foreign affairs
Putin Hoped for a Swift Victory in Ukraine to Rebuild his Russian Empire — Instead he may Have Lost all Military Influence
When the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, Vladimir Putin believed his army would capture Kyiv in two days, and expected a decisive victory, expanding Russia’s borders. The Russian President assumed ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine would welcome his forces and believed a swift victory would strengthen his country's influence throughout Eurasia, and restore Russia to its imperial past.
Instead, the Russian invasion has been a massive failure. Twenty-six months since the invasion on 22 February 2022, Russia has suffered more than 50,000 deaths and the Russian Federation has reportedly lost "87% of the total number of active-duty ground troops it had prior" to the start of the invasion, “two-thirds of [Russia’s] pre-invasion tanks” have been destroyed, and a third if its naval fleet on the Black Sea has been destroyed or disabled. The destroyed war machines and military hardware have left Russia tens of billions of dollars out of pocket. Hundreds of billions of dollars have also been lost through international sanctions. The loss of life, firepower and money, has been catastrophic, but the impacts don't end there. Russia's influence in Eurasia have also waned. This has been most apparent with the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) - Russia's answer to NATO.
The Russian Federation created the intergovernmental military alliance in Eurasia in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and participants have grown to include countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Throughout its history, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have been members. Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan were previously members, but later withdrew.
Since its conception, CSTO members have held military training exercises and defence
ministers and other political figures have met to strengthen relations between member countries. But recently, that has changed with one report calling it a "lifeless, shambling alliance".
Armenia's decades-long fight with Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabkah region is an example of Russia's crumbling influence. Both countries have staked claim over the territory and Russia has attempted to serve as an intermediary in the negotiation process, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed the soft underbelly of its military capabilities. Once believed to have the second-strongest military in the world, Russia is now seen as having the second- strongest military in Ukraine. This has led Armenia to second guess its reliance on the Russian Federation. Azerbaijan recently launched a series of attacks and forcefully reclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh, and Russia was powerless to intervene on Armenia’s behalf. Russia has since confirmed it will completely withdraw its peacekeeping forces from the region.
Armenia has now determined it can no longer rely on the Russian Federation for assistance. Last year, the Armenians announced they will scale back their involvement in the CSTO. They refused to participate in CSTO training organisations and “renounced its right to take part in the [CSTO’s] leadership rotation”. Now, Armenia has frozen its participation in the organisation and opted to strengthen its relationship with Western organisations and is “considering seeking EU membership".
The EU is also collaborating with the Armenians on a new trade relationship and has pledged a $290 million financial package.
Kyrgyzstan has also previously had problems with the CSTO. In 2010, ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks clashed in southern Kyrgyzstan, resulting in over 400 deaths. Kyrgyzstan requested that the CSTO intervene to try and dissolve the situation, but the organisation chose not to.
Several years later, in a border clash between fellow CSTO members Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan in 2021, the organisation also failed to intervene despite dozens of deaths. The Kyrgyz government noted the CSTO’s inaction over these two events. When it was Kyrgyzstan’s turn to host joint military exercises in October 2022, the Central Asian country opted to cancel the drills. This was seen as a slap to the face for the Russians.
Kyrgyzstan officials also met with the European Union during the Cooperation Committee and the Human Rights Dialogue and discussed “political and security issues,” economic development, and bilateral trade relations.
Kazakhstan has also toyed with its involvement in the CSTO. The shift in Russo-Kazakh relations first began in January 2022. At the time, thousands of Kazakhs had gathered to protest their government for raising the price of fuel. The CSTO, under the direction of Russia, intervened with thousands of soldiers sent to crush the protests. Many Kazakhs were unhappy with Russia’s interference.
When the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine, there was a belief within Russia that
Kazakhstan would assist - but that never happened. The Kazakhs, instead, sent millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Finally, like Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan has sought to enhance its relationship with the West. Last year, senior Kazakh and European officials discussed reform and modernisation in Kazakhstan. More recently, Kazakh and European dignitaries met to focus on Kazak-EU trade relations. To date, the European Union accounts for 40% of Kazakhstan’s external trade.
Three of the CSTO’s final six members are pursuing stronger relations with Western organisations, choosing not to participate in CSTO events and programs, and taking steps to diminish their interactions with the Russian Federation. It has become apparent that Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan are now seeking alternative economic and security relationships with other organisations to find ways that would guarantee their safety. This will lead to a greater decline in the CSTO, and Russia’s influence in the region.
