Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 73
August 14, 2024
The Bell: Preparing for new ‘confiscation wars’
The Bell, 7/26/24
The Kremlin wants to make it easier to seize Western assetsRussia is currently discussing a legal mechanism to seize funds from frozen accounts belonging to foreigners. Officials calculate that even the existence of such a mechanism should reduce the possibility of Russian assets being confiscated in the West. In a worst case scenario, it will allow Russia to fight a new battle of the “confiscation war” in which Russia and the West seek to inflict tit-for-tat economic harm on one another.
A source told Interfax about the government’s plans earlier this month. And two sources confirmed to The Bell that the authorities are, indeed, drawing up a document that permits the seizure of foreign-owned funds in frozen accounts. It would be used in response to any attempt to seize Central Bank assets abroad.The accounts officials have in mind are so-called Type C accounts. These are escrow accounts that appeared in 2022 on the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putinin in response to the blocking of Russian assets abroad at the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Back then, assets of Russian investors held in accounts at Russia’s National Settlement Depository (NSD) in Europe, and Central Bank assets in Western countries, were frozen. In response, Russia stopped foreign investors from withdrawing funds with the introduction of these Type C accounts. These accounts are credited with interest and dividends paid out by Russian securities. But this money cannot be transferred out of Russia without the express permission of a government commission. In the meantime, it can only be used to purchase Russian government bonds, or pay taxes.Type C accounts are an important part of the system of capital controls created in 2022 in response to Western sanctions and the seizure of Central Bank assets. Put simply, it was foreign investors who paid the price for the freezing of Russian assets. The Kremlin clearly hopes – at some point – to be able to exchange the funds held in Type C accounts for frozen Russian assets in the West.Last year, Vladimir Chistyukhin, deputy chairman of Russia’s Central Bank, referred to Type C accounts as an “exchange fund,” and called for Russia to accumulate more of them. The term “exchange fund” is normally applied to prisoners or detained spies, who can be traded for Russians held in Western jails.Amid discussions in the West about the possible seizure of frozen Russian assets, Putin signed decree № 442 in May. This established a special compensation process for losses sustained by Russia, or the Russian Central Bank, as a result of U.S. actions. The decree enables Russian courts to mandate compensation via U.S.-owned securities in Russia, property rights and shares in Russian companies.However, the document currently under discussion will simplify the process of seizing foreign-held assets. Likely, the process would resemble assets forfeiture. Claims will be filed by the Central Bank, or the Federal Property, and the government’s Commission on Monitoring Foreign Investments would be tasked with determining the assets for an immediate seizure.In total, there are about 1 trillion rubles ($12 billion) frozen in Type C accounts. This is far less than the equivalent amount of Russian funds frozen in the west (about $300 billion), but twice as much as the Russian money frozen in the U.S. ($5 billion).Washington is the most prominent advocate of seizing Russian assets and transferring them to Ukraine, insisting that such a course of action would be legal. But, so far, Europe has refused to do this. Instead, the U.S. has organized its own scheme: Russian assets are not confiscated, but interest earned from them is transferred to Ukraine via debt. Russia, unsurprisingly, claims this is illegal. However, it is unclear whether the Kremlin regards it as de facto confiscation.Why the world should careEven if the mechanism currently under discussion is never used, officials hope its existence might reduce the likelihood of Russian assets being seized in the West (perhaps by encouraging Western companies with assets stuck in Russia to lobby against any such confiscations). If it is used, however, it would be an escalatory step. It would not so much damage Russia’s investment image (which can’t get much worse) as reduce the chances of Russian owners of frozen assets in the West ever getting their money back.
August 13, 2024
Krishen Mehta: The Blunt Instrument of Western Sanctions
By Krishen Mehta, ACURA, 7/9/24
As of this writing, the US has placed sanctions on over 30 countries, close to one-third of the world’s population. When the pandemic started, the US vetoed the $ 5 Billion emergency loan that Iran had requested from the IMF to buy equipment and vaccines from the foreign market. The Caesar sanctions against Syria, put in place in 2020, have caused a tremendous humanitarian crisis, with 80% of the population having fallen below the poverty line. Studies show that the sanctions on Iraq in the 1990’s caused the death of almost half a million children. The US has repeatedly sanctioned Venezuela’s food distribution program, CLAP, in an effort to bring about the overthrow of the Government of Nicolas Maduro.
