive and refocused Bankova’s diplomatic efforts on bring Washington back to Kyiv’s side. Stefanishyna, one of Bankova’s most experienced diplomats, was appointed a special envoy to Washington and the new Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko is both a Zelenskiy-loyalist and also well-known in Washington, where she successfully brokered the difficult minerals deal with Trump administration that was signed on April 30.

Banking on Trump to come to the rescue looks like a very risky strategy, but Zelenskiy is rapidly running out of other options.

Putin speaks of threat to Russian sovereignty

RT, 7/20/25

Russia would inevitably lose its sovereignty if it relies solely on oil and gas revenues and abandons domestic production in favor of imports, President Vladimir Putin has said.

In an interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin released on Sunday, Putin defended Russia’s decades-long effort to localize automobile manufacturing, saying it was essential for protecting the country’s economic and political autonomy.

He recalled that in the 1990s many of his government colleagues wanted to abandon efforts to develop the car industry and instead rely on foreign-made vehicles, a view that he opposed.

“We must talk about technological independence… If we buy everything with the oil and gas [revenues] – and now they [the West] are trying to cut us off from oil and gas – then Russia will simply lose its competitiveness, and with it, its sovereignty,” he said.

According to Putin, efforts to improve the domestic car industry began with cooperation with Western partners that were licensed to build assembly plants in Russia. Starting in the early 2010s, the authorities gradually tightened localization requirements, demanding that automakers produce more components domestically.

“This was serious work. We were essentially creating our own cars,” Putin remarked, adding that the effort paid off after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, which saw an exodus of Western companies from Russia as Kiev’s backers introduced sanctions against Moscow.

Russia sold about 1.571 million new passenger cars in 2024 (up 48%), with Lada accounting for roughly 28% (436,155 units) and remaining the market leader, according to the analytical agency Autostat. However, all others spots in the top ten were occupied by Chinese brands. Russia’s Kamaz also distributed the most trucks in the country last year, despite an overall drop in sales, the agency said.

Putin has personally promoted the domestic automobile industry and has often been seen driving Lada and Kamaz vehicles. He also uses a limousine from the Russian luxury brand Aurus as his presidential car. In 2024, he gifted Aurus limos to North Korea’s Kim Jong‑un and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.

Le Monde: Russia is facing a labor shortage

Le Monde, 7/16/25

Confronted with heavy casualties on the Ukrainian front and a wave of retirements, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is struggling to find enough workers to keep its war economy running. Russian companies will need to hire the equivalent of two million workers a year over the next five years to fill both newly created positions and vacancies left by retirees.

“By 2030, we will need to integrate 10.9 million people into the economy. About 800,000 new jobs will be created, and about 10.1 million people will have reached retirement age,” said Anton Kotiakov, the labor minister, on Monday, July 14, during a meeting with President Putin dedicated to demographic challenges.

The minister did not specify how he planned to meet the growing demand for workers – a problem now acute across all sectors of the economy, as illustrated by recent reports from the Central Bank and the current unemployment rate, which stands at its lowest level (2.2%).

This labor shortage became even more severe after the invasion of Ukraine, as around 700,000 men – mostly contract soldiers – are currently on the front lines. Many Russians, lured by the promise of salaries well above average, signed contracts with the military to fight or to work in arms manufacturing. The state pays its recruits generously, overshadowing the civilian sector, which suffers from chronic labor shortages.

Admission of failure for the Kremlin

This shortage is nothing new: Russia has seen its working-age population shrink for nearly 20 years. According to Rosstat, the federal statistics agency, the labor force decreased by 5.8 million between 2007 and 2021. The invasion of Ukraine only accelerated this trend. In spring 2024, Russia was short 1.86 million workers, based on calculations by Rosstat using requests submitted by companies to employment centers.

To help fill the gap, 47,000 foreign workers – mainly from China, India, Turkey and Serbia – were hired in the industrial sector in 2024, according to the labor ministry. Recruitment efforts will continue, particularly in India, which was described as a “natural partner” in this field by Andrei Komarov, a member of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs; Komarov recently expressed support for training foreign workers to meet market needs.

And time is running out, with demographic decline only accelerating, as shown by statistics published by Rosstat in April. In 2024, there were more deaths than births: 1.82 million deaths compared to 1.22 million newborns, with the death toll not including military losses in Ukraine, which authorities have declined to disclose. A total of 195,432 births were recorded in January and February of this year, a drop of 3% compared to 2024. Nationwide, deaths outnumber births by an average of 1.6 to 1, and in some regions, the gap is even wider. In Kaluga and Ivanovo it is 2 to 1, and in Vladimir and Belgorod, 3 to 1.