With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin had hoped to rebuild his Russian Empire. Instead, he has caused the demise of the CSTO.
Buy tickets to watch Byline Media's documentary, The Battle for Kyiv, which premiers on Monday. Tickets are available here. It will soon be available on Byline.TV
The Battle for Kyiv: ‘An Extraordinary Story of Resistance That Must be Remembered and had to be Told’
The resistance Ukrainians put up, and continue to put up, in the face of brutal and relentless attacks by Russia is "extraordinary", journalist Oz Katerji says - and that's exactly why he had to document it.
"It's something that should be remembered and talked about and taught in history classes for generations to come," Oz told Byline Times of Ukraine's fight to expel Russia from Kyiv and its ongoing battle against the invaders.
With the support of Byline Media, the British-Lebanese reporter is set to release, The Battle of Kyiv, which premiers at Prince Charles Cinema, London, on April 29. Tickets are available here. It will soon be available on Byline.TV
It was filmed in Kyiv during the first few months of the invasion that began on 24 February 2022 - in what was the largest attack on a European country since World War II - and tells the story of Sviatoslav Yurash, the youngest parliamentarian in Ukraine’s history, and a group of volunteers, including his parliamentary assistants Kateryna and Yurii, as they take up arms to repel the Russian invaders and defend their city.
In a Q&A with the filmmaker below, he explains he came across Yurash, "a sort of cross between a Shoreditch hipster and an Islington goth" who was "armed to the teeth" and how he had to put aside his opposing political views, to follow him, and in doing so formed an indescribable bond: "We nearly died together. We survived together."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay0WOEv9vFo
The Battle of Kyiv documents the entire fight for the Ukrainian capital, from the days leading up to the invasion until its final liberation on 2 April 2022. As the Russians begin to circle the city, on 25 February 2022, Sviatoslav and his team hastily gather aid and deliver it to the embattled areas surrounding the capital, crossing active frontlines, and witnessing ordinary life descend into chaos.
When Russian troops are finally expelled, the volunteers discover the devastation left in its wake and the full horror of their crimes against humanity.
Oz explains below what life is really like in Ukraine and how he went about making the documentary as hundreds of thousands of people died around him. More than half a million people have been killed or seriously injured as the war reached the two-year mark in February, according to Western intelligence estimates
US officials, in August, put the number of Ukrainian soldiers killed at 70,000, and as many as 120,000 injured. Russia is said to have lost 180,000 soldiers and tens of thousands more have been injured.
Q: What is the situation in Ukraine at the moment?
A still from the documentary, showing a Ukrainian tank. Photo: Oz Katerji
"I just got back off the frontline. I was on the Eastern Front for a few days, seeing the Ukrainians digging a new trench line, seeing the morgues, the fresh soldiers and the soldiers’ corpses that have been brought off the frontline. And I got to understand some of the ammunition shortages. Ukraine is in a bad state at the moment, and it's in a bad state for one reason, it's not because they're prosecuting the war badly or because their soldiers lack the will to fight or because they lack manpower, it's because they're being starved of ammunition by Western political issues that have nothing to do with Ukraine.
This is all domestic stuff happening, particularly in the United States. That lack of ammunition coming here is costing Ukrainian lives. And this is happening because Russia is not having these problems with ammunition. They're relying on North Korea and Iran, places that they can find all of the ammunition for their ex-Soviet equipment. Whereas Ukraine is struggling to get both ex-Soviet shells and NATO standard shells. So it's not going great for Ukraine. That said, they may lose some territory, but I don’ think there’s an imminent danger of what happened in Kyiv at the beginning happening again in terms of the Russians getting so close.
"What happened in Kyiv is really a once in a lifetime scenario, which is why I'm hoping that the film will go some way to telling that story for people and to remind people just how extraordinary the the resistance that the Ukrainians put up here really was. It’s something that should be remembered and talked about and taught in history classes for generations to come"
Oz Katerji
(Over the weekend the US House of Representatives finally approved more than $61 billion worth of military assistance to help Ukraine fight Russia. The Senate is set to begin considering the bill this week and final passage is expected next week, which would clear the way for Joe Biden to sign it into law.)