Assets being frozen is another extension of Western sanctions. In 2021, about $ 9 Billion of reserves held by Afghanistan in banks across the US and Europe were frozen when the Afghan government fell to the Taliban that year. Since the Revolution in 1979, Iranian assets blocked by the West and which remain in Western financial institutions are estimated at about $ 100 Billion. Venezuela’s gold remains frozen in the Bank of England in spite of repeated appeals by the Government of Nicolas Maduro to have the gold returned. And more recently, Russia’s sovereign wealth of about $ 300 Billion has been frozen by the collective West.
Due to these sanctions, almost one-third of the World’s population has been unable to access medicines that are essential to their survival. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies that “everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being” which explicitly includes medical care even in times of conflict. Both international law and the ethical principle of justice require guaranteed access to healthcare, regardless of the person’s nationality or citizenship.
Why Tax Avoidance by Western Multinational Companies (MNCs) is another form of Sanctions
A subject that is not sufficiently discussed or debated is the issue of tax avoidance by Western MNCs which itself acts as a form of sanctions on the developing countries or the Global South. A recent report published by the European Union, The Global Tax Evasion Report 2024, provides an insight into the problem.
(https://www.taxobservatory.eu/www-site/uploads/2023/10/global_tax_evasion_report_24.pdf)
The report states that close to 35% of all profits booked by Western MNCs annually are shifted to tax havens. According to the report, the profit that was shifted to tax havens in 2022 alone was close to $ 1 trillion, and US multinationals were responsible for about 40% of that. That means that US MNCs very likely paid little or no taxes on close to $ 400 Billion of profits in 2022 alone. And this is a practice that has been going on for decades.
According to the IMF, the implications of this profit shifting by Western MNCs to the developing countries is profound and deeply disturbing. The Fund estimates that the tax losses to the developing countries as a result of this profit shifting by Western MNCs is at least $ 200 Billion a year. Page 21 of the report estimates the tax losses for both developing countries and developed countries as a result of this profit shifting. Since this study was done some years back, the actual tax losses that developing countries suffer annually could be even higher than the $ 200 Billion referred to in the report.
If we consider that taxes are an investment in a country’s future, whether it be for education, environment, health care, and other critical needs, this also means that the developing countries are losing at least $ 200 Billion of investment annually – revenue that rightfully belongs to them. Instead, these funds are routed or transferred to Western MNCs and through them to the collective West. If the IMF estimates of annual tax losses are correct then it also means that over a ten-year period developing countries have lost tax revenue of over $ 2 trillion over the last decade. If this is not another form of extractive colonialism, then what is?
From the perspective of the developing countries, one could argue that the global tax architecture is rigged in favor of the West to shift or expropriate tax revenues that rightfully belong to them. The current international tax system was created almost a century ago by the League of Nations. At that time much of the Global South was still under colonial rule and had little or no say in the design of the system. This system was further codified by the post-Bretton Woods institutions that came into place after the Second World War and it continues to this day. The net result is that it deprives the developing countries of investments that are critical to their future. It should therefore not be surprising that many of the developing countries are in debt to the IMF, the World Bank, and to Western financial institutions for essential borrowings just to survive. In effect, while these countries have political independence they do not have economic independence.
What can the Global South do to counter this trend? The feasibility of Reverse Sanctions
The Global South can fight back by telling Western MNCs that wish to do business in their jurisdictions that they need to play by rules that are both equitable and reciprocal. At a fundamental level the Global South countries must demand that there be no more tax avoidance by Western MNCs and that there be complete transparency to their operations. The developing countries need to ascertain how much is properly taxable in their jurisdictions and ensure that these taxes are paid to them instead of being siphoned or redirected to tax havens beyond their reach through sophisticated tax schemes that are difficult to challenge. Going forward this needs to be the condition of doing business in the Global South.
In the past, the developing countries were not in a position to insist on these conditions. The technology and capital of the West was needed by the developing countries to bring their people out of poverty. So they acquiesced to whatever conditions the Western companies required of them. And this resulted in the emergence of an international tax architecture where profit shifting away from developing countries became the new norm.
But times have changed. Today, the Global South has the leverage to fight back.
A new paradigm is emerging. We are moving away from a unipolar world. The Bretton Woods structure is outdated, and the IMF and the World Bank are no longer the answer to the financial and economic needs of the Global South. Other sources of finance, capital, energy, and food security are now available to the Global South. As of November 2023, the BRICS had only five members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), but that month four more members were added (Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE). There are now 59 countries that have applied for membership in BRICS.
In addition to BRICS, much of the Global South is now a participant in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). As of December 2023, 151 countries had become members of BRI. The BRI, sometimes referred to as the New Silk Road, is a global infrastructure development strategy adopted by China in 2013 to invest in more than 150 countries and international organizations. And a number of developing countries have already benefited from this initiative.
