Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 36

Stephen Bryen: The Shoot Out at the White House

By Stephen Bryen, Substack, 2/28/25

Because events at the White House with President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky were so dramatic, I thought it would, perhaps, be useful to take a moment to discuss the big events of today at the White House where Zelensky met Trump. It is unprecedented that a visiting dignitary would behave the way Zelensky did, or for that matter show up in a tight fitting sweatshirt and slacks, something Mr. Trump disliked.

To begin with, there was no private meeting with Trump and Zelensky.

Here is some context:

1. Trump and Putin are very close to a deal on Ukraine. I released an article on that earlier today on Substack.

2. Trump invited Macron and Starmer to Washington to brief them, which he apparently did. The French went away fairly unhappy, but Starmer seemed to be in general agreement. Starmer made a pitch to include Article 5 and NATO in any deal; Trump rejected that appeal. Putin, meanwhile, talked to Xi by telephone and sent Sergei Shoigu (who heads Russia’s Security Council, something like the NSC) to Beijing to meet with Xi.

3. Trump invited Zelensky. The cover for Zelensky’s appearance in Washington was the “Minerals Deal” which the two leaders were supposed to sign.

4. The Minerals Deal was actually a sort of security guarantee for Ukraine, as Ukraine and the US would become “partners.” While Trump is unwilling to send US troops to Ukraine, he saw the Minerals Deal as a security substitute.

5. The Minerals Deal was not signed.

6. The real reason for the Zelensky visit was to brief him on the Putin negotiations and to gain his support.

7. Zelensky was not briefed because he vociferously and harshly objected to any negotiations with Putin. He did this in public, to Trump’s face, and in front of the press. As I have said many times before, Zelensky cannot negotiate with Russia.

8. Trump told Zelensky he was gambling with World War 3 and that he was in a poor position. Zelensky tried to answer back, but each time was rebuffed both by Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance.

9. The result is there was no private meeting and Trump told Zelensky he would be welcomed back only when he was ready for peace.

10. Usually there is a press conference at the end of a visit to the White House. That was cancelled and, in essence, Zelensky was dismissed.

11. The next steps are unclear, as Trump’s attempt to cut a deal with Russia is now blocked by Zelensky’s refusal to cooperate.

Some guesses:

Guess 1. Trump will retaliate by cutting off arms deliveries to Ukraine and cutting off any US money to the Ukrainian government. If that happens, Ukraine’s army will disintegrate in the next couple of months, or sooner.

Guess 2. Trump will put together some kind of deal with Russia not including Ukraine. This could be an economic deal, or it could be a deal that lifts sanctions on Russia.

Guess 3. It is unlikely Trump will change course on Russia and Ukraine, unless Zelensky changes his position or is replaced in some way.

Guess 4. Trump may ask the Europeans to stop backing Ukraine under current circumstances. It seems the British may cooperate, but not the French. The Germans right now don’t have a government, so they are unpredictable. Trump will talk to the Germans about helping them improve their economy in exchange for geopolitical cooperation. We will see.

Guess 5. Trump will let Ukraine collapse but may seek a deal with Putin on Ukraine once Zelensky is gone.

Vice President JD Vance reveals the moment the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting ‘went off the rails’

YouTube link here.

Vice President JD Vance opens up about the heated meeting involving President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on ‘Hannity.’

Alan MacLeod: The Pentagon is Recruiting Elon Musk to Help Them Win a Nuclear War

I think Elon Musk, like Bill Gates and George Soros, is a dangerous megalomaniac who views the world as his personal Frankenstein laboratory. If a regular guy had the kinds of ideas these billionaires have, they would simply be viewed as the neighborhood kook, but because these uber-wealthy men have insane amounts of money and clout they can implement their kooky ideas to the detriment of humanity. – Natylie

YouTube link here.

By Alan MacLeod, MintPress News, 2/11/25

Donald Trump has announced his intention to build a gigantic anti-ballistic missile system to counter Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, and he is recruiting Elon Musk to help him. The Pentagon has long dreamed of constructing an American “Iron Dome.” The technology is couched in the defense language – i.e., to make America safe again. But like its Israeli counterpart, it would function as an offensive weapon, giving the United States the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response. This power could upend the fragile peace maintained by decades of mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that has underpinned global stability since the 1940s.

A New Global Arms Race

Washington’s war planners have long salivated at the thought of winning a nuclear confrontation and have sought the ability to do so for decades. Some believe that they have found a solution and a savior in the South African-born billionaire and his technology.

Neoconservative think tank the Heritage Foundation published a video last year stating that Musk might have “solved the nuclear threat coming from China.” It claimed that Starlink satellites from his SpaceX company could be easily modified to carry weapons that could shoot down incoming rockets. As they explain:

Elon Musk has proven that you can put microsatellites into orbit, for $1 million apiece. Using that same technology, we can put 1,000 microsatellites in continuous orbit around the Earth, that can track, engage and shoot down, using tungsten slugs, missiles that are launched from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China.”

Although the Heritage Foundation advises using tungsten slugs (i.e., bullets) as interceptors, hypersonic missiles have been opted for instead. To this end, a new organization, the Castelion Company, was established in 2023.

Castelion is a SpaceX cutout; six of the seven members of its leadership team and two of its four senior advisors are ex-senior SpaceX employees. The other two advisors are former high officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, including Mike Griffin, Musk’s longtime friend, mentor, and partner.

Castelion’s mission, in its own words, is to be at the cutting edge of a new global arms race. As the company explains:

Despite the U.S. annual defense budget exceeding those of the next ten biggest spenders combined, there’s irrefutable evidence that authoritarian regimes are taking the lead in key military technologies like hypersonic weapons. Simply put – this cannot be allowed to happen.”

The company has already secured gigantic contracts with the U.S. military, and reports suggest that it has made significant strides toward its hypersonic missile goals.

War And Peace

Castelion’s slogan is “Peace Through Deterrence.” But in reality, the U.S. achieving a breakthrough in hypersonic missile technology would rupture the fragile nuclear peace that has existed for over 70 years and usher in a new era where Washington would have the ability to use whatever weapons it wished, anywhere in the world at any time, safe in the knowledge that it would be impervious to a nuclear response from any other nation.

In short, the fear of a nuclear retaliation from Russia or China has been one of the few forces moderating U.S. aggression throughout the world. If this is lost, the United States would have free rein to turn entire countries – or even regions of the planet – into vapor. This would, in turn, hand it the power to terrorize the world and impose whatever economic and political system anywhere it wishes.

If this sounds fanciful, this “Nuclear Blackmail” was a more-or-less official policy of successive American administrations in the 1940s and 1950s. The United States remains the only country ever to drop an atomic bomb in anger, doing so twice in 1945 against a Japanese foe that was already defeated and was attempting to surrender.

President Truman ordered the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a show of force, primarily to the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. government wished to use the atomic bomb on the U.S.S.R. President Truman immediately, however, reasoned that if America nuked Moscow, the Red Army would invade Europe as a response.

As such, he decided to wait until the U.S. had enough warheads to completely destroy the Soviet Union and its military. War planners calculated this figure at around 400, and to that end—totaling a nation representing one-sixth of the world’s landmass—the president ordered the immediate ramping up of production.

This decision was met with stiff opposition among the American scientific community, and it is widely believed that Manhattan Project scientists, including Robert J. Oppenheimer himself, passed nuclear secrets to Moscow in an effort to speed up their nuclear project and develop a deterrent to halt this doomsday scenario.