These statistics amount to an admission of failure for the Kremlin, which sees the birth rate decline inexorably despite its pro-natal policies, efforts to reduce the use of abortion and promotion of “traditional family values.” Since March, a bonus equivalent to €1,000 has been paid to each minor female student who gives birth. A few months earlier, a law was enacted banning “the promotion of a child-free lifestyle,” including a fine of up to five million rubles, or about €55,000.

Raising the retirement age

While the fertility rate for Russian women (1.4 children in 2022) is close to the European average (1.38), excess male mortality plays a major role in dragging down the country’s demographic prospects. Officially, male life expectancy was 68 years in 2023 – 12 fewer years than for women. Considering losses in Ukraine – 100,000 deaths since January, according to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio – excess male mortality can only worsen. At this rate, the country’s population, according to Rosstat, could fall to 138.8 million (from 144 million currently) by 2046, or even as low as 130 million under a more pessimistic scenario – the size of the Russian Empire in 1897.

If nothing is done to counter this decline, the retirement age will need to be raised to 80, assuming life expectancy allows it, according to an analysis published in May by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center. Days later, independent demographer Alexei Raksha, who participated in the study, saw his name added to a list of “foreign agents” that the Kremlin updates weekly.

The issue of demographic decline is under closer scrutiny than ever by the authorities, who have chosen to censor Rosstat. In its most recent socio-economic report, dated May, demographic data on deaths, births, marriages, divorces and population movements disappeared. Once accessible, these figures have not been updated since March and will no longer be released in the future, except by special authorization.

Western missile technology in general, and air-defense systems in particular, are currently at least a decade behind Russia

By Will Schryver, Twitter, 7/19/25

Will Schryver is a geopolitical and military analyst.

As I have pondered these questions over the past few days, I have reached the conclusion that everyone in NATO militaries whose job it is to ascertain the FACTS of anti-ballistic missile performance (Patriot, THAAD, Arrow, SM-3) knows perfectly well that NONE of them have impressed, and the Patriot has been the worst of the bunch.

I understand that claims run from 50% – 95% success rate for Patriot PAC-3 interceptors against Russian Iskander and Kinzhal ballistic missiles.

That is entirely unsubstantiated nonsense.

I have not seen ANY persuasive evidence of those kinds of interception rates — neither in Ukraine nor in Israel.

We have seen multiple videos of US/Israeli systems frantically firing off a dozen or more interceptors, shortly followed by Russian or Iranian ballistic missiles streaking in to hit their targets.

Anyway, with that preface, my point is that western militaries have certainly seen this, and consequently they can’t really have much motivation to hold on tightly to their Patriot systems — especially if they can get a good price for them.

I think the only real problem they have now is a “political optics” issue. Everyone involved has to ACT as though it’s a big sacrifice to relinquish their super-duper fantastic Patriot systems to Ukraine.

You can bet the western arms industry marketers are dangling the “next wunderwaffe” to everyone concerned, and saying: “These new ABM systems we are ready to crank out are world-beating. So ship your rusty Patriots to Ukraine, and you’ll be first in line to receive the next big thing.”

I think western missile technology in general, and air-defense systems in particular, are currently at least a decade behind Russia. Fact is, they always have been. Since the 1950s.

Kyle Anzalone: rotests Erupt in Ukraine After Zelensky Targets Anti-Corruption Orgs

By Kyle Anzalone, Libertarian Institute, 7/23/25

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bill that restricts the work of anti-corruption agencies. In response, Ukrainians took to the streets in Kiev, chanting “corruption equals death.”

The new law gives Kiev significant control over Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the affiliated Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). A statement from the agencies said, “In effect, if this bill becomes law, the head of SAPO will become a nominal figure, while NABU will lose its independence and turn into a subdivision of the prosecutor general’s office.”

Initially, Zelensky defended the law, claiming Ukrainians needed to remain focused on the Russian enemy. “I gathered all heads of Ukraine’s law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies, along with the Prosecutor General. It was a much-needed meeting – a frank and constructive conversation that truly helps,” Zelensky wrote on X. “We all share a common enemy: the Russian occupiers. And defending the Ukrainian state requires a strong enough law enforcement and anti-corruption system – one that ensures a real sense of justice.”

In the streets, Ukrainians chanted “Destroy Russians, not democracy,” indicating that the protesters do not have a pro-Russia objective. Zelensky later posted on X that he would introduce a new bill to ensure the NABU and SAPO can continue to operate.

“I will propose a bill to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine that will be the response.” He continued, “It will ensure the strength of the rule of law system, and there will be no Russian influence or interference in the activities of law enforcement. And very importantly – all the norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will be in place.”