As an alternative to the IMF and the World Bank, the BRICS now have their own New Development Bank. The purpose of this Bank is to help mobilize resources for infrastructure and sustainable development in the Global South. Trade is taking place in currencies other than the dollar, resulting in less control and mandates by legacy Bretton Woods institutions. As a result, the Global South has leverage today that it has never had before. It can assert the conditions for MNCs to do business in their jurisdictions. If they assert this leverage effectively they can stem (if not stop) the corporate tax avoidance that has been taking place for decades.
Specific actions that the Global South can take vis-a-vis Western MNCs to level the Playing Field?
On June 7, 2024, the United Nations published a draft Terms of Reference (ToR) on a UN Convention on International Tax Cooperation. This sets out the basic parameters for a future tax convention that will address priority areas that affect developing countries. These include the taxation of the digitalized and globalized economy, taxation of income derived from cross-border services, tax related illicit financial flows, and prevention and resolution of tax disputes. The Global South should be fully engaged with the UN on the new Tax Convention even though the United States and much of the Collective West opposes it. The UN Convention is the opportunity now for developing countries to take control of their own tax destiny and to move it away from the policy making bodies of the OECD.
In addition, the Global South should pursue certain additional steps to help reduce tax avoidance by MNCs. These include:
(a) Country by Country Reporting, whereby MNCs would be required to disclose their activity in each jurisdiction where they do business. This will bring transparency to the use of tax havens, and the profit shifting that may be taking place currently. This should be a condition for doing business in the Global South.
(b) Formulary Apportionment and Unitary Taxation: This involves the quantification of certain apportionment factors to help determine the revenue that is properly taxable in each jurisdiction. Developing countries can demand that this formula be applied to MNCs doing business in their jurisdictions. It is the most fair way to ensure that profit shifting is not taking place.
(c) Impose withholding taxes on all payments to subsidiaries of MNCs that are located offshore. Payments to related subsidiaries in tax havens is perhaps the most common way for MNCs to shift income from developing countries. By imposing a withholding tax on such payments, developing countries protect revenue that is rightfully theirs.
(d) Bilateral investment treaties should be phased out. These treaties lock the developing countries into certain payment mechanisms that are not always favorable to them. They generally favor the investing country. Since 2016, India has terminated 77 of its Bilateral investment treaties. Other countries can learn from this experience and revisit their own existing treaties.
(e) Review of long-term agreements with MNCs to ensure that they provide both the developing country and the MNC a fair share of benefits from the underlying project. Whether it is mining, refining, or other aspects of the value chain, it is important to ensure that no tax abuse has crept in since the project was initiated and that it remains a win-win for both parties.
Conclusion – Negotiating fair practices, not seeking confrontation
The approach that is being suggested above is one of negotiating fair practices that are equitable to both sides and not to seek confrontation.It is important that developing countries take control of their own tax future, and take concrete steps to stem the current tax avoidance. Otherwise they will continue to lose access to investments that are critical for their future. As the global economy moves to a more multipolar world, and the West is not the only game in town, it is time for developing countries to assert their own conditions for western MNCs that wish to do business in their jurisdictions. The annual tax loss of about $ 200 Billion is not small change, it rightfully belongs to the developing countries, and should not be routed to tax havens.
If Western MNCs do not wish to abide by these rules, they can exercise the option of going to other jurisdictions. But the reality is that developing countries hold most of the resources that the Western MNCs need. That was true during the colonial era, and remains largely true now. So the options for the MNCs to go elsewhere are also somewhat limited. While such a step might be seen by some as ‘imposing sanctions in return’ the fact is that this is perhaps the only way for the Global South to access resources that are rightfully theirs. It is the only way for them to protect and sustain their own future.
Krishen Mehta is a former partner at PwC, and now a Senior Global Justice Fellow at Yale University. He is also a co-editor of a book, Global Tax Fairness, published by Oxford University Press.
August 12, 2024
Andrew Korybko: Newly Released Footage Proves That Gershkovich & Whelan Were Indeed American Spies
By Andrew Korybko, Substack, 8/9/24
The US Government (USG) insisted throughout the entire time of Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan’s imprisonment in Russia on espionage charges that these two were “wrongfully detained”, but newly released footage from the FSB proves that they were indeed American spies. Folks can view the footage of Gershkovich here and Whelan here, both of which have a brief video analysis from RT’s Murad Gazdiev embedded at the bottom that’s also worth watching to place everything into context.
Gershkovich’s includes audio which proves that he knew that he was soliciting classified defense secrets on behalf of the Wall Street Journal and then planned to mislead their readers by claiming that they only spoke to an “anonymous source” without mentioning that they also obtained documents about this. He also tried hiding the flash drive that he obtained during his meeting with his source in a Yekaterinburg restaurant when he was arrested, which the video specifically highlights to draw attention to.