In the end, the Soviet Union was able to successfully develop a nuclear weapon before the U.S. was able to produce hundreds. Thus, the idea of wiping the U.S.S.R. from the face of the Earth was shelved. Incidentally, it is now understood that the effects of dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons simultaneously would likely have sparked vast firestorms across Russia, resulting in the emission of enough smoke to choke the Earth’s atmosphere, block out the sun’s rays for a decade, and end organized human life on the planet.

With the Russian nuclear window closing by 1949, the U.S. turned its nuclear arsenal on the nascent People’s Republic of China.

The U.S. invaded China in 1945, occupying parts of it for four years until Communist forces under Mao Zedong forced both them and their Nationalist KMT allies from the country. During the Korean War, some of the most powerful voices in Washington advocated dropping nuclear weapons on the 12 largest Chinese cities in response to China entering the fray. Indeed, both Truman and his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, publicly used the threat of the atomic bomb as a negotiating tactic.

Routed on the mainland, the U.S.-backed KMT fled to Taiwan, establishing a one-party state. In 1958, the U.S. also came close to dropping the bomb on China to protect its ally’s new regime over control of the disputed island – an episode of history that resonates with the present-day conflict over Taiwan.

However, by 1964, China had developed its own nuclear warhead, effectively ending U.S. pretensions and helping to usher in the détente era of good relations between the two powers—an epoch that lasted well into the 21st century.

In short, then, it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.

Nuking Japan? OK. Nuking Mars? Even Better!

Musk, however, has downplayed both the probability and the consequences of nuclear war. On The Lex Friedman Podcast, he described the likelihood of a terminal confrontation as “quite low.” And while speaking with Trump last year, he claimed that nuclear holocaust is “not as scary as people think,” noting that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but now they are full cities again.” President Trump agreed.

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, there are over 12,000 warheads in the world, the vast majority of them owned by Russia and the United States. While many consider them a blight on humanity and favor their complete eradication, Musk advocates building thousands more, sending them into space, and firing them at Mars.

Musk’s quixotic plan is to terraform the Red Planet by firing at least 10,000 nuclear missiles at it. The heat generated by the bombs would melt its polar ice caps, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The rapid greenhouse effect triggered, the theory goes, would raise Mars’ temperatures (and air pressure) to the point of supporting human life.

Few scientists have endorsed this idea. Indeed, Dmitry Rogozin, then-head of Russian state space agency Roscosmos, labeled the theory completely absurd and nothing more than a cover for filling space with American nuclear weapons aimed at Russia, China, and other nations, drawing Washington’s ire.

“We understand that one thing is hidden behind this demagogy: This is a cover for the launch of nuclear weapons into space,” he said. “We see such attempts, we consider them unacceptable, and we will hinder this to the greatest extent possible,” he added.

The first Trump administration’s actions, including withdrawing from multiple international anti-ballistic missile treaties, have made this process more difficult.

Elon And The Military-Industrial-Complex

Until he entered the Trump White House, many still perceived Musk as a radical tech industry outsider. Yet this was never the case. From virtually the beginning of his career, Musk’s path has been shaped by his exceptionally close relationship with the U.S. national security state, particularly with Mike Griffin of the CIA.

From 2002 to 2005, Griffin led In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capitalist wing. In-Q-Tel is an organization dedicated to identifying, nurturing, and working with tech companies that can provide Washington with cutting-edge technologies, keeping it one step ahead of its competition.

Griffin was an early believer in Musk. In February 2002, he accompanied Musk to Russia, where the pair attempted to purchase cut-price intercontinental ballistic missiles to start SpaceX. Griffin spoke up for Musk in government meetings, backing him as a potential “Henry Ford” of the tech and military-industrial complex.

After In-Q-Tel, Griffin became the chief administrator of NASA. In 2018, President Trump appointed him the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. While at NASA, Griffin brought Musk in for meetings and secured SpaceX’s big break. In 2006, NASA awarded the company a $396 million rocket development contract – a remarkable “gamble,” in Griffin’s words, especially as it had never launched a rocket. National Geographic wrote that SpaceX “never would have gotten to where it is today without NASA.” And Griffin was essential to this development. Still, by 2008, both SpaceX and Tesla Motors were in dire straits, with Musk unable to make payroll and assuming both businesses would go bankrupt. It was at that point that SpaceX was saved by an unexpected $1.6 billion NASA contract for commercial cargo services.

Today, the pair remain extremely close, with Griffin serving as an official advisor to Castelion. A sign of just how strong this relationship is that, in 2004, Musk named his son “Griffin” after his CIA handler.

Today, SpaceX is a powerhouse, with yearly revenues in the tens of billions and a valuation of $350 billion. But that wealth comes largely from orders from Washington. Indeed, there are few customers for rockets other than the military or the various three-letter spying agencies.

In 2018, SpaceX won a contract to blast a $500 million Lockheed Martin GPS into orbit. While military spokespersons played up the civilian benefits of the launch, the primary reason for the project was to improve America’s surveillance and targeting capabilities. SpaceX has also won contracts with the Air Force to deliver its command satellite into orbit, with the Space Development Agency to send tracking devices into space, and with the National Reconnaissance Office to launch its spy satellites. All the “big five” surveillance agencies, including the CIA and the NSA, use these satellites.

Therefore, in today’s world, where so much intelligence gathering and target acquisition is done via satellite technology, SpaceX has become every bit as important to the American empire as Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Simply put, without Musk and SpaceX, the U.S. would not be able to carry out such an invasive program of spying or drone warfare around the world.

Global Power

An example of how crucial Musk and his tech empire are to the continuation of U.S. global ambitions can be found in Ukraine. Today, around 47,000 Starlinks operate inside the country. These portable satellite dishes, manufactured by SpaceX, have kept both Ukraine’s civilian and military online. Many of these were directly purchased by the U.S. government via USAID or the Pentagon and shipped to Kiev.

In its hi-tech war against Russia, Starlink has become the keystone of the Ukrainian military. It allows for satellite-based target acquisition and drone attacks on Russian forces. Indeed, on today’s battlefield, many weapons require an internet connection. One Ukrainian official told The Times of London that he “must” use Starlink to target enemy forces via thermal imaging.

The controversial mogul has also involved himself in South American politics. In 2019, he supported the U.S.-backed overthrow of socialist president Evo Morales. Morales suggested that Musk financed the insurrection, which he dubbed a “lithium coup.” When directly charged with his involvement, Musk infamously replied, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it!” Bolivia is home to the world’s largest lithium reserves, a metal crucial in producing batteries for electric vehicles such as the ones in Musk’s Tesla cars.

In Venezuela last year, Musk went even further, supporting the U.S.-backed far-right candidate against socialist president Nicolás Maduro. He even went so far as to suggest he was working on a plan to kidnap the sitting president. “I’m coming for you Maduro. I will carry you to Gitmo on a donkey,” he said, referencing the notorious U.S. torture center.

More recently, Musk has thrown himself into American politics, funding and campaigning for President Trump, and will now lead Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE’s stated mission is to cut unnecessary and wasteful government spending. However, with Musk at the helm, it seems unlikely that the billions of dollars in military contracts and tax incentives his companies have received will be on the chopping block.

At Trump’s inauguration, Musk garnered international headlines after he gave two Sieg Heil salutes – gestures that his daughter felt were unambiguously Nazi. Musk – who comes from a historically Nazi-supporting family – took time out from criticizing the reaction to his salute to appear at a rally for the Alternative für Deutschland Party. There, he said that Germans place “too much focus on past guilt” (i.e., the Holocaust) and that “we need to move beyond that.” “Children should not feel guilty for the sins of their parents – their great-grandparents even,” he added to raucous applause.