The anti-corruption street action is the first major protest against Zelensky since Russia invaded the country in 2022.

Moscow Times: So You Want to Travel to Russia. Here’s What You Should Know.

Moscow Times, 7/16/25

Tourism from the West to Russia took a major hit after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Flight bans, banking restrictions and a range of logistical hurdles, as well as overall geopolitical tensions, have made travel more complicated and less appealing for many Western visitors. Even so, thousands of people from countries in Europe and North America still visit Russia each year, alongside growing numbers of tourists from Asia and the Middle East.

If you’re thinking about making the trip, The Moscow Times has put together a list of things you should know before you go.

Is it safe to go?

Whether or not it’s advisable to travel to Russia depends largely on whom you ask. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, most Western governments have strongly advised their citizens against traveling to Russia and have urged those already there to leave immediately. 

The U.S. State Department, for example, cites a range of safety concerns, including “arbitrary enforcement of local laws” and “the risk of harassment or wrongful detention by Russian security officials,” in its guidance for Americans. Similar advisories have been issued by countries including Canada, Britain, France and Germany.

In contrast, countries like China, Brazil and India do not issue comparable warnings. However, even countries generally seen as Russia-friendly, such as Serbia and Hungary, advise their citizens to exercise increased caution when visiting. Their foreign ministries stop short of recommending against all travel to Russia but do caution against visiting areas deemed to pose “high security risks,” likely referring to regions near the Ukrainian border that are regularly targeted by drone attacks.

If you’re considering travel to Russia, it’s essential to first consult your own government’s travel advisories so you can make an informed decision about whether a trip is right for you. While Russia is by and large not an active warzone, parts of the country, particularly in the south and west, experience regular drone and missile strikes that have killed or injured people even far from the front lines. The overall risk in places like Moscow and St. Petersburg remains relatively low, but it is not completely absent.

Getting a visa

Visa requirements for travel to Russia vary depending on your citizenship. The most reliable source of information is your local Russian consulate or embassy, where you can find the most up-to-date guidance on how to apply. 

Citizens of some countries, including many in the European Union, are eligible for a short-term electronic visa for tourism. Others may not require a visa at all. For U.S. citizens, the application process remains largely unchanged, according to recent travelers who spoke to The Moscow Times. In some cases, wait times may even be shorter due to reduced demand for Russian visas in Western countries.

Traveling to Russia

The easiest and most commonly recommended way to travel to Russia today is by flying through countries such as Turkey or the United Arab Emirates, with onward connections to other major cities from Moscow or St. Petersburg. Due to airport closures that have been in place since early 2022, most airports in southern Russia remain inaccessible.

Traveling by land, such as taking a bus from Estonia or Lithuania to the Kaliningrad region and flying to mainland Russia from there, is possible and often cheaper. However, this option comes with additional challenges, including more extensive security screenings at the border as well as restrictions on bringing euro banknotes into Russia.

Among Moscow’s airports, Sheremetyevo is generally considered the most straightforward for international travelers compared to Domodedovo. Pulkovo Airport in St. Petersburg is also widely recommended. Travelers who spoke to The Moscow Times said security checks at Sheremetyevo and Pulkovo are usually less intensive than at Domodedovo, where longer waits and more frequent questioning have been reported. That said, security checks at Sheremetyevo can still take a few hours.

Interviews by border officers can appear random. Some travelers report being questioned nearly every time they cross the border, while others say they have never been questioned. Questions may include the purpose of your visit, your place of stay, your occupation and whether you have traveled to Ukraine.

Border officials also have the authority to request access to your mobile phone. While only a few travelers reported this happening, it is strongly advised not to carry sensitive information or any content related to Ukraine on your phone. Though you have the right to refuse access to your device, doing so could result in being denied entry into the country.

Bringing money into Russia

Since spring 2022, Visa and Mastercard bank cards issued outside of Russia no longer function within the country. Chinese UnionPay cards issued by foreign banks, meanwhile, are still accepted in Russia. For short-term stays, the simplest and most reliable way to bring money into Russia is by carrying cash.

However, travelers should be aware of several important restrictions. The European Union has banned the transportation of euro banknotes into Russia via EU borders as part of sanctions introduced after the invasion of Ukraine. This means that if you’re entering Russia from an EU country, you cannot carry euro cash across the border. That restriction does not apply if you’re entering from a non-EU country, such as Turkey or the United Arab Emirates, as Russia itself does not prohibit the import of euros. Regardless of currency, travelers are allowed to bring up to $10,000 (or equivalent) in cash without having to declare it.