As for Whelan, there’s no audio in his video but it shows him receiving a flash drive in a hotel bathroom from a friend who he claimed during his interrogation was allegedly giving him pictures of churches. RT’s brief analytical video amusingly mocks his story as absurd. After all, Gazdiev reminded everyone that friends share pictures over email or text, not via flash drives in hotel bathrooms. Just like Gershkovich, he also obviously knew that he was illegally soliciting classified secrets, in this case about FSB officers.
Nevertheless, CNN promptly spun this newly released footage as alleged evidence of “entrapment”, completely ignoring the fact that both men knowingly accepted flash drives from their Russian sources that they were told contained classified information about their host country’s national security. It’s altogether a very shoddy information product that reeks of desperation to distract from the visual evidence that those two were literally caught red-handed receiving Russian state secrets.
It can only be speculated whether CNN’s Nathan Hodge – their London-based Senior Row Editor who used to serve as the outlet’s Moscow bureau chief and whose official bio reveals that he was “embedded extensively with the US military” – is running interference for the USG on his own or as a favor to friends. In any case, the fact that someone with such “impressive credentials” from the Mainstream Media’s perspective produced such a shoddy information product shows how much the West is panicking.
CNN’s reaction is literally Orwellian too since one can’t help but recall what he wrote in 1984 about how “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” That’s precisely what’s happening here since average Westerners are being told that neither Gershkovich nor Whelan were caught red-handed, the first of whom even acknowledged on tape that he knew he was soliciting secrets and planned to mislead his audience about the origin of that information.
The reality is that foreign intelligence agencies have always had some of their spies disguise themselves as journalists and tourists, and the US isn’t the only country that does so, of course. Be that as it may, whenever its spies get busted after hiding under these covers, the US always plays dumb and denies that they were engaged in espionage. It relies on a combination of the public’s generally friendly attitude towards journalists and tourists as well as their negative one towards rival states to keep up the charade.
Ironically enough, this gaslighting ends up backfiring whenever the US’ detained spies are swapped with another country’s alleged ones like what happened during last week’s historic exchange. Whichever party is in opposition at the time can claim like Trump just did that actual Russian spies were traded for “American hostages”, which could supposedly “encourage more hostage-taking” and should thus have never happened. Even so, it remains unclear how much of the population is receptive to those claims.
The importance of the footage that the FSB just shared about Gershkovich and Whelan’s arrests is that it debunks the fake news alleging that they were “innocent Americans taken hostage by Russia”. They were bonafide spies who knew the risks that they were taking, especially Gershkovich, who exploited his cover as a journalist to engage in espionage and thus risked endangering his colleagues in other countries. Neither of them deserves the sympathy that they received from their misled fellow Americans.
Kyiv Independent: 44% of Ukrainians believe it’s time to start official peace talks with Russia, survey finds
Kyiv Independent, 7/15/24
Almost 44% of Ukrainians think that it is time for official peace negotiations with Russia, according to a survey published by the ZN.ua media outlet on July 15.
At the same time, a majority of respondents were also opposed to the current ceasefire conditions laid out by Russian President Vladimir Putin, which would entail the complete Ukrainian withdrawal from the four regions that are partially occupied by Russia.
Russia also illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and currently fully controls the territory.
The figure nonetheless represented an increase in the number of Ukrainians who were in favor of negotiations compared to a similar poll conducted in May 2023, which found that 23% of respondents supported entering talks with Russia.
According to the ZN.ua survey, 35% said they were opposed to peace negotiations, and 21% said they were undecided. There was some degree of regional discrepancy in the results, with the highest number of respondents in favor of negotiations being in the south of Ukraine, at 60%.
In western Ukraine, 35% said they supported peace talks, a similar figure to those from eastern Ukraine (33%), where the bulk of the heaviest fighting and associated war-related destruction is ongoing.
An overwhelming majority of respondents (83%) said they were opposed to the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the partially occupied oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, which were illegally annexed by Russia in October 2022.
Another 76% said they believed that Putin would only allow a peace deal on his own terms.
A slim majority (61%) were not ready to give any concessions to Russia in order to obtain a peace deal, and 66% of respondents said they still believed in military victory over Russia. More than half (51%) said that a return to the 1991 borders, which would include all four partially occupied regions and Crimea, to be the minimum conditions for a peace agreement.