The tech tycoon’s recent actions have provoked outrage among many Americans, claiming that fascists and Nazis do not belong anywhere near the U.S. space and defense programs. In reality, however, these projects, from the very beginning, were overseen by top German scientists brought over after the fall of Nazi Germany. Operation Paperclip transported more than 1,600 German scientists to America, including the father of the American lunar project, Wernher von Braun. Von Braun was a member of both the Nazi Party and the infamous elite SS paramilitary, whose members oversaw Hitler’s extermination camps.

Thus, Nazism and the American empire have, for a long time, gone hand in hand. Far more disturbing than a man with fascist sympathies being in a position of power in the U.S. military or space industry, however, is the ability the United States is seeking for itself to be impervious to intercontinental missile attacks from its competitors.

On the surface, Washington’s Iron Dome plan may sound defensive in nature. But in reality, it would give it a free hand to attack any country or entity around the world in any way it wishes – including with nuclear weapons. This would upend the fragile nuclear peace that has reigned since the early days of the Cold War. Elon Musk’s help in this endeavor is much more worrying and dangerous than any salutes or comments he could ever make.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as anumberofacademicarticles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Ben Aris: Ukraine doesn’t have any rare earth metals

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 2/24/25

Note: this article is from 2/24/25 and obviously much has happened since then and the deal between Ukraine and the US is apparently dead, but this is useful information to know. – Natylie

Lots of action over the weekend as US President Donald Trump doubled down on his $500bn “rare earth metals” deal with Ukraine, sending a revised agreement after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy complained the first one was too harsh. Trump made the new offer even harsher.

Unsurprisingly, Zelenskiy rejected this one too, but he has stopped being polite about it. At a press conference he said that Ukraine was being asked to pay a $50bn surcharge on every $100bn it earned from mining minerals and that it might produce, and if that was the case on any aid it would open a Pandora’s box. Moreover, he pointed out that the money the US gave him was in the form of grants, ie does not have to be paid back. It’s not debt, he said. Zelenskiy refuses to sign off on a deal that will mortgage “the next ten generations of Ukrainians.”

He is of course completely right. As bne IntelliNews reported, Trump is in effect asking Ukraine to pay reparations on a war where it is not the aggressor; it’s the victim. Russia should be the one paying, but instead it looks very much like it will be offered deals instead.

They are dancing in the corridors of the Kremlin. It was suggested Russia might be willing to give up its frozen $300bn as part of the bargain (if part of that money is spent on redeveloping the regions it annexed) and even more extraordinarily, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his government to prepare the way for Western companies to return to Russia. Boeing was singled out, which is desperate to buy Russian titanium again. Putin also said that Russia should start mining its own considerable deposits of lithium.

Zelenskiy was incautious in his rejection of Trump’s mineral deal. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump really doesn’t like Zelenskiy at all. Presumably he is still angry over the Hunter Biden investigation affair from his first term in office and Trump is such a child that he bears long and deep-seated grudges.

But he is still talking to Bankova because he wants basically all of Ukraine’s natural resources, especially its treasure trove of r”are earth metals.”

Except Ukraine doesn’t have any rare earth metals.

It does have metals and minerals. It is home to significant deposits of lithium, titanium and copper, for example. But these are not “rare earth” metals, but normal, “strategically important” metals.

Rare earth metals (REMs) are a group of 17 elements in the periodic table, including the 15 lanthanides, that sit in a row at the bottom of that block in the middle of the periodic table most people don’t know anything about, plus scandium and yttrium (in the third column). All have similar and useful, albeit esoteric, properties.

The strategically important metals on the other hand are scattered all over the period table and are only important as each one does something different, but very useful, but are not that abundant.

What happened here? Everyone is talking about the rare earth metals deal, but no one seems to have bothered to check their facts as the difference between something like lithium and says lanthanum is basic chemistry. Ok, I realise none of us paid that much attention in chemistry lessons in school, but still, journalists are supposed to check these things and even I registered that lithium, the sister of the far more common sodium (one half of table salt) is not a rare earth metal without having to look it up.

What is driving this is US Sinophobia, as China controls 80-95% of global supplies. At the same as we become a silicone-based economy these elements are increasingly important as they are needed to build super-fast chips etc. The fact that China holds all cards in rare earth production is a huge national security problem for the US which has said it wants to stay “at least one, if not two” generations ahead of everyone else in the tech race.

According to a congressional report issued a few years ago, the level of US rare earth metal production is currently “none.” I think everyone is aware of this problem, even if they are not sure how to pronounce yttrium, let alone praseodymium, so the idea that Ukraine is stuffed full of this stuff is appealing.

The confusion seems to have stemmed from a report by the “Nato Energy Security Centre of Excellence” that claimed Ukraine is home to a plethora of “rare earth minerals” that are worth “trillions of dollars.” It listed a string of these metals and minerals as an example in the report, except none of the elements it named were actually rare earth metals.

It turns out that the organisation, despite bearing Nato’s name, is an autonomous body based in Lithuania, which is home to some of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters.

This report seems to have had a big impact. I don’t know if Senator Lindsey Graham (another avid Ukraine supporter) read it or not, but he was parroting the findings of the report to Fox News last year and selling the idea that Ukraine has “trillions of dollars-worth” of rare earth metals – he specifically called them “rare earth metals.” Trump was sold on the idea, and no one bothered to check.

Until now. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Javier Blas wrote a piece at the end of last week calling bullshit on this story, pointing out that Ukraine doesn’t have any REMs.

I spent the weekend digging into the details and while Ukraine doesn’t have any REMs it does have valuable strategic metals of which lithium and graphite are probably the most important, but titanium and copper are the most valuable. Taken all together, based on the sketchy estimates of the size of the reserves, bne IntelliNews estimates the value of all these minerals and metals is around $775bn, which is a lot, but far short of the $2-$7 trillion that Graham was selling.

However, the huge hole in Trump’s deal is that Ukraine has not developed these resources. It has the fourth largest copper deposits in Europe that on paper are worth $340bn, but it has zero copper mines or production. Likewise, its titanium reserves are worth around $420bn, but last year it exported titanium slurry (it doesn’t have the technology to produce the far more valuable titanium sponge used to make planes) that earned a pathetic $11.6mn.

Taken all together, we estimate that Ukraine earned less than $100mn from the export of all its strategically important minerals in 2024. Almost all of these minerals and metals are still in the ground and untouched. What Ukraine exports is also the basic ingredients like raw uranium, not the valuable refined “yellow cake” version Russia makes that can be burned in a nuclear power plant (NPP).

The upshot is that Trump’s $500bn mineral deal is a pipedream. The problem is not that the US demanding to take 50% of all the revenues. The problem is where are the billions of dollars needed to build, more or less from scratch, all the mines and processing plants to realise the value of these raw materials going to come from? And these plants are huge, very expensive and take years to construct.

It seems Trump has been sold a dud deal as instead of taking cash out of Ukraine – based on last year’s figures he’d be entitled to only $50mn – he would be putting it in and for years, before he saw a penny returned on his investment. Once he realises this, he will drop the mineral deal like a hot brick.

Matt Taibbi: My Statement to Congress on Free Speech

YouTube link here.

Transcript, Substack, 2/12/25

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Two years ago, when Michael and I first testified before your Weaponization of Government Subcommittee, Democratic members called us “so-called journalists,” suggested we were bought-off “scribes,” and questioned our ethics and loyalties. When we tried to answer, we were told to shut up, take off our tinfoil hats, and remember two things: one, there is no digital censorship, two, if there is digital censorship, it’s for our own good.