Q: Tell me about what happened during those early days of the war in Kyiv, and the process of documenting it
"I've made films before, much smaller films, I've done packages and VTEs for broadcast channels, I've made mini documentaries for Vice. But I'd never done anything at full feature length before. So I was I was going into this quite green as a filmmaker, even though I've been a journalist for 15 years. And when I came to Ukraine before the full-scale invasion, I was expecting there to be a war. I know that a lot of people did not expect a war. And even the people that did expect a war, they did not expect Russia to try and take Kyiv the way they did.
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine after launching his full-scale invasion. Photo: The Battle for Kyiv
I had no illusions of what was about to happen. I fully expected the Russians to target Kyiv and to try and capture the city because it was fundamental to toppling the Ukrainian government and decapitating the Ukrainian state. So I just wanted to bring my camera and film alongside the other work that I was doing, which was mainly writing broadcast radio, that sort of thing. So I took my camera with me everywhere I went.
"The story of what happened in this beautiful city is well known. The horrors that were inflicted on the people here are also well-known. But in February 2022, we had no idea how this was going to unfold. We had no idea what was going to happen next. So we had no way of really preparing for it - how do you prepare for a major land invasion?
"It’s something that we haven't really seen for most of the last century, so it really felt like something from another century. So, we didn't know what each day would hold"
Oz Katerji
"Every day, I would wake up in the morning, I'd look out my window and see that I was still there, and the buildings around me were still there, and that Kyiv remained strong and unconquered.
"Each day, I would go out in the morning, and I'd spend all day out on the road, talking to people shooting what I could, some days were better than others, some days were bad. Some days, we had good, really good access, and we could get right up to wherever we wanted to go. And some days, we would spend six hours in the car driving somewhere, only to be told that we weren't allowed to go there and then drive him back. One of the interesting aspects of it is, I would judge the day based on whether I had something to report at the end of it normally, in the form of an article, the articles I published for New Lines Magazine and Rolling Stone are a good example of those.
The Battle of Kyiv premiers at Prince Charles Cinema, London, on April 29.
Tickets are available here. It will soon be available on Byline.TV
But in the process of making the film, some of those days where we got nothing really of any importance to me, personally speaking, were some of the really strong material that we ended up using in the film, because what they displayed were the really human moments. The emotions and reactions on people's faces. The kinds of thing that I wasn't prepared to try and film at the time, because as a newbie filmmaker, all I was carrying about was the big stuff, you know. Now, I don't consider it little stuff at all, the more human element of the war, the way people are living through this reacting and surviving all this horror around them. Those ended up being particularly powerful bits that I'm so glad they are in the film.
"Looking back, I don't consider those days where we travelled six hours and didn't get somewhere a waste because if I managed to get one shot of someone's face that tells the story better than a narrator could... then we've done what we've set out to do"
Oz Katerji
"I didn't go into this, trying to make a documentary, which made the process of making the documentary harder because we had to craft a narrative afterwards that I hadn't planned in advance when I was filming it all. But hopefully, when the audience sits down and watches it, they see that there is a strong narrative there that follows the Battle of Kyiv from the beginning of the war to now, and I hope that people can take away from that some of what it was like to experience one of the worst conflicts of the 21st century."
Q: A lot of the film centres around Sviatoslav Yurash and his team, tell me about them.
"I didn't know who Sviatoslav was when I arrived in Ukraine. One of the first days when the war began, the Airbnb that I was staying at was quite close to a police station. And as I was walking around in the morning, I saw this really tall blond man wearing a trench coat. He was holding an AK-47. He looked like a sort of cross between a Shoreditch hipster and an Islington goth. But he was armed to the teeth and he had a crew with him and I just thought, Who is this guy? So I went up to him and I asked him, who are you? He's like, 'my name is Sviatoslav Yurash. I’m a member of parliament. I serve in Zelensky’s party and I'm just bringing my team down to the police station so they can pick up their rifles and guns because we're going to the frontlines'. As a British person, this was crazy to me. That's a Member of Parliament. And to be arming themselves and heading towards a frontline. I can't even imagine it happening in Britain. But it was happening here in Ukraine. So I said to him, look, I'm a journalist. I don't have great access, at the moment, we're all under curfew. But if you are going places, and you wouldn't mind having a journalist with you, give me a shout.