August 11, 2024
Frank Morano Interviews Scott Ritter On Why The FBI Raided His Home
https://wabcradio.com/episode/frank-morano-scott-ritter-on-why-the-fbi-raided-his-home/#/
Follow the above link to this 15 minute interview in which Ritter gives the most detail yet on why the FBI raided his home last week. Kudos to Michael Averko for bringing attention to this interview. – Natylie
Daniel Larison: What will Vance do for Trump’s foreign policy?
By Daniel Larison, Responsible Statecraft, 7/15/24
Donald Trump announced earlier today that he had selected Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance to be his running mate. Coming only two days after the assassination attempt on the former president in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump’s selection elevated the young first-term senator to the Republican national ticket as the party’s national convention was getting underway in Milwaukee. In choosing Vance, Trump seems to have ignored pressure from Rupert Murdoch, who had reportedly been lobbying intensively in favor of North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and against Vance. Trump has chosen a loyalist who will appeal to his core supporters in the party’s populist wing.
While the selection makes sense in terms of the senator’s political alignment with Trump, it is somewhat unconventional given Vance’s limited experience in government. Vance will be the youngest vice presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1952. He has been in elected office for only a year and a half. Vance will likely face a lot of questions about his preparedness to serve as president if necessary.
Trump’s selection will likely prove to be controversial. Vance has become something of a lightning rod for criticism in Washington, especially since he entered the Senate. He first rose to national prominence as an author and critic of Trump’s candidacy in 2016, but he has since transformed himself into a vocal defender of the former president in the last few years. He has closely aligned himself with Trump’s agenda, and he has become a leading critic of the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy.
Vance went to the Munich Security Conference earlier this year to press his case against military aid to Ukraine. If a Trump-Vance ticket wins, it is conceivable that the U.S. could begin reducing or cutting off aid to Ukraine next year. That said, his skepticism about U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts doesn’t seem to extend beyond Ukraine.
Like Trump, Vance also holds some very hawkish foreign policy views. He has attacked Biden for “micromanaging” Israel’s war in Gaza, and he agrees with Trump that the Israeli government should “finish the job.” He has taken a remarkably hardline position on the war and U.S. support for it. He has said, “don’t use America’s leverage to effectively cause the Israelis to pull back here.”
As Reason’s Matthew Petti reported this spring, Vance has sharply criticized the neoconservative record in the Middle East, but “he’s doubling down on exactly the vision they’ve had all along: an alliance of Israel and Sunni Muslim–led states, backed by U.S. military power, to ‘police’ the region.” The U.S. will be hard-pressed to reduce its entanglements in the Middle East if it continues to sustain Israel’s destructive military campaigns. It is impossible to see how implicating the U.S. in the war crimes of its clients serves American interests or makes Americans any safer.
As we have seen over the last nine months, backing a client’s atrocious war does not free up U.S. resources and keep U.S. forces out of harm’s way. On the contrary, it puts targets on the backs of our soldiers and sailors, and it ensnares the U.S. in more unnecessary conflicts with other regional actors. Far from shifting the burden to clients, this approach has imposed new costs on the United States.
Vance’s hawkishness extends to East Asia as well. He has framed his opposition to aid for Ukraine primarily in terms of needing to focus U.S. resources on containing China, and he faults Biden for not doing enough on this front. Vance’s position implies that he thinks that the U.S. should be significantly increasing its weapon shipments to partners and adding to its military presence in the region. To the extent that U.S. policy in East Asia is too heavily weighted in favor of a “military-first” approach, this risks making things worse.
The senator has also expressed support for military action against drug cartels in Mexico. In a 2023 interview, he said, “I want to empower the president of the United States, whether that’s a Democrat or Republican, to use the power of the U.S. military to go after these drug cartels.” This has become a popular idea in the Republican Party in recent years, but it would be a bad policy for both the U.S. and Mexico. As Christopher Fettweis explained in Responsible Statecraft last year, “any military operation would almost certainly fail to destroy the cartels” and “it would not stop the flow of drugs into the United States.” Vance should know from his own military service in Iraq that the U.S. shouldn’t send its troops on impossible, open-ended missions.
Vance’s foreign policy record is not that long, but it contains some warning flags that the American people should take into consideration.
August 10, 2024
Oliver Boyd-Barrett: Stalling in Kursk, Waiting In Tehran
By Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Substack, 8/10/24
Kursk OffensiveThere are significantly different narratives about how Ukraine’s Kursk offensive unfolded over the past 24 hours. But they share the conclusions that (1) the main Ukrainian aim was to seize the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant south of Kursk city; (2) this was not accomplished and cannot now be accomplished; (3) that Russia has largely stabilized the situation in its favor at points north and east of Sudzha; (4) that Ukrainian options are now more limited, either to advancing southeastwards towards places like Belitza or to dig in deeper where Ukrainian forces still have the upper hand, closer to the Russian border with Ukraine (south and west of Sudzha), to build fortifications and to continue to try to stretch the Russian front lines and to harrass Russia over the coming months (even though most everyone agrees that the Ukrainian army is hardly in a good position to try to carry this out effectively).