For those planning a longer stay, opening a local bank account is recommended. Depositing your cash into a Russian account can make everyday transactions easier, as card and electronic payments are becoming more ubiquitous.

Exchanging foreign currency in major cities is generally straightforward, and some exchange offices offer competitive rates, travelers told The Moscow Times. However, it is crucial to bring only clean, undamaged banknotes, they said. Russian banks and exchange offices often refuse old, marked or torn bills. 

Mobile phone service

Accessing mobile phone service in Russia has become significantly more complicated for foreign nationals. As of July 2025, new regulations require foreigners who wish to sign mobile phone contracts to register with the Unified Biometric System (UBS), a government-run database that collects biometric data.

To do so, foreign citizens must visit a Sberbank branch to submit their biometrics, which include a facial photo and a voice recording. They are also required to obtain a SNILS (the Russian equivalent of a U.S. Social Security number), register on the Gosuslugi public services portal and provide the IMEI number of their mobile device.

To apply for a SNILS, foreigners must visit a branch of the Moi Dokumenti government services office (also known as a “Multifunctional Center”). After submitting the necessary documents and biometrics, and once the SNILS is issued — a process that typically takes several days — foreigners can then visit a mobile service provider to buy a SIM card and phone plan.

This process is lengthy and impractical for short-term visitors. As an alternative, travelers can purchase eSIMs from international providers such as eSIM.sm, although it’s possible that Russian authorities may restrict some of these services in the future. Another option is to check whether your existing mobile provider offers roaming in Russia, though this is often expensive. One Italian traveler told The Moscow Times that his provider recently offered 15GB of data and limited calling in Russia for 30 euros per month.

Accommodation and registration

Western platforms like Airbnb and Booking.com are no longer available in Russia. Russia has its own alternatives for short-term hotel and apartment bookings, with Ostrovok.ru and Sutochno.ru being the most widely used. Travelers can also book directly through hotels, hostels or other types of accommodations. Some hotels allow you to pay in cash on arrival.

As before, if you are staying at a hotel, the staff will handle your mandatory registration with the authorities, so no additional steps are needed. However, if you are staying at a private address for several days, you will need to register yourself at a local branch of Moi Dokumenti. 

VPNs

The Russian government has blocked scores of websites and online platforms in recent years, including Instagram and Facebook, making it impossible to access them without a VPN. While many VPN services do still work in Russia, major providers have been blocked, so lesser-known VPNs can often be more reliable. However, the availability of VPNs is constantly changing, so it’s important to consult up-to-date sources online before choosing one.

Travelers are advised to download and set up their VPN before entering Russia, as access to VPN websites may also be restricted once inside the country.

“The Russia hoax is even worse than I thought” Journalist Matt Taibbi on CIA cover-up | Redacted

YouTube link to interview here.

Kit Klarenberg: Case closed after ‘Russian disinfo’ claims led to persecution of NZ journalist

By Kit Klarenberg, The Grayzone, 7/13/25

Journalist Mick Hall was accused of slipping “Russian disinformation” into copy at New Zealand’s state broadcaster, sparking an international furor about Kremlin infiltration. Following an intel agency investigation, his name was cleared.Now, Hall tells The Grayzone how a simple copy editing dispute brought him into Five Eyes’ crosshairs.

Until two years ago, Mick Hall was a fairly obscure journalist publishing wire copy for Radio New Zealand (RNZ), far-removed from media capitals like Washington and London where international opinions are shaped. But in June 2023, Hall suddenly became the target of Five Eyes intelligence agencies when he was accused by Western sources – including his own employer – of inserting “Russian disinformation” into wire stories.

What started with a dispute of Hall’s copy edits turned into an investigation by New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS), which briefed top government officials about its probe. For months afterward, major Western media outlets fretted that Kremlin agents had infiltrated New Zealand’s national broadcaster.

But Hall insisted he had been unfairly accused and defamed by a pro-war element driven into the throes of paranoia by the Ukraine proxy war. In November 2024, he lodged a formal complaint against the NZSIS, demanding to know whether Wellington’s primary intelligence service “acted lawfully and properly” and followed “correct procedure” in its investigation, and if any information gathered about him “was shared appropriately, including with overseas partners.”

On April 9, New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS) published the results of the investigation triggered by Hall’s complaint. The Inspector General report noted its investigation lasted between June 10 and August 11 2023, and was closed due to “no concerns of foreign interference” being identified.

The Inspector General acknowledged the intelligence services’ probe was initiated purely due to public “allegations [emphasis added] of foreign interference,” rather than substantive evidence of any kind, and expressed sympathy that Hall found it “disconcerting to discover” he had “come to the attention of an intelligence agency…particularly as a journalist reporting on conflicts where different views can validly be expressed.” However, it concluded NZSIS’ actions were “necessary and proportionate”, and the agency acted “lawful [sic] and properly.”