I was shocked. I thought the whole thing had to be a mistake. No way the party I gave votes to all my life was now pro-censorship. Then last year I listened to John Kerry, whom I voted for, talk to the World Economic Forum. Speaking about disinformation, he said “our First Amendment stands as a major block” to our ability to “hammer it out of existence.”

He complained that “it’s really hard to govern” because “people self-select where they go for their news,” which makes it “much harder to build consensus…”

I defended Kerry when people said he “looks French,” but Marie Antoinette would have been embarrassed by this speech. He was essentially complaining that the peasants are “self-selecting” their own media. What’s next, letting them make up their own minds?

“Building consensus” may be a politician’s job, but it’s not mine as a citizen or as a journalist. In fact, making it hard to govern is exactly the media’s job. The failure to understand this is why we have a censorship problem.

This is an Alamo moment for the First Amendment. Most of America’s closest allies have already adopted draconian speech laws. We’re surrounded. The EU’s new Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law ever instituted in a democratic society.

Ranking member Raskin, you don’t have to go as far as Russia or China to find people jailed for speech. Our allies in England now have an Online Safety Act that empowers the government to jail people for nebulous offenses like “false communication” or causing “psychological harm.” Germany, France, Australia, Canada, and other nations have implemented similar ideas.

These laws are totally incompatible with our system. Our own citizens have been arrested in some of these countries, but our government hasn’t stood up for them. Why? Because many of our bureaucrats believe in these laws.

Take USAID. Many Americans are in an uproar now because they learned about over $400 million going to an organization called Internews, whose chief Jeanne Bourgault boasted to Congress about training “hundreds of thousands of people” in journalism. Her views are almost identical to Kerry’s.

She gave a talk about “building trust and combatting misinformation” in India during the pandemic. She said that after months of a “really beautifully unified Covid-19 message,” vaccine enthusiasm rose to 87%, but when “mixed information on vaccine efficacy” got out, hesitancy ensued.

We’re paying this person to train journalists, and she doesn’t know the press doesn’t exist to promote “unity” or political goals like vaccine enthusiasm. That’s propaganda, not journalism.

Bourgault also once said that to fight “bad content,” we need to “work really hard on exclusion lists or inclusion lists” and “really try to focus our ad dollars” toward “the good news.”

Again, if you don’t know the fastest way to erode “trust” in media is by having government sponsor “exclusion lists,” you shouldn’t be getting a dollar in taxpayer money, let alone $476 million. And USAID is just a tiny piece of a censorship machine Michael and I saw across a long list of agencies. Collectively they’ve bought up every part of the news production line: sources, think-tanks, research, “fact-checking,” “anti-disinformation,” commercial media scoring, and when all else fails, censorship.

It’s a giant closed messaging loop, whose purpose is to transform the free press into a consensus machine. There’s no way to remove the rot surgically. The whole mechanism has to go.

Is there “right-wing misinformation”? Hell yes. It exists in every direction. But I grew up a Democrat and don’t remember being afraid of it. At the time, we didn’t need censorship because we figured we had the better argument.

Obviously, some of you lack that same confidence. You took billions from taxpayers and blew it on programs whose entire purpose was to tell them they’re wrong about things they can see with their own eyes.

You sold us out, and until these “rather tiresome” questions are answered, this problem is not fixed. Thank you.

Russian President Putin Answers questions from journalist Pavel Zarubin, Feb. 24, 2025

Kremlin website, 2/24/25

Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, we have just watched your meeting on rare-earth metals. Forgive me, but I believe that right now, all journalists around the world are interested in rare-earth metals, although in a slightly different context. The United States, and I will put it mildly, is strongly urging Zelensky to sign an agreement with the US regarding these resources as payment for the aid Ukraine received from the former administration, the Biden administration. In your opinion, what are the prospects of such an agreement?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: That has nothing to do with us. I do not have an opinion, nor do I even want to think about it. Of course, these resources should be evaluated – whether they exist, what is their amount, how much are they worth, and so on. But, again, that is not our concern.

Our concern is what we have just discussed during the meeting. Rare and rare-earth metals are crucial resources for modern industries. So far, we have not done enough in this area, and we need to do more. The purpose of the meeting today was to direct administrative resources to developing this sector in the initial phase.

By the way, we would be open to cooperation with our American partners – and when I say “partners” I mean not only administrative and government agencies but also private companies – as long as they show interest in working together.

It is important to emphasise that Russia possesses significantly – I want to stress this – significantly larger resources of this kind than Ukraine. Russia is one of the uncontested leaders when it comes to rare and rare-earth metal reserves. We have deposits in the north, in Murmansk, and in the Caucasus, in Kabardino-Balkaria, as well as in the Far East, in the Irkutsk Region, in Yakutia and Tuva. Developing these resources requires substantial capital investment. We would be happy to cooperate with any foreign partners, including American companies.

The same is true for the new territories: we are open to foreign partnerships. Our historical territories that have become part of the Russian Federation again also hold certain reserves. We are ready to work there with international partners, including Americans.

Pavel Zarubin: In the new regions too?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Pavel Zarubin: We are seeing an avalanche of statements and debates these days, with everyone discussing Trump and why he is so adamant that Zelensky must hold elections and that his approval rating is just at four percent. There has been a lot of criticism among the Europeans regarding Trump’s statements. Some even believe that the current stance of the US President is actually playing into Russia’s hands. Do you believe this is actually the case?

Vladimir Putin: I think this is absolutely not the case. I have my own point of view on that and it runs counter to what you have just said.

In fact, the person who currently stands at the helm of the Kiev regime is becoming a toxic figure for the Ukrainian armed forces. He issues clumsy, poorly thought-out orders guided by a political agenda instead of military imperatives, and it is unclear where they are coming from. This results in huge losses for the Ukrainian army that cannot be justified, or should I say, to major or catastrophic losses. He is also becoming increasingly toxic for society in general. Today’s vote in the Rada on extending his powers proves this point, as far as I can judge.

Finally, he has boxed himself into a corner by signing an order banning peace treaty talks with the Russian Federation. He was the one who stopped these talks. What is this all about? What this means is that he evades talks. Why? Because once the talks begin, sooner or later, and probably quite quickly, they will bring about an end to martial law. Once this happens, he will have to hold an election. In that case, there will be no grounds for not holding an election anymore, since martial law currently serves as a pretext for not holding an election. But if you initiate the talks and they quickly bring about an end to martial law, this means that you need to hold an election right away. The current head of the regime has a problem with that.

Why? His approval rating, be it four percent or any other number, does not matter all that much. What matters is that his approval ratings – and according to the information at our disposal this is objective data – is exactly half that of his closest potential political rival. I am referring to Mr Zaluzhny, the former commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who was sent, or should I say exiled, to London. His approval rating is twice as high as that of the current regime leader.

Once we consider the possibility that other political leaders, including former prime ministers and presidents, may support Zaluzhny’s possible candidacy, it becomes clear that the current regime leader will stand absolutely no chance of winning an election. His chances are zero – unless, of course, he blatantly rigs the election in one way or another, which would also be detrimental for him since everyone would be able to see through these attempts.

This is why he has become a destabilising factor for the army, society and the state. I am certain that the current US President, Mr Trump, understands this, which explains why he has been pushing the head of the Kiev regime to hold elections. As I see it, Trump’s goal is to restore political stability in Ukraine, consolidate society and enable the Ukrainian state to survive. Overall, this benefits Ukraine more than Russia, since our conflict is with the current regime, not the country itself.