Pro-Russian forces, citing Russian sources such as the mayors of Sudzha and Keranovo, are dismissive of accounts that claim that large parts of Sudzha, parts of Keranovo (northwest of Sudzha) and Martynovko (north east of Sudzha) fell to Ukrainian control as many accounts attest. The latest account from Dima of the Military Summary Channel, based in Belarus, and broadcasting at around midday, California time, of Saturday, August 10th. does not align with these. But whereas pro-Russian accounts deny that Russian reinforcements were seriously impeded and fired upon as a result of traffic blockages incited by Ukrainian demands that citizens evacuate, I notice that Dima has nothing further to say on this topic since his report of it yesterday. The mayor of Sudzha has claimed that what really happened was that Ukrainian forces tried to stall evacuation attempts by firing at Russian vehicles.
Dima does describe the current situation as a “turning point,” in Russia’s favor, and that from tomorrow, Russia is likely to regain the initiative and Ukraine likely to fall back. He reports that there are now doubts whether Ukrainian forces ever did advance westerwards from Lybulinovka to Snagost or that Ukrainians ever reached Keranovo from Snagost, although Ukrainian sources claim to have fire control (by drone) over southeast Keranovo.
Russian MoD appears to confirm that Ukrainian forces did reach close to Kromstiye Byki (north of Anastas’yevka) by reporting a Russian attack on a Ukrainian convoy that was discovered in that area and in which ten Ukrainian armored vehicles were destroyed. Russian reinforcements have arrived and no further Ukrainian advance is anticipated. Likewise, Ukrainian forces did reach the first buildings of Martynovka, but were repelled by Russian reinforcements sent down from Bol’shoye Soldatskouye. Ukrainian troops withdrew to Sudzha. A Ukrainian convoy was destroyed and rebuffed in Cherkasskoye Porechone, west of Bol’shoye Soldstskoye.
In effect the latest Russian line of defense now runs from east of Mikhaylovka through Martynovka up to Pyccko, certainly shutting Ukraine off from an advance towards the KNPP.
Ukrainian forces appear still to be in control of northern Sudzha in the areas of Kasachy Loknye, Zaoleshenka and Gonchsrovka, and appear to have pushed Russia from Plekovo. And many if not most of the rest of Sudzha still appears as contested areas on Dima’s map. To the south of Sudzha, Ukrainian forces may still be in control of the settlements of Kurilovka, Melovoy and Guyevo and certainly control a large area of territory around those locations.
The likelihood of a Ukrainian push in the direction of Belitsa, Giri, Ulanok and Kommunar still exists but seems increasingly weak.
Did Authorities Ignore the Warnings?
I referred yesterday to reports that Russian Chief of Staff Gerasimov had warnings of a Ukrainian concentration of forces south of the border in Sumy two weeks ago and appeared not to have taken sufficiently rapid attention. This may be linked to the account relayed today by Dima who says that some weeks ago Belarus had reacted strongly to the invasion over its territory of Ukrainian drones east of Minsk. Belarus accordingly strengthened its troops in the directions of Gomel and Mozyr and improved its border positions. In July, when a concentration of Ukrainian troops was observed in Ukraine south of the border with Belarus there was a negotiation between Ukraine and Belarus, with the result that Belarus withdrew its forces from close to the border and Ukraine did the same. But Ukraine redeployed these forces towards Kursk.
Elsewhere along the combat lines, it is reported that Russia has established control over most of the northern sector of Vovchansk, has broken through Ukrainian defenses in northern Kupyansk around Tabaivka and Pischane and has encircled Stelmakhivka (south of Pischane). In the Toretsk/Niu York conurbation, Russia has estblished control over 30% of Druzhba, and has moved westward from Yurivka towards Panteleimonivka and Valentynivka. In the Pokrovsk area, Russia has established control over Ivanivka and Russian forces are close to Hrodivka. Fierce clashes continue in the Kostianynivka area but it seems very unlikely that Ukraine can hold out there for much longer. Russia continues to press northwards from Urozhaine, and continues to suppress Ukrainian attempts on the Tendra Spit in the Dnieper estuary.