Hall’s name had been cleared, but he had been denied any recompense for being smeared as a Kremlin agent, and having his career in national media effectively destroyed.

An ounce of truth

The manufactured scandal surrounding Mick Hall’s copy edits trace back to New York City, where a lawyer and Democratic party hack named Luppe B. Luppen erupted in outrage at something he happened across on RNZ’s website.

In a Twitter/X post, Luppen complained that RNZ had republished a Reuters article authored by the news agency’s Moscow bureau chief Guy Faulconbridge, with “utterly false, Russian propaganda” inserted. Namely, that the February 2014 Maidan “revolution” was in fact a “violent” US-sponsored “colour revolution,” provoking a civil war in eastern and southern Ukraine, during which local “ethnic Russians” were “suppressed.”

Mick Hall was responsible for inserting this wording.

He told The Grayzone, “it always seemed odd to me a New York-based lawyer would come across a republished Reuters story on a small national broadcaster’s website in the South Pacific – I’ve not read too much into it, but it felt strange at the time, and still does.” Nonetheless, Hall believed his changes were legitimate given the story’s content, and stands by his decision to this day.

Since joining RNZ in September 2018 as a “digital journalist” and subeditor, he was responsible for selecting and processing news stories from international news agencies and wire services for republication on the broadcaster’s website. Hall frequently found that copy by the BBC, Reuters, and other prominent Western news services contained extraordinary bias and distortions. He felt compelled to balance the coverage by adding context, or amending and deleting passages which seemed overtly ideological.

When the Ukraine proxy war erupted in February 2022, Hall sensed that Western news agencies were not even attempting to conceal their biases any longer.

Manufactured crisis boomerangs on RNZ

On June 9th 2023, RNZ placed Hall on leave and announced an urgent investigation into his supposedly Kremlin-influenced editing. By this point, the foundations of an international scandal had been laid. For months afterwards, “disinformation experts”, think tank hawks, mainstream ‘journalists’ and politicians whipped up a paranoid, conspiratorial frenzy over Hall’s edits. The BBC, Independent, New York Times and Reuters cranked up the controversy with blanket coverage. The Guardian’s obsessively anti-Russian Luke Harding took a particularly keen interest.

Olga Lautman, a Ukrainian nationalist from arms industry-funded think tank CEPA, strongly suggested that Hall was taking orders from the Russian state to insert “disinformation” into RNZ’s output. This libelous conjecture was not helped by RNZ chief Paul Thompson offering a servile public apology, in which he begged for forgiveness for “pro-Kremlin garbage…[ending] up in our stories.” An internal audit identified “inappropriate” edits made by Hall in 49 stories, out of 1,319 he worked on for RNZ in total – exactly 3.71%.

At his lawyer’s suggestion, Hall produced a detailed document listing every story he edited that had been flagged by RNZ for supposedly “inappropriate” tampering. He included personal explanations for why changes were made and passages inserted, along with expert supporting commentary from figures such as economist Jeffrey Sachs and political scientist John Mearsheimer. However, Hall gave up after just 39 stories. “The reasons RNZ flagged the remaining 10 – such as referring to Julian Assange a journalist – were so ridiculous, it seemed a waste of time,” he explained.

RNZ subsequently appointed an independent panel to assess the fiasco. In a bitter irony, the report they published on July 28 2023 was a rebuke to Hall’s accusers. It declared that “not all of the examples of inappropriate editing identified by RNZ were found by the panel to be inappropriate.” Moreover, the panel accepted Hall “genuinely believed he was acting appropriately,” and “was not motivated by any desire to introduce misinformation, disinformation or propaganda.”

While the report accused Hall of several cases of “inappropriate editing,” breaching both RNZ’s editorial policy and its contractual agreement with Reuters, the panel did not conclude this was deliberate, but a well-intentioned effort to add “balance and accuracy into the stories.” Moreover, the edits flagged by the panel as “inappropriate” were usually factual, and contained valuable historical context. For example, Hall amended a May 2022 story about the attempted evacuation of Mariupol to note that Azov Battalion “was widely regarded before the Russian invasion by Western media as a Neo-Nazi military unit.”

That Azov’s extremist background, history and ideology has been obfuscated and whitewashed since the proxy war began is a basic statement of fact. The panel even acknowledged the group’s neo-Nazi links had “been noted, reported on and debated” previously, but bizarrely found Hall’s “uncritical and unexplained inclusion” of this inconvenient truth “had the effect of unbalancing the story.” This was despite the panel admitting, “experienced people operating in good faith can and do disagree” on editorial standards, which are in any event “matters for judgment”.