"I saw this really tall blond man wearing a trench coat. He was holding an AK-47. He looked like a sort of cross between a Shoreditch hipster and an Islington goth. But he was armed to the teeth and he had a crew with him and I just thought, Who is this guy?"
Oz Katerji
"I didn't think much of it after that point. I didn't know if I'd ever see him again. But within a day or so he called me and said, 'Where are you, we're coming to pick you up, we're going to the frontline'. That was really the start of the relationship that we had together. As I briefly mentioned in the film... once I met Sviatoslav, I Googled him, I saw some of the political positions that he holds on things like gay marriage, things that I completely disagree with. I'm very socially liberal. So outside of this conflict, Sviatoslave is probably someone who I would consider a political opponent. But in this conflict, suddenly I’m there with these Ukrainian men and women who are risking everything to defend their homes. You grow a real respect for people in that position.
"If you survive a war with someone, you form a kind of bond with them that is difficult to describe to an outsider. You know, we nearly died together. We survived together"
Oz Katerji
It was an honour to be able to tell at least part of Sviatoslave’s story. He is the main character in the film, and most of the other characters are members of his team who were going forward to the frontline doing humanitarian missions, getting food to people, getting soldiers equipment, whatever they could think of to do. They were doing it. As a parliamentarian, he could go beyond checkpoints that lots of people were struggling to get beyond. So yeah, that's why he became a main character in the film and I hope that people can judge him fairly by the words that he says and the actions that he takes, rather than you know, what he represents as a politician. For the film, I’m not so much interested in the domestic politician but a young man in one of the most extraordinary situations that can ever happen to someone.
Q: How do you think the defence of Kyiv so early on in the conflict informed the way the war has gone since?
A Ukrainian soldier is pictured next to damaged Russian tanks in Ukraine in September 2022. Photo: CTK/ Alamy
"It showed the world just how remarkable the Ukrainian people were. Just what they were made of. Their bravery, their defiance, their courage, the audacity, they had to resist a global power. To take on one of the largest armies in the world to push them back into a fight for their lives. I think it showed that spirit. I also think that once the danger towards Kyiv had passed, and it didn't pass by accident, it passed because of the sacrifice of lives made by Ukrainian men and women, but some of the West lost interest. They thought Kyiv’s no longer under threat so I couldn't care less about Donetsk. It’s that attitude. I think that part has been damaging, I think people have started to pay less and less attention to Ukraine, because they think that the war is confined to the east and that the east is this sort of grey no man's land that’s basically part Russian anyway. These ideas couldn't be further from the reality on the ground here.
"It showed the world just how remarkable the Ukrainian people were. Just what they were made of. Their bravery, their defiance, their courage, the audacity, they had to resist a global power"
Oz Katerji
But these are still misconceptions that some people have. And I think that the the joy and triumph of the victory here in Kyiv, will will be remembered for generations. But at the same time, it's allowed some people in Western countries to think, why does this matter? It matters because Ukraine can fight because it's being patronised by Western countries, they provide it with arms it needs to fight a much larger power. So why do voices in Western countries matter? Because those are democracies and the politicians they elect dictate those policies going forward. So I do think that there is an element that the victory and Kyiv made people think that the danger was was alleviated somewhat here in Ukraine. And that couldn't be further from the truth. Ukrainians are still fighting for their lives out here right now and and I really hope that this film really centres the Ukrainian people, and just what is happening here.
Q: What do you hope the audience will take away from this film?
"A line at the end of the film that really resonated with me was Yuri, one of the main characters, saying that if more heroes aren't being sent to heaven, that Ukraine will be occupied by Russia, and puts it in really stark terms. What's happening here is a catastrophe. It's a disaster. And it's a horror, and it’s a tragedy. The courage and the defiance of the Ukrainian people defending their homes is a lesson that I think the entire world would benefit from. But the need for a Ukrainian victory in this war cannot be understated either.
"This is a war for Europe. It's a war for democracy. It's a war for our shared principles and values. And it's a war to oppose fascism. This is an anti-fascist war"
Oz Katerji
"Really I want people to see the bravery of the Ukrainian people. This film is dedicated to them. They've taught me so much that I could never have known that I needed to learn. I'm learning every single day from the courage of these incredible people. So yeah, that would be what I would hope people would take away from this. I hope they will take away the courage and bravery of the Ukrainian people. how important this victory is for the future of not just Ukraine but for Europe and the rest of the liberal democratic world."