Imported Weapons
Recent reports in the New York Times and elsewhere that Russia imports large numbers of drones, and will import hundreds of ballistic missiles from Iran, including the Fath-360 and Ababil, and that Russian production of its own missiles are increasingly “hand to mouth” because of the speed with which missiles appear on the battlefield after manufacture, might suggest a significant weakness in Russian production capability.
There are so many previous reports that suggest otherwise, that I think these latest should be taken with a hefty dose of salt. I don’t know for certain what the explanations really are but I would not be surprised that Russia would choose to take advantage of an ally’s existing specialized expertise in certain weapons, or by the ability of an ally to produce certain weapons at a cost lower than domestic equivalents, particularly if this helped consolidate the bonds between Russia and its ally. I suspect that Russian ability to move missiles quickly from the factory to the battlefield is something Russia might celebrate, first of all because of its efficiency and secondly because it would suggest that the most advanced weapons are being prioritized.
The Ababil missile , according to RBC Ukraine and MSN, is a small missile measuring 3.7 meters in length, weighing 240 kg, with a range of up to 86 km. Analysts note that the Ababil exists in two versions: one with satellite and inertial navigation, and another with an additional optical-electronic guidance system for the terminal phase. The Fath-360 missile is 5.1 meters long, with a diameter of 368 mm, and a total weight of 787 kg, of which 150 kg is the warhead. It reaches speeds of up to Mach 4 and has a flight range of up to 120 km. The guidance system includes an inertial system and satellite navigation.
EuropeWriting for Propaganda in Focus today, Stephan Sander-Faes (Sander-Faes) weighs the possibility that US handling of the conflict with Russia over Ukraine, and its increasing lack of respect for European sovereignty, is fomenting a backlash that will break the bonds that have gripped Europe in the bear-hug of the US since 1945.
“Europe, on the other hand, is circling down the maelstrom of economic disaster stemming from its adversarial policies vis-à-vis Russia.
“In the meantime, anti-Globalism and anti-Americanism are beginning to coalesce with the European people’s criticism of the EU Commission’s handling of the energy crisis. Slowly, extra-parliamentary opposition to the increased conferral of power to Brussels is merging with calls for the restoration of popular sovereignty and calls to end Europe’s utter dependence and subservience to US foreign policy diktats.
It appears that the — so far successful — US policy to destabilise Russia to induce the economic suicide of Europe is reaching its next phase: the pushback from the peoples of Europe who, deprived of many of the promised benefits of legacy policies such as increased EU integration and unquestioning Transatlaticism, might be America’s undoing”.
Meantime, Intellinews reports that the level of Russians’ trust in President Vladimir Putin stands at 81.5%, according to a poll conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM), TASS reported on July 12. Perhaps this is related in no small part to continuing evidence of robustness in the Russian economy as confirmed yesterday by The Bell (The Bell) in answering the question of why is investment in Russia at a 12-year high? It notes thst Capital investment (expenditure on new construction, higher-tech equipment for enterprises, purchase of new kit, etc.) in 2023 hit a 12-year high of 34 trillion rubles, almost 10% more than the year before. In the first three months of this year, Russian companies invested 5.9 trillion rubles, up 14.5% year-on-year. Russia’s positive “investment gap” – i.e. the difference in growth rates between investment and GDP – has reached a 15-year high, according to the Moscow-based Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-term Forecasting (CMASF). The government is getting close to hitting one of its long-term targets – getting the proportion of investment in Russia’s GDP to 25%. Three reasons why companies are investing so much at the moment: import substitution; Russia’s “Pivot to the East” and government support, especially in military spending and a wide range of social benefits, including subsidized mortgages.
Middle EastContinuing Israeli atrocities in Gaza, including the bombing of schools that are being used as shelters by homeless and displaced Palestinians (at least a hundred dead on this account over the past few days) – on the pretext, for which evidence is never supplied and, even if true, would be obscenely disproportionate, that Hamas fighters have been identified in such shelters – increase the doubts that there is any seriousness in the Israeli cabinet about a ceasefire with Hamas and that, even if there was a ceasefire agreement, Israel would respect it beyond an opening phase of negotiations.
The world has waited now for several days to see if Iran would retaliate against Israel for Israel’s recent assassinations of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders. Equally, it has waited to see if Israel would make preemptive attack on Israel and/or would invade southern Lebanon. Various theories have been canvassed as to why it has taken Iran this long to retaliate. Iran’s Supreme Leader had ordered a retaliation, and this was anticipated to take place within 72 hours of that order. We have long exceeded 72 hours, so what is going on? Some analysts speculate, encouraged by Washington voices, that the US, with carrott and stick, has persuaded Iran not to proceed. Others report that Russia, for different reasons and with different arguments, has also advised Tehran to hold its fire. Still others speculate that in-fighting in Tehran between the political and military leadership, perhaps exacerbated by western media reports (doubtful, if should be said) that IRGC personnel may have collaborated in the recent assassination in Tehran of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, may have led the new President, Pezeshkisan, to hold back.