Conversely, the review was extremely scathing of how Hall’s “errors were framed” by RNZ’s leadership. Their conduct was found to have “contributed to public alarm and reputational damage which the panel believes was not helpful in maintaining public trust.” It furthermore concluded “the wider structure, culture, systems and processes that facilitated what occurred” were the state broadcaster’s responsibility. Grave “gaps” in supervision and training of RNZ’s “busy, poorly resourced digital news team” were identified. For example, “limitations on changing content” from newswires weren’t clearly communicated to staff.

An “intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy”

For Hall, many questions about the affair linger today – not least how the Inspector General reached his conclusions. The report states, “much of the information my inquiry has considered is highly classified, which limits the information I can provide you to explain my findings.” It is difficult to conceive what “highly classified” information NZSIS “considered” given the public nature of the allegations against Hall. What’s more, both the independent review panel and NZSIS cleared him of any wrongdoing within two months of the first accusations.

Similarly curious was the vague language which filled the three-page report. For example, it claimed that NZSIS had taken “relatively limited steps” in investigating Hall. Yet it failed to clarify which steps were taken. Confusing matters even further, the Inspector General admitted “NZSIS shared information about the conclusion of its enquiries with interested parties… to allay concerns of foreign interference.” The identity of those “interested parties,” and why it was NZSIS’ responsibility to ameliorate their baseless anxieties, was also unclear.

“We’ll likely never know the answer to any of these mysteries. I lodged my complaint when I learned NZSIS briefed both the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office on my case. I also have grounds to believe at least one of Wellington’s Western intelligence partners was given information on me,” Hall tells The Grayzone.

“This was a simple matter of minor procedural errors on my part, and disagreement over editorial standards with RNZ’s management, which could’ve been quietly and professionally resolved internally. Instead, I was thrust into the glare of the international media and the Five Eyes global spying network. The intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy at a tiny news outlet could indicate there was some kind of deeper, darker coordination at play. Again though, we’ll probably never know.”

William Hartung: The Military-Industrial Complex Is Riding High

By William Hartung, Antiwar.com, 7/2/25

Originally published at TomDispatch.

The Senate is on the verge of passing the distinctly misnamed “big beautiful bill.” It is, in fact, one of the ugliest pieces of legislation to come out of Congress in living memory. The version that passed the House recently would cut $1.7 trillion, mostly in domestic spending, while providing the top 5% of taxpayers with roughly $1.5 trillion in tax breaks.

Over the next few years, the same bill will add another $150 billion to a Pentagon budget already soaring towards a record $1 trillion. In short, as of now, in the battle between welfare and warfare, the militarists are carrying the day.

Pentagon Pork and the People It Harms

The bill, passed by the House of Representatives and at present under consideration in the Senate, would allocate tens of billions of dollars to pursue President Trump’s cherished but hopeless Golden Dome project, which Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists has described as “a fantasy.” She explained exactly why the Golden Dome, which would supposedly protect the United States against nuclear attack, is a pipe dream:

“Over the last 60 years, the United States has spent more than $350 billion on efforts to develop a defense against nuclear-armed ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. This effort has been plagued by false starts and failures, and none have yet been demonstrated to be effective against a real-world threat… Missile defenses are not a useful or long-term strategy for keeping the U.S. safe from nuclear weapons.”

The bill also includes billions more for shipbuilding, heavy new investments in artillery and ammunition, and funding for next-generation combat aircraft like the F-47.

Oh, and after all of those weapons programs get their staggering cut of that future Pentagon budget, somewhere way down at the bottom of that list is a line item for improving the quality of life for active-duty military personnel. But the share aimed at the well-being of soldiers, sailors, and airmen (and women) is less than 6% of the $150 billion that Congress is now poised to add to that department’s already humongous budget. And that’s true despite the way Pentagon budget hawks invariably claim that the enormous sums they routinely plan on shoveling into it — and the overflowing coffers of the contractors it funds — are “for the troops.”

Much of the funding in the bill will flow into the districts of key members of Congress (to their considerable political benefit). For example, the Golden Dome project will send billions of dollars to companies based in Huntsville, Alabama, which calls itself “Rocket City” because of the dense network of outfits there working on both offensive missiles and missile defense systems. And that, of course, is music to the ears of Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), the current chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who just happens to come from Alabama.

The shipbuilding funds will help prop up arms makers like HII Corporation (formerly Huntington Ingalls), which runs a shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, the home state of Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss).  The funds will also find their way to shipyards in Maine, Connecticut, and Virginia.