All other things aside, the current [US] President has openly stated that he wants to achieve peace. By the way, this is something we want too, and the quicker this happens, the better. But the current [Ukrainian] regime leader stands in the way of achieving this goal. That, in my view, is the reasoning behind Trump’s position. It is not about advancing Russia’s interests. But it probably serves the interests of Ukraine, Ukrainian statehood and could help preserve it. We have no objection to that, even if we do not want this territory to be used as a launchpad for aggression against the Russian Federation, or as a hostile outpost targeting us. At the end of the day, we want it to evolve into a friendly neighbourly state.

Pavel Zarubin: Every day we hear many different statements from Trump. You have met with him more than once and you had a telephone conversation with him just recently. Do you think he is driven by his emotions?

Vladimir Putin: Of course not. Naturally, the current leader of the Kiev regime gives him plenty of reasons to express emotions. But based on what I have just said, a different picture emerges: his actions are not driven by emotions but rather by cold calculation and a rational assessment of the situation.

It may sound strange but frankly, in this situation, we would be interested in him staying in power and continuing to weaken the regime with which we are involved in an armed conflict. However, if the goal is to strengthen Ukrainian statehood, then a different approach is needed – bringing to power those who have the trust of the Ukrainian people.

Pavel Zarubin: In your opinion, do European leaders realise the current dynamics around Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: You would have to ask them. But judging by their actions, I do not believe they fully grasp the situation. More importantly, unlike the US President, European political leaders are deeply entangled with the Kiev regime. They have made too many statements and promises and now, frankly speaking, it is very difficult or almost impossible for them to backtrack without losing face. Given that they are also facing internal political challenges, including elections, re-elections, parliamentary struggles, and so on, changing their stance is practically unthinkable in these circumstances.

In contrast, the newly-elected President of the United States, has far more freedom of action. He is not bound by past commitments that would prevent him from moving forward and working towards a resolution of this conflict. His direct and unrestrained approach reflects his character. He is in a unique position: not only does he say what he thinks but he says whatever he wants. And that, after all, is a privilege of a leader of a major global power.

Pavel Zarubin: Several days ago in St Petersburg, I asked you a question about everyone’s desire these days to have some kind of say in Russia-US talks, with Europeans insisting and demanding to be able to weigh in on the Ukraine talks.

What do you think about it?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think there is anything wrong with that. But no one can make demands in this situation – certainly not of Russia. Let them submit their demands and requests to someone else. In fact, they have been making demands from their vassals for thousands of years, but now they are the ones facing demands. So let them stay home and keep their demands to themselves so that they can think it over and understand how they got where they are today.

However, it is important that they take part in the negotiating process, of course. As for us, we have never turned down anyone’s requests. In fact, we kept the conversation going with them at all times. But then came a point when they came up with this far-fetched and illusionary idea of defeating Russia on the battlefield. So they were the ones who rejected all contacts with us. Should they wish to come back, we would only welcome it.

I observed the response to my telephone conversation with the US President, and I saw the response to the high-level meeting in Riyadh. It was emotional and devoid of any common sense. Why? Because in order to resolve challenging and urgent matters, including on the Ukrainian track, Russia and the United States must make the first step.

What will it be about? This first step must consist of increasing the level of trust between our two nations. This is what we focused on in Riyadh, and this will be the focus for the possible upcoming high-level contacts. Otherwise, it would be impossible to address any issues, including the Ukraine crisis with all its challenges and urgency.

But what do Europeans have to do with this? This is a matter of bilateral Russia-US relations. What role do Europeans see for themselves here? What can they contribute? Yes, the Ukraine crisis was mentioned in both the telephone conversation and at the Riyadh meeting, but without discussing its substance. All we did was agree to move in this direction. In this sense, of course, we do not deny European countries the right to be part of this process.

Let me emphasise that we also respect the position of our BRICS friends, who have established the Friends of Peace group. I talked to the President of the People’s Republic of China today, and we discussed this too. He informed me that the Friends of Peace group will hold another meeting in New York soon to discuss this agenda.

Not only do we welcome these efforts, but we are also grateful to all our partners who have been raising these issues and want to bring about a peace deal. Why am I saying this? This is not just about the Europeans – other countries also have the right to and can participate in this process, and we respect that.

Pavel Zarubin: May I ask you to comment on a few more statements made by President Trump, which, as I mentioned earlier, are many.

Vladimir Putin: Not all of them, alright?

Pavel Zarubin: Not all. For example, he said he wanted to propose to you and the head of China to cut the defence budgets in half. What do you think about this idea?

Vladimir Putin: I am aware, or I think I know where it comes from. It is likely based on the calculations by a British think tank, which calculated our respective spending in terms of purchasing power parity. Last year, the United States had, I think, US$968 billion, and if you put Russia and China’s spending together, it will roughly add up to the same amount. Russia’s and China’s spending combined add up to what the United States is spending.

First, we need to run the numbers. The British calculations may be correct, or may be not too correct, or not correct at all. They need to be looked at closely. This is my first point.

Second, I am not in a position to comment on how the People’s Republic of China would feel about this. The US side tried different approaches regarding strategic offensive weapons and other critical matters. So, this is a matter for the People’s Republic of China to decide on. However, we could come to an agreement with the United States, we are not against it. I think this is a good idea: the United States would cut their spending by 50 percent, and we would cut ours by 50 percent. The People’s Republic of China could then join in if it wants to. We think this is a good proposal, and we are open to discussing it.

Pavel Zarubin: President Trump also imposed 25-percent tariffs on aluminium and steel imports from all countries without exception. Our aluminium business with the United States used to be quite extensive. What do you think of this trade policy?

Vladimir Putin: I am not going to comment on the US trade policy, since it has been driven by sanctions for many years now. We believe sanctions are illegal and harm global trade and economy. I believe sanctions are bad for us and those who impose them.

With regard to trade policy, higher rates, tariffs and so on, each country decides for itself what is good for it and what is not. I can understand the logic behind it. They want to bring the manufacturers into the country, to create new jobs, and to have them pay taxes to all levels of the taxation system, and so on. Without a doubt, at some point, these actions will run into certain difficulties caused by inflationary pressure, higher costs of goods, and so on. Experts are well aware of this, and they can provide every detail of how it works.

As regards aluminium, in 2017, I think, about 15 percent of US [aluminium] imports came from Russia. If memory serves, the United States produces about 60 percent of the aluminium it needs, and imports the remaining 40 percent, of which 15 percent used to come from the Russian Federation. The main importer today is Canada.

If a decision is made to open the US market to our producers, we could sell about two million tonnes on the US market, which would not drastically affect prices, but, I think, would still have a restraining influence on prices.

In addition, and what is most importantly, in my opinion, we could think about working together with US companies in this area. For example, back in Soviet times, there were plans to build a new hydroelectric power plant and to create additional aluminium production facilities in the Krasnoyarsk Territory. After all, aluminium is, first of all, about energy, preferably cheap energy. Hydropower is cheap and environmentally friendly.

To reiterate, such plans have been in place since the Soviet times. However, these are capital- and investment-intensive projects. In today’s money, according to preliminary estimates, they will cost around 15 billion. We can think about it.

Indeed, the US President’s policy is to deploy production facilities in the United States. But if the US companies come to work in Russia, it will also benefit them greatly, because the companies will turn decent profit, and the corresponding amounts of aluminium will be supplied to their domestic market at absolutely acceptable market prices. There are things to ponder in this area, as well as in our potential joint work on rare and rare-earth metals and other areas, including, for example, energy.