Or, and this seems to me to be perhaps the most likely, Tehran simply needs to be in a stronger state of readiness before proceeding, on at least three counts: (1) seeking the necessary support from trusted allies and even others in the region, including Saudi Arabia and members of the Organization of Islamic States; (2) identifying locations for missile launchers outside of Iran in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Yemen, firming agreements with its allies and delivering the weapons and the personnel required to use them; (3) awaiting delivery from Russia of electronic warfare and radar equipment and advanced missiles, determining the locations for these and accommodating the Russian advisers who would be needed to support these operations. A fourth possibility, much less likely in my view, is that Iran is waiting either to complete a subterfuge nuclear weapon or is waiting for Russia to supply a nuclear warhead for capping missiles already in Iranian possession.
Western Mainstream MediaMelvin Goodman, writing in Counterpunch today (Goodman), noting the New York Times has always favored Israel, focuses on the newspaper columnist Bret Stephens, a former editor of the Jerusalem Post who Goodman says left the Wall Street Journal to join the Times in 2017 because he believed Israel was not getting a fair hearing in the mainstream media. Exemplifying pro-war policies, Stephens’s most recent column supported any Israeli military option that “advanced Israel’s national interests on all fronts.” Goodman notes that Stephens” never refers to the genocidal campaign that Israel is waging in Gaza and to a degree on the West Bank, where land has been appropriated by Orthodox Jews on a daily basis.” He dismisses those who protest Israeli actions as “Iran’s useful idiots” and antisemites. He supports increases to the defense budget that will assure “global primacy.”
Meantime, for Consortium News (Mick Hall), Mick Hall writes that major international media face a dilemma over whether to adapt their reporting to the World Court’s judgment last month that Israel is an apartheid state illegally occupying Palestinian territory or continue to reflect a dominant narrative giving Israel ideological succor. He writes:
“The rule of international law and rule of U.S. hegemony stands diametrically opposed and the non-Western world sees it, a reality Western media thus far has studiously avoided to represent to its own increasingly skeptical audiences.
“Western news leaders now have a choice, assuming they are not themselves as deluded as those wielding power, making rational choice impossible. Either continue as is, or attempt to achieve a semblance of credibility by aligning descriptors in reports with determinations of the U.N.’s top judicial body.
“The decision will ultimately come down to whether any moral agency remains within those institutions, but more likely, whether those states funding them change their diplomatic settings in the way that the ICJ advisory opinion requires.”
Empire, Communication and NATO Wars is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts, additional benefits and to support my work, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you have not already done so. Thank you!
Intellinews: Trust in President Putin stands at 81.5% – poll
Intellinews, 7/12/24
The level of Russians’ trust in President Vladimir Putin stands at 81.5%, according to a poll conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM), TASS reported on July 12.
“Asked if they trusted Putin, 81.5% of survey participants responded in the affirmative (plus 0.6 percentage points). The president’s job approval rating increased by 0.6 percentage points over the week to 79.0%,” VTsIOM said in the survey.
The government’s approval rating is at 52.8%, down 0.3pp. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin’s approval rating remains unchanged at 52.8%, while 62.2% of respondents expressed trust in him, an increase of 0.9pp.
The survey also gauged public trust in the leaders of parliamentary factions. Chairman of the Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov enjoys a 34.5% trust rating, up 3.6pp. Sergey Mironov, leader of A Just Russia — For Truth, is trusted by 28.0% of respondents, a rise of 1.6pp. LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky has a trust rating of 20.5%, up 2.1pp, while Alexey Nechayev, chairman of New People, is trusted by 9.7% of respondents, an increase of 2.3pp.
A separate poll by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) revealed that 80% of respondents trust Putin, with 81% approving of his job performance.
According to FOM, 51% of respondents rated the government’s performance positively, a decrease of 3pp. Additionally, 57% of respondents believe Mishustin is performing his duties well, with no change from previous results.
Support for the ruling party United Russia stands at 46%, a drop of 1 percentage point. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) maintains an 8% support level, unchanged from previous figures. The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) and A Just Russia — For Truth each hold steady at 8% and 3%, respectively, with New People also at 3%.
August 9, 2024
Glenn Greenwald: The U.S. Faces Multiple Crises: Who is Running the Government?
YouTube link here. This episode aired on Tuesday, August 6, 2024.