Those funds will benefit the co-chairs of the House Shipbuilding Caucus, Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Representative Rob Wittman (R-VA). Connecticut hosts General Dynamics’ Electric Boat plant, which makes submarines that carry ballistic missiles, while Virginia is home to HII Corporation’s Newport News Shipbuilding facility, which makes both aircraft carriers and attack submarines.

The Golden Dome missile defense project, on which President Trump has promised to spend $175 billion over the next three years, will benefit contractors big and small. Those include companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon (now RTX) that build current generation missile defense systems, as well as emerging military tech firms like Elon Musk’s Space X and Palmer Luckey’s Anduril, both of which are rumored to have a shot at playing a leading role in the development of the new anti-missile system.

And just in case you thought this country was only planning to invest in defense against a nuclear strike, a sharp upsurge in spending on new nuclear warheads under the auspices of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) has been proposed for fiscal year 2026. Thirty billion dollars, to be exact, which would represent a 58% hike from the prior year’s budget. Meanwhile, within that agency, nonproliferation, cleanup, and renewable energy programs are set to face significant cuts, leaving 80% of NNSA’s proposed funding to be spent on — yes! — nuclear weapons alone. Those funds will flow to companies like Honeywell, Bechtel, Jacobs Engineering, and Fluor that help run nuclear labs and nuclear production sites, as well as educational institutions like the University of Tennessee, Texas A&M, and the University of California at Berkeley, which help manage nuclear weapons labs or nuclear production sites.

Weakening the Social Safety Net — and America

And while weapons contractors will gorge on a huge new infusion of cash, military personnel, past and present, are clearly going to be neglected. As a start, the Veterans Administration is on the block for deep cuts, including possible layoffs of up to 80,000 employees — a move that would undoubtedly slow down the processing of benefits for those who have served in America’s past wars. Research on ailments that disproportionately impact veterans will also be cut, which should be considered an outrage.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of veterans from this country’s disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue to suffer from physical and psychological wounds, including traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cutting research that might find more effective solutions to such problems should be considered a national disgrace. In the meantime, active-duty personnel who are getting a tiny fraction of the potential Pentagon add-on of $150 billion are similarly in need.

Worse yet, turn away from the Pentagon for a moment, and the cuts in the rest of that “big beautiful bill” will likely have an impact on a majority of Americans — Democrats, independents, and MAGA Republicans alike.  Their full effects may not be felt for months until the spending reductions contained in it start hitting home. However, enacting policies that take food off people’s tables and deny them medical care will not only cause unnecessary suffering but cost lives.

As President (and former general) Dwight D. Eisenhower, a very different kind of Republican, said more than 70 years ago, the ultimate security of a nation lies not in how many weapons it can pile up, but in the health, education, and resilience of its people. The big beautiful bill and the divisive politics surrounding it threaten those foundations of our national strength.

Clash of the Contractors?

As budget cuts threaten to make the population weaker, distorted spending priorities are making arms producers stronger. The Big Five — Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — produce most of the current big-ticket weapon systems, from submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles to tanks, combat aircraft, and missile-defense systems. Meanwhile, emerging tech firms like Palantir, Anduril, and Space X are cashing in on contracts for unpiloted vehicles, advanced communications systems, new-age goggles for the Army, anti-drone systems, and so much more.

But even as weapons spending hits near-record or record levels, there may still be a fight between the Big Five and the emerging tech firms over who gets the biggest share of that budget. One front in the coming battle between the Big Five and the Silicon Valley militarists could be the Army Transformation Initiative (ATI).  According to Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, one of the goals of ATI is to “eliminate obsolete systems.”

Driscoll is a harsh critic of the way members of Congress put money in the budget — a process known as “pork barrel politics” — for items the military services haven’t even asked for (and they ask for plenty), simply because those systems might bring more jobs and revenue to their states or districts. He has, in fact, committed himself to an approach that’s incompatible with the current, parochial process of putting together the Pentagon budget. “Lobbyists and bureaucrats have overtaken the army’s ability to prioritize soldiers and war fighting,” he insisted.

Driscoll is talking a tough game when it comes to taking on the existing big contractors.  He’s evidently ready to push for “reform,” even if it means that some of them go out of business. In fact, he seems to welcome it: “I will measure it as success if, in the next two years, one of the primes is no longer in business.” (“Primes” are the big contractors like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics that take the lead on major programs and get the bulk of the funding, a significant portion of which they dole out to subcontractors all over the country and the world.)