Pavel Zarubin: I just read the latest news coming from the United States: President Trump said the United States and Russia were discussing major economic projects as part of Ukraine talks.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, some of our respective companies are in contact and are discussing such projects.

Pavel Zarubin: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Ben Aris: Russians take it to the bank

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 2/7/25

Sanctions were supposed to hurt Russia’s economy and impoverish the people, right? Do you remember when early in the war there was the hope that the quality of life would sink so far that the population would rise up and oust Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Well, not only has that not happened, but for regular Russians life hasn’t been this good for years. The Central Bank of Russia (CBR)’s sky high interest rates are a major problem and hurting companies who are now laying off staff to cut costs – especially their IT departments. But for the man on the street they are a boon and people are cashing in on them.

In around 2019 Russia was booming again and the CBR cut the overnight rate to below 4% for the first time since 1991. Russia has always suffered from high inflation for most of the last three decades, but that fell to record lows too. Good news at a macroeconomic level. Bad news for the population as the interest rates on bank deposits tumbled to next to nothing.

One of regular Russian’s obsessions is how to protect your life savings against the ravages of inflation. And this is a very serious problem. In 1993 I fell into conversation with a babushka selling knitted socks on the street. It turned out that she had a PhD and had formerly been the chief engineer at a factory. But during the collapse of the Soviet Union her factory stopped working and her life savings – some $5000 worth of rubles, which was a lot in Soviet times – got hyperinflated away to less than $1 in a matter of months.

Russian banks have long relied on deposits as their main source of funding and offer decent rates. So when the prime rate fell to next to nothing in 2020 Russian punters started casting about for something else to invest into and for the third time started buying stocks.

It was a real boom market, as we reported at the time, and after two previous failed attempts to get regular Russians to buy stocks, it looked like this time it was really working and that Russia’s capital markers had finally come of age.

Of course, it all blew up again in 2022 after the invasion of Ukraine and the markets tanked yet again. Every time there has been a wave of retail investment into stocks the market has always blown up about a year later.

Now the setup has been turned on its head. The banks are paying at least 21% on term deposits. Inflation is high at around 10%, but that still leaves an 11% real interest rate spread on money in the bank – a very nice return indeed.

And it’s safe as houses. It’s tempting to assume that putting money in the crisis-prone Russia is very risky, but actually the opposite is true. Yes, the banking sector has blown up a few times, but the CBR’s deposit insurance scheme works extremely well and if your bank goes bust, punters will get their money back within a few weeks – provided you have less than about $30,000 in your account. (The EU equivalent is €100,000 – on a par with the Russian limits in price adjusted terms.)

And people have cash to save as currently after being stagnant for much of the last decade, Russian real disposable incomes were up to a record 9.6% in July. So for regular Russians, there are plenty of jobs, nominal wages are rising by about 12% a year, again ahead of inflation, banks are paying a healthy profit on deposits and on top of that Moscow just had a very warm winter so even the weather is nice.

That may change later this year when the economic problems are expected to get worse, but for now, for most people, life is good.

Andrew Korybko: Putin’s Praise Of Trump’s Approach To Peace Talks Sends A Message To All Of Russia’s Supporters

By Andrew Korybko, Substack, 2/28/25

Some of Russia’s supporters at home and abroad have been skeptical of Trump’s commitment to peace talks with Putin, but the latter just praised his counterpart’s approach and thus sent a message to them. He was speaking at a meeting of the board of the Federal Security Service (FSB) when said that his first contacts with Trump and his team “inspire certain hopes”. He elaborated that the US now shares Russia’s desire to repair their relations and work on addressing larger strategic problems in the world.

Putin continued by saying that “our partners demonstrate pragmatism and a realistic vision of things, and have abandoned numerous stereotypes, the so-called rules, and messianic, ideological clichés of their predecessors.” He then warned the FSB about how “A portion of Western elites are still committed to maintaining instability in the world, and these forces will try to disrupt or to compromise the newly resumed dialogue.”

This was followed by him tasking them with “leveraging every possibility offered by diplomacy and special services to thwart such attempts.” Their latest mission deserves more attention due to what it signifies. For starters, it suggests that Putin and Trump are truly approaching a game-changing deal that can be described as a “New Détente” between their countries, the potential details of which were shared in the following five analyses:

* 3 January: “Creative Energy Diplomacy Can Lay The Basis For A Grand Russian-American Deal”

* 13 February: “Here’s What Comes Next After Putin & Trump Just Agreed To Start Peace Talks”

* 14 February: “Why Might Russia Repair Its Ties With The West & How Could This Reshape Its Foreign Policy?”

* 15 February: “Vance’s Munich Speech Vindicated Putin’s Summer 2022 Prediction About Political Change In Europe”

* 25 February: “Russia & The US’ Diplomatic Choreography At The UN Shows Their Commitment To A ‘New Détente’”

Moving along, the next point is that some Western elite might try to stop this “New Détente” since it goes against their interests. Nobody knows which forms this might take, but Putin’s warning about how they could try to disrupt this process hints at provocations against Russia and/or Belarus, while his words about compromising their dialogue could refer to leaks or lies. The FSB must in any case either preemptively avert these scenarios or have plans in place for what Russia should do if they materialize.

Third, the preceding two points imply Putin’s preference for his supporters to publicly back what he’s trying to achieve in the face of resistance from some Western elite or at least not discredit him by questioning his or Trump’s intentions. In other words, the “politically correct” interpretation of recent events is that Russia and the US are sincerely working to comprehensively patch up their problems for the world’s benefit, and anything that challenges this view will be frowned upon by the Kremlin.

The fourth point builds upon the last one by raising the possibility that those supporters who defy the new “politically correct” interpretation of recent events might even be suspected of operating under the influence of the dissident Western elite. This could lead to foreign ones being “canceled” and domestic ones investigated depending upon the way in which their own dissident views are expressed. And finally, the last point is that Putin wants everyone to trust him as he tries to clinch the real “deal of the century”.

Should Ukraine Hold Elections? Arguments For and Against

These two articles were brought to my attention by Prof. Geoffrey Roberts:

A correspondent has pointed out to me that while there was no general election in Britain between 1935-1945, there were 200 parliamentary by-elections, including many during the war which featured candidates highly critical of the government. There was very lively political discussion in Britain throughout the war, not least at the height of the German Blitz. Pro-Fascist organisation were banned and their leaders interned but the British communist party remained legal and waged a massive anti-war campaign before the Soviet Union entered the conflict in June 1941 (though the party’s newspaper was temporarily prohibited). Members of leftist organisations that continued to resist war were imprisoned (including my late father-in-law), but for refusing to serve in the armed forces even in auxiliary capacities (which is what the Quakers and other pacifists did). – Prof. Geoffrey Roberts

Why shouldn’t Ukraine hold elections?

By Branko Marcetic, Responsible Statecraft, 2/24/25

For three years now, the U.S.-NATO policy of eschewing peace talks in Ukraine and pursuing a hypothetical and increasingly unlikely military victory has been predicated on defending democracy.

Ukraine, we were told, has a vibrant, flourishing democracy, and preserving its survival is worth any cost — including the tremendous loss of life, physical destruction, and economic devastation borne by the country as a result of this policy.

Yet now, Western media and commentators are in a state of panic at simply the idea that Ukraine might have to do what they’ve been saying is the entire mission of the war effort: act like a democracy.