The Battle of Kyiv premiers at Prince Charles Cinema, London, on April 29.
Tickets are available here. It will soon be available on Byline.TV
Zero Fines Handed to Russia-Linked Kleptocrats or Firms by UK Since Full-Scale Ukraine War Began
Not a single fine has been levied by the UK against Russia-linked individuals or firms for breaching sanctions, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, correspondence from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has revealed.
Minister of State at the FCDO, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, has told MPs she expects the first Government investigations into potential breaches of the UK’s financial sanctions imposed on Russian individuals and organisations since the war to "come to fruition in 2024", possibly resulting in further monetary penalties. It is nearly 800 days since Russia invaded Ukraine.
The letter published on Friday suggests that none of the ten fines imposed to date by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) since 2017 for non-compliance with the UK’s sanctions regime relate to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
The fines before 2022, total £22 million, but the vast majority – more than £20 million – appears to relate to a penalty against a single bank in 2020.
Trevelyan told the Commons' Foreign Affairs committee that since Russia launched its attack on 24 February 2022, OFSI has recorded £22.7 billion in frozen assets - as of October 2023 - relating to that country, and that there have been hundreds of suspected breaches of sanctions.
Appearing to defend the lack of fines or enforcement action, the minister claimed that some breaches are found to be “relatively minor”. “In these cases, OFSI will not necessarily impose a penalty, as it may be more appropriate to deal with the case in a different way such as a warning letter or referring the matter to a regulator,” she said.
But the scale of the suspected violations – 473 suspected breaches of financial sanctions (excluding oil price cap and counter-terrorism breaches) in 2022-2023 is a major increase on the 147 cases recorded in 2021-2022. “This increase was expected given the scale of increased Russia sanctions, and OFSI has increased its enforcement capacity in response,” Trevelyan added.
Dame Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption & Responsible Tax, told Byline Times: “We already know that our sanctions regime is not as tough as that used by the USA and the EU. Our regime lacks ambition and has too many loopholes.
“So it is all the more shocking that we are not enforcing the sanctions already in place. The Government must properly enforce existing measures, and close any remaining loopholes immediately. Only then can we be confident that we are doing all we can to support Ukraine in its barbaric conflict with Putin’s Russia.”
Tom Keatinge, Director of the Centre for Finance and Security at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, explained that fines and relations actions are "key tools" for Governments to set their expectations and the fact "we’ve yet to see material enforcement action means that the UK is not doing all it could do to ensure sanctions are implemented as effectively as they must be".
"2024 must be the year of enforcement if the UK is to be taken seriously. Other countries in Europe such as the Netherlands are leading the way. The UK must catch up," he added to Byline Times.
The minister’s letter also discusses allowances for sanctioned individuals from their frozen funds, saying that OFSI believes the net UK median wage of £28,000 – before tax – should normally fulfil individuals’ “basic needs”.
Licences for sanctioned individuals to receive these allowances don't usually enable a designated person to continue the lifestyle or business activities they had before they were designated.
It's unclear from the Government’s letter how many licences OFSI has granted to sanctioned Russian oligarchs that provide them with allowances far exceeding UK average wages.
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns MP, said: “For too long the UK has been complacent, allowing wealthy Russians to wash their dirty money in the laundromat of London. Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine must be a wake-up call for the West. Clamping down on the illicit funds of high-net-worth Russians is an opportunity to deal a heavy blow to those who support Putin’s war machine.”
She added that while the number of asset freezes under UK sanctions has grown significantly, “if this is not soon reflected in the number of enforcement actions, we will have to ask difficult questions about the efficacy of OFSI’s enforcement capacity".
"Investigations into non-compliance are complex but must be prioritised and undertaken at pace; we need to send a clear message that illicit finance has no home in the UK,” the Conservative MP added.
While the sanctions regulator usually says the ‘basic needs’ of sanction-hit individuals in the UK can be met by the median wage of £28,000 per annum, it has been reported that some wealthy Russians under investigation had access to more than double that as recently as 2022.
“It isn’t enough to say that privacy concerns prevent the FCDO and Treasury from providing this information when these figures could be anonymised,” Kearns added.
This correspondence follows an evidence session held on 12 March on the UK’s sanctions regime against Russia and the abduction of Ukrainian children. The Committee published a report in 2022, 'The Cost of Complacency: illicit finance and the war in Ukraine', calling on the Government to tackle illicit finance flowing through the UK.