Ending pork-barrel politics in favor of an approach in which the Pentagon only buys systems that align with the country’s actual defense strategy, as Driscoll is suggesting, might seem like a significant step forward. But be careful what you wish for. Any funds freed up by stopping congressional representatives from treating the Pentagon budget as a piggy bank to buy loyalty from their constituents will almost certainly go to emerging tech firms ready to build next-generation systems like swarms of drones, weapons that can take out a hypersonic missile, or pilotless land vehicles, aircraft, and ships. Driscoll is a major tech enthusiast, as is his friend and Yale law school classmate J.D. Vance, who was first employed by Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, who then backed his successful run for the Senate from Ohio.

Since the tech firms don’t have the equivalent of the Big Five’s extensive production networks in key congressional districts, they need to find other ways to persuade Congress to fund their weapons programs. Fortunately, the Silicon Valley militarists have a significant number of former employees or financial backers in the Trump administration who can plead their case.

In addition, military-tech-focused venture capital firms have hired at least 50 former Pentagon and military officials, all of whom can help them exert influence over both the Trump administration and Congress. The biggest “catch” was Palantir’s hiring of former Wisconsin Congressman Mike Gallagher, who had run the hawkish Congressional special committee on Communist China.

Some journalists and policy analysts have wondered whether the feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk will hurt the military tech sector. Well, stop fretting. Even if Trump were to follow through on his threat to cut the government funding of Musk’s firms, the tasks they’re carrying out — from launching military satellites to developing more secure Internet access for deployed military personnel — would still proceed, just under the auspices of different companies. There would be some friction involved, simply because it’s hard to shift suppliers on a dime without slowing down production.  And the transition, should it occur, would also add cost to already exceedingly expensive programs.

But Trump’s threat to cancel Space X’s contracts may just be more grist for his verbal combat with Musk rather than anything his administration plans to follow through on. Even if Musk and his president never reconcile, the DOGE cuts to international diplomacy and domestic social services that Musk spearheaded will still do serious damage for years to come.

Money Can’t Buy Security

A shift toward emerging military tech firms and away from the Big Five will be about more than money and technology.  Key figures among the growing cohort of Silicon Valley militarists like Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir, see building weapons as more than just a necessary pillar of national defense. They see it as a measure of national character.

Karp’s new book, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, mixes the Cold War ideology of the 1950s with the emerging technology of the twenty-first century. He decries the lack of unifying concepts like “the West” and sees too many Americans as slackers with no sense of national pride or patriotism. His solution, a supposedly unifying national mission, is — wait for it! — a modern Manhattan project for the development of the military applications of artificial intelligence.  To say that this is an impoverished version of what this country’s mission should be is putting it mildly. Many other possibilities come to mind, from addressing climate change to preventing pandemics to upgrading our educational system to building a society where everyone’s basic needs are met, leaving room for creative pursuits of all kinds.

The techno-optimists are also obsessed with preparing for a war with China, which Palmer Luckey, the 32-year-old founder of the military tech firm Anduril, believes will happen by 2027. And many in his circle, including Marc Andreessen of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, are convinced that any potential risks from the development of AI pale in comparison to the need to “beat China,” not just in getting to sophisticated military applications first, but in winning a future war with Beijing, if it comes to that. Talk of diplomacy to head off a war over Taiwan or cooperation on global issues like climate change, outbreaks of disease, and building a more inclusive, less unequal global economy rarely come up in discussions among the hardcore militarist faction in Silicon Valley.  Instead, that group is spending inordinate amounts of time and money seeking to influence the future of U.S. foreign and military policy, a dangerous development indeed.

Whether the emerging tech firms can build cheaper weapons with superior capabilities will be irrelevant if such developments are tied to an aggressive strategy that makes a devastating conflict with China more likely. While the fight between the Big Five and the tech leaders may prove interesting to observe, it is also ominous in terms of this country’s future economic and foreign policies, not to speak of the shape and size of our national budget.

The rest of us, who aren’t billionaires and don’t draw $20 million in annual compensation packages like the CEOs of the big weapons firms (directly or indirectly funded by our tax dollars), should play a leading role in rethinking and revising this country’s global role and our policies at home. If we don’t rise to that challenge, this country could end up swapping one form of militarism, led by the Big Five, for another, spearheaded by hawkish, self-important tech leaders who care more about making money and spawning devastating new technologies than they do about democracy or the quality of life of the average American.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, Songlands (the final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, and Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America’s Wars: The Untold Story.

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the author, with Ben Freeman, of The Trillion Dollar War Machine: How Runaway Military Spending Drives America into Foreign Wars and Bankrupts Us at Home (forthcoming from Bold Type Books).

Copyright 2025 William D. Hartung