A little background: Ukraine should have held a presidential election last year, but with the government having declared martial law shortly after the Russian invasion in February 2022, that election has been indefinitely delayed until it is lifted. That move has been controversial, including in Ukraine, where critics have complained that Zelensky — whose popularity has dropped significantly since the start of the war, and who has suspended opposition political parties, arrested, intimidated, and sanctioned potential rivals, consolidated media under his control, and generally centralized power — is using it to avoid being removed from office.

Peace negotiations have thrown a further wrinkle into this, as Fox News reported, one of the possible stages of a three-stage peace plan discussed in U.S.-Russia talks to end the war would be for Ukraine to hold elections after a ceasefire, and before the settlement is signed. It is still far from clear whether holding an election would actually be in the mix, however, as a U.S. source later walked it back, Russia’s foreign minister denied the report, and the idea hasn’t popped up in other reporting on the discussions.

In any case, one would think that, given the overwhelming concern for Ukrainian democracy among war hawks, an election in the near future would be enthusiastically welcomed. After all, it would not only give Ukraine the chance to demonstrate its democratic bona fides, but it would also prove wrong Trump’s claim that Zelensky is a “dictator,” undermine a key part of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda, and give the Ukrainian president a renewed popular mandate.

Instead, as a host of Western commentators and news outlets now charge, a democratic election in Ukraine is not only impossible, but would be dangerous, wrong, and even part of a sinister Kremlin plot.

British journalist and media personality Piers Morgan called the idea “ridiculous,” pointing to the UK’s suspension of elections during World War II. Popular Twitter commentator Aaron Rupar likewise declared it “beyond ludicrous” for Ukraine “to hold an election when the country is an active war zone and 20 percent of it is under foreign occupation.” CNN anchor Jim Sciutto suggested the Kremlin would rig any election and possibly try and assassinate Zelensky.

***

Wartime Elections as Democratic Backsliding

By Oleksandr Vodiannikov, Website, 9/27/23

Oleksandr Vodiannikov, PhD, LLM, is a member of Ukraine’s Law Reform Commission and previously served as a member of Ukraine’s Judicial Reform Council and of the Constitutional Commission.

The topic of the next elections to the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine unexpectedly surfaced in public discourse towards the end of spring this year. In May 2023, PACE President Tiny Kox called for free and fair elections, despite the ongoing war. In July 2023, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk, cautiously noted that there is no constitutional ban on holding elections during martial law, suggesting that the issue can be open for discussion. In September 2023, when questioned on the matter at the annual Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv, the President of Ukraine did not rule out such a possibility, but highlighted several practicalities that made elections unfeasible. “It is not a question of democracy. It is a question of security,” he stressed.

According to various press reports (see e.g. here, here, and here) Ukraine’s Western allies are urging the Ukrainian Government to organize elections despite the hostilities, often citing Israel as an example.

Indeed, if it were not for the war, Ukraine would already be in the midst of  the election process, as the next parliamentary ballot was supposed to be held on the last Sunday of October this year. However, on February 24, 2022, the world changed. The constitutional order of Ukraine also changed with various extraordinary mechanisms designed for extraordinary situations put in motion. This raises a logical question: can the next parliamentary elections be held under these conditions?

Julia Kyrychenko and Olha Ivasiuk’s recent article on Verfassungsblog outlines major legal and practical obstacles to holding wartime elections in Ukraine. In their illuminating analysis, the authors make a strong case against wartime elections, a viewpoint largely shared by civil society.

My argument is a bit different. I will argue that (1) wartime parliamentary elections are expressis verbis inconsistent with the Ukrainian Constitution, and (2) wartime elections would undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions and potentially lead to democratic backsliding.

Elections under extreme conditions: what does Ukraine’s Constitution say?

The prohibition of wartime elections is established in statutory law.  Article 19(1) of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” prohibits the holding of elections for the President of Ukraine, as well as elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and local self-government, under martial law. The Electoral Code of Ukraine also provides for the suspension of any electoral process from the moment martial law is introduced (Article 20).

The constitutional text is no less straightforward: In the case of martial law or a state of emergency, Article 83(4) of the Constitution provides for the extension of the Parliament’s powers until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, elected after the termination of martial law or state of emergency. The wording of this provision leaves no room for ambiguity– Parliament shall be elected after martial law is lifted. Thus, there are grounds to argue that no parliamentary elections can be constitutionally held during martial law.

While the Constitution cannot be amended during martial law (Art. 157(2)), statutory law can. If the electoral legislation is amended to allow wartime elections, it would be a valid law of the land until the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declares it unconstitutional (presumption of constitutionality). Therefore I would not rule out such a scenario with legislative enactment if international pressure increases.  However, under extreme conditions of war, can free and fair elections be held and can the expression of will be free as required by Art. 71 of the Constitution?

Julia Kyrychenko and Olha Ivasiuk have already discussed the practical, security, and human rights implications of the wartime electoral process. In the realm of constitutional law, they supplement a key argument – wartime elections infringe the democratic principles of the Constitution (Article 1 “democratic state” and Article 71 “free elections”).

The Constitution of Ukraine establishes the principle of a democratic state (Art. 1), whereby all public authority emanates from the people. This principle extends beyond elections and directly influences the principle of free elections under Article 71. Elections provide  democratic legitimation, but only if they are free and fair. This means not only must the actual act of voting remain free of coercion and undue pressure, and the right to vote of eligible voters not be removed or impaired, but the entire electoral process be fair from start to finish. This is accomplished through numerous constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality as well as through institutional and procedural mechanisms.

The dilemma of wartime elections means the choice between two options: (1) holding elections that fall short of constitutional standards, or (2) suspending the electoral process until the end of the war. Here we need to look at another facet of the democratic state principle: democracy means self-determination of the people. Self-determination is based on the idea of free, rational, and informed choice. If democratic self-determination is to be meaningful, it necessitates certain pre-legal conditions, such as continuous free debate between opposing social forces, interests, and ideas.

War, crises, and other extreme conditions are periods of “moral panic” when the world and the course of things we know crumble. A society in such periods may be willing to agree to extraordinary measures, proposals or appeals that promise a swift return to normalcy. The constitutional order, democracy, rule of law, constitutional rights and freedoms become vulnerable because during such times there is an increased risk of irrational decisions. People may panic and support policies that are unreasonable and excessive, especially when the nation’s very existence is at stake.

Therefore, between the two options, suspending the electoral process should be favored. Even if martial law is suspended for the sake of elections and the election process is put into motion, it will be constitutionally suspicious and will likely be held in contradiction to the Constitution’s fundamental principles of a democratic state and free elections. Wartime cannot guarantee an environment where electoral process participants can freely and fully express their views and wills. It also cannot ensure that all citizens serving in the armed forces, seeking refuge abroad or surviving under foreign occupation can meaningfully participate in a competitive and vibrant political life. Therefore, the unfeasibility of wartime elections is as much a question of democracy as it is of security.

Elections during the war: legality versus legitimacy

The motives behind foreign allies urging Ukraine to hold elections despite the ongoing extreme conditions are clear: they aim to  prevent Ukraine’s democratic backsliding. However, the risk of carrying ballot boxes through the trenches is similar: elections under extreme conditions would with high probability “cement” the current power constellations for the next 5-year term and at the same time undermine the public legitimacy of democratic institutions elected during wartime, thus creating a conducive environment for democratic backsliding.