The Treasury did not wish to comment further.
Got a political story or tip? Email josiah@bylinetimes.com
‘Georgia’s bid to Muzzle Media and NGO’s and the Russian-Made Oligarch Behind it’
Over the past few nights, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, and other cities across the South Caucasian country, to protest their government’s second attempt to pass a Russian-style law targeting independent media and NGOs.
Similar measures have been weaponised by the Putin regime to crush dissent since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Critics say Georgia’s "foreign influence" bill - introduced last March and shelved after two nights of rioting before an almost identical bill was re-introduced this week - marks the latest episode in a growing authoritarian slide into Moscow’s orbit on part of the ruling Georgian Dream party.
The first bill required media and non-profit organisations (NGOs) to register as "pursuing the interests of a foreign power" if they receive more than 20% of their funds from abroad, then face enhanced scrutiny in the form of potentially debilitating audits and other official checks. Most, if not all of this financial information, is already public but critics feared the extra measures would be used to silence independent press and watchdog NGOs reliant on support from the US and other western partners.
The draft law was contrary to reforms laid out by the EU as conditions of Georgia’s bid for membership - something supported by as much as 90% of the voting population - and sparked massive demonstrations. Protesters mobilised in mass outside the parliamentary building on Tbilisi’s Rustaveli Avenue where they were met with a violent response from police. After two nights of carnage, the government backed down, effectively withdrawing the bill under a promise to revive it once they’d "educated" the public on its merits.
A new bill, labelled "nearly identical" by Euronews, was advanced by the Georgian parliament on April 17 with 83 votes in favour and zero against, the publication reported, noting it was boycotted by the opposition.
Both the EU and the US spoke out in stern terms following the news. On April 18, the US Department of State released a statement saying it was "gravely disappointed" by the Georgian parliament’s decision to advance "Kremlin-inspired 'foreign influence' legislation".
"As the EU has stated, passage of this law could compromise Georgia’s progress on its EU path. We join our European allies in urging Georgia not to enact legislation that goes against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Georgian citizens — the desire to integrate fully into the EU," the statement continued.
Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief, and Oliver Várhelyi, the European Commissioner for neighbourhood and enlargement, released a joint statement calling the re-introduction of the legislation "very concerning" and if adopted "would negatively impact Georgia's progress on its EU path".
"This law is not in line with EU core norms and values," their statement reads. "Georgia has a vibrant civil society that contributes to the country’s successful progress towards EU membership. The proposed legislation would limit the capacity of civil society and media organisations to operate freely, could limit freedom of expression and unfairly stigmatise organisations that deliver benefits to the citizens of Georgia."
The statement urged Georgia "to refrain from adopting legislation that can compromise its EU path, "a path supported by the overwhelming majority of Georgian citizens".
Moscow, meanwhile, with whom Georgian Dream has enjoyed steadily warming relations since the conflict began, endorsed the move.
Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, who has developed a close working relation with Charles Michel, the president of the European Council, has reportedly vowed to veto the legislation if it ever arrives at her desk. But her opposition could be eventually overridden by the collection of 76 votes. Zourabichvili's term is scheduled to end later this year.
The controversial law has been dubbed the "Russian law" as it has similarities with a bill that the Kremlin introduced a decade ago to silence critics. Georgia has struggled to contain pro-Russian influence, an issue considered a major roadblock in the country's ambition to join the EU.
"It is exactly a copy of Putin's law," Zourabichvili told the BBC earlier this week.
"Who has decided that this law should be reintroduced? Is it in Georgia or is it beyond our borders? Is it in Moscow that this decision has been taken? That is the main question about transparency that the Georgian population is asking."
To understand how a country part-occupied by Russia, and which went to war with Moscow in 2008, wound up inching closer to the Kremlin, two sources with close knowledge of the matter told the Byline Times that you need to grasp the overwhelming control over public life exerted by the ruling party’s oligarch founder, Georgian billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, and the financial difficulties he’s facing.
Ivanishvili, who made his fortune in Moscow during the Wild West of privatisation that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, has, since the Ukraine invasion, faced calls to be targeted with sanctions for his longstanding ties to powerful Russian business interests.
Widely regarded as Georgian Dream’s éminence grise, he’s also yo-yoed in and out of office since his party first assumed power in 2012, most recently assuming the title of honorary chairman in December last year. When asked previously by reporters if he feared financial restrictions from the West, Ivanishvili cryptically said he was “already under sanctions.”
Those comments appear to have been in reference to the difficulties he's faced in retrieving some of his estimated $6 billion from Credit Suisse, which was taken over by UBS last year, after he claims to have been the victim of fraud. The matter is still before the courts. A source with access to the oligarch’s inner circle, claimed to Byline Times that Ivanishvili was suspicious of NGO's reporting to Washington about his influence and financial position, and feared the US may have leant on the Swiss financial sector to restrict his access to the contested funds.
The source said that before the foreign influence bill’s reintroduction was announced, Ivanishvili allegedly called three top officials – Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, Chairman Irakli Garibashvili and Head of State Security Grigol Liluashvili –for a closed-door meeting at his private residence. During that summit, Ivanishvili is understood to have told the officials to retable the bill despite protestations from the prime minister that doing so would threaten the party’s chances at parliamentary elections in October.
A second source with first-hand knowledge of recent legislative processes in Georgia had another theory as to why the billionaire may have discarded his government's advice. On April 17, Georgian Dream pushed through an amendment to the country’s tax regulations that would theoretically allow Ivanishvili to move his substantial offshore assets into the country without paying any tariffs. If he is planning to clear house abroad, and given his suspicion of a Western conspiracy against his finances facilitated by Georgian NGOs, the source adds it seems a logical step to ensure protection from watchdog and media scrutiny by passing the revamped foreign influence bill as soon as possible.
Though Western partners have condemned the bill in much the same way as last year, international attention is for now largely focused on escalating tensions in the Middle East, and the rapidly deteriorating situation in Ukraine’s eastern theatre. Many of Georgia’s formal allies are also facing their own electoral challenges, meaning they’re likely to be more preoccupied with domestic issues as the year wears on, while the ruling party’s domestic political opponents stand divided as ever with the polls swiftly approaching.
Georgian Dream’s approval ratings remain abysmally low among a voting public who still harbour bitter memories of their war with Moscow during which Russia consolidated its de-facto control of two breakaway territories in Georgia already subject to occupation since the ‘90s. As protests against the “Russian Law” continue to mount, there’s a growing chance this bill may well prove the Ivanishvili government’s last gamble.
Russia’s war Against Ukraine is About to get a lot More Difficult for Vladimir Putin
In recent weeks there have been a slew of articles bemoaning Ukraine’s situation amid the Russian invasion, with some designed to dissuade its partners from providing further military support. If the argument is that further fighting is futile, why would weapons supplies continue? But, that is a position that only assists the aggressor.
Life on the frontlines is undeniably grim, but it is not because Russia is an immovable force, it is because Ukraine is being denied the aid it needs to continue fighting the war Russia unleashed on them in February 2022, reverse the subsequent occupation of Ukrainian land, and end the horrors of that occupation.
To better understand what is really taking place, and possible scenarios for the future, it is useful to look at the signals emanating from Russia. In recent days, the usurper of the presidency in Belarus, Aleksander Lukashenko, went to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin. After their 4-hour meeting, Lukashenko insisted repeatedly to members of the press: “It’s time for Ukraine to negotiate."
Ukrainian soldiers, seen above during a patrol near Snihurivka in January 2023, are set to receive a huge cache of weapons via the US. Photo: imageBROKER.COM, CHBH & CO. KG / Alamy
Bearing in mind that the starting point, as far as Russia is concerned, is that they are keeping the lands that they took by force in 2022 on top of those that they took in 2014, what Putin is signalling, via his Belarussian lapdog, is that he wants a timeout. He knows several things are coming that will significantly change the war ahead.
Due to a lack of artillery shells and other ammunition, Russia seized the ruins of the town of Avdiivka after Ukraine withdrew to new defensive lines. While the press made much of the fall of Avdiivka, for context, this was a town of less than 32,500 residents - the equivalent of Redhill in Surrey. Hardly an accomplishment for what was once believed to be the second-best army in the world.
Russia’s next war aim, according to reports, is even more modest. Before the Russian celebrations of “Victory Day” on May 9, Putin’s generals ordered their forces to take the town of Chasiv Yar in the Donetsk Oblast