Predicting the outcomes of potential elections during the war is speculative. There is no compelling precedent or case where a democracy in war, with a fifth of its territory occupied by an enemy or affected by active hostilities, has managed to conduct free and fair elections. Common wisdom tells not to change leaders in times of war. Wartime conditions have an impact on electoral choices, more so on electoral campaign dynamics and the fairness of elections. Therefore, even if the incumbent party majority in the Parliament lacks widespread popular support and would probably lose elections in peacetime, wartime conditions could provide it with a good opportunity to either consolidate its parliamentary representation or maintain the current status quo for the upcoming parliamentary term.

However, what is troubling is that wartime elections could merely pay lip service to democratic development.

The Verhovna Rada of Ukraine is the only directly democratically legitimized representative body that ensures state power is based on the people’s recognition and approval. This legitimation derives from Ukrainian citizens exercising their right to vote in parliamentary elections which, in turn, should comply with constitutional principles. If such a right is weakened due to the objective exigencies of wartime, Parliament would suffer an unsurmountable legitimacy deficit with all ensuing consequences.

First, elections that are constitutionally questionable can  undermine the legitimacy of both the process and the elected Parliament. Tens of thousands of men and women on the frontline, as well as those surviving under occupation or seeking refuge abroad, would feel deceived and treated unfairly if they were not able to vote or stand for elections. This perceived injustice would create a new divide in Ukrainian society, posing a threat to post-war reconstruction.

Suspending martial law for the sake of elections would also not be well received by the Ukrainian society. Public resentment would affect the legitimacy of the  newly elected Parliament, especially if upon reinstatement of martial law war casualties would increase. Discontent with politicians could inevitably lead to frustration with democratic institutions.

Secondly, war distorts rational choice and exacerbates societal divisions. While wartime sociological polls show a strong unity and cohesion among the Ukrainian people, underlying divisions remain, now intensified by subjective experiences and personal histories of war. These emotional aftershocks of personal experience, drama or, I would say, collective posttraumatic syndrome could transform into various scenarios of deterioration of the general psychological climate with corresponding consequences for democratic development.

Transitioning back to peacetime democracy would not be easy. The societal trauma of war will require a delicate treatment, including implementing transitional justice, promoting social cohesion, and ensuring effective and responsible functioning of democratic institutions. But what is more important, if a legislature is elected during wartime, post-war Ukrainian society would be deprived of the opportunity to resolve the country’s problems through dialogue and free debate inherent in the election process on competing visions of the nation’s future.

The story of Sir Winston Churchill is illuminating in this context. Britain suspended elections during World War II. At the end of the war, Churchill’s support in British society reached 83%. However, his party lost the post-war elections in 1945. The example of Winston Churchill shows that democratic elections are won not based on past achievements, but on visions for the future. When the basic instinct of a nation under extreme conditions threatening its very existence is survival and return to normality, the future does not exist in this sense.

Russia Matters: Zelenskyy’s Talks With Trump, Vance Implode After Unprecedented Fracas in White House

YouTube link to full press conference between Trump & Zelensky here.

Russia Matters, 2/28/25

Donald Trump’s meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House turned into an unprecedented fracas after the U.S. leader berated his Ukrainian counterpart for courting WWIII, while JD Vance accused Zelenskyy of not being grateful enough for U.S. support. To an RM staffer watching the Sky News broadcast, the tone appeared to grow contentious after Trump said he was not aligned with either party to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict,1 but is rather aligned with the U.S. and the “good of the world.”2 Raising his voice at Zelenskyy in front of TV cameras, Trump said: “You don’t have the cards right now with us, you start having problems right now. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III,” according to FT. Vance also actively participated in the melee: “Do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?” The spat was followed by Zelenskyy’s televised departure from the White House with the much-previewed U.S.-Ukrainian deal on America’s access to revenues from Ukraine’ yet untapped mineral deposits unsigned. The battle of words between Trump and Vance on one side and Zelenskyy on the other side in the White House in front of TV cameras is unprecedented. No matter what justified grievances Zelenskyy may have with the current peace process, it might have been short-sighted on his part to get into this kind of public spat with the leader of the country that has very significant leverage vis-a-vis Ukraine. Zelenskyy—who said Feb. 23 that he is willing to step down as Ukraine’s president if it would secure lasting peace for his country—has strengthened his reputation as someone capable of standing up to world leaders, but it could backfire given that Ukraine depends on the U.S. for some of the critical elements of its defense.*Prior to engaging in a shouting match with Zelenskyy in the White House on Friday, Trump had continued this week to signal his desire to end the conflict in Ukraine and revive U.S.-Russian economic ties, prompting Putin to reciprocate rhetorically. Among other things, Trump again ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine as he continued to try to woo Putin with conciliatory gestures. “NATO—you can forget about,” Trump said. “I think that’s probably the reason the whole thing started.” Trump also claimed the war could be ended “within weeks” and warned of the risk of escalation into a “third world war.” The U.S. leader also pointed to the ongoing talks on “major economic development transactions which will take place between the United States and Russia.”3 In his turn, Putin claimed openness to peace and a “dialogue on … an indivisible European and global security system for the long term,” but reaffirmed his claim that annexed Ukrainian regions are “non-negotiable.” He also insisted that Ukraine cannot be allowed to continue serving as a “hostile outpost” against Russia. In separate comments this week, Putin said he is ready to cooperate with Washington on developing rare-earth elements that the U.S. needs. While praising Trump for his overtures and offering opportunities to revive some of the bilateral economic ties, Putin also tasked the FSB with thwarting any attempts to disrupt “newly resumed dialogue” between the U.S. and Russia. One would struggle to recall whether and when Putin has previously tasked the FSB with protecting U.S.-Russian relations from being disrupted. Also, Putin’s tasking of the FSB confirms that its remit is not limited to domestic security, making it a competitor to the SVR and GRU in activities outside Russia.Russian and U.S. officials met in Istanbul on Feb. 27 to discuss embassy-related issues as part of efforts to stabilize bilateral ties, according to MT/AFP. The U.S. State Department described the talks as “constructive,” with both sides identifying initial steps to stabilize diplomatic mission operations. The discussions addressed resolving financial and property disputes affecting diplomatic missions, including the return of six Russian properties seized by the U.S. between 2016 and 2018, according to Meduza. Russia also proposed resuming direct flights with the U.S. during the talks, according to Meduza. The U.S. delegation, led by Deputy Assistant Secretary Sonata Coulter, raised concerns about banking access and embassy staffing, while Russia’s delegation was headed by Alexander Darchiyev. During the talks, the U.S. approved Darchiyev as Russia’s new ambassador to Washington, according to Meduza.The leaders of China and Russia sought to project a unified front on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine amid U.S. overtures to Moscow seen as attempts to pry the two powers apart, WSJ reported. In a phone call Feb. 24, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Putin described the relationship between their countries as robust and immune to interventions from any third country, according to this newspaper. Xi said that China and Russia are “true friends who share weal and woe, support each other and develop together.” The Kremlin said that Putin—who has also sent Security Council chief Sergei Shoigu to meet Xi this week—informed his counterpart “about the recent Russian-American contacts.” “The President of China expressed his support for the dialogue initiated between Russia and the United States,” according to the Kremlin.In the past month, Russia gained 191 square miles of Ukraine’s territory (about 2 Martha’s Vineyard islands). In Russia’s Kursk Oblast, Ukraine lost 10 square miles in the past week—the fastest rate of loss of Russian territory for Ukraine since early December 2024, according to the Feb. 26, 2025, issue of the Russia-Ukraine War Report Card. Additionally, Russia launched the largest number of Shahed drones against Ukraine to date on the night of Feb. 22 to 23 (267), according to Zelenskyy. Up to half of the drones that Russia launches are dummies, according to the Ukrainian air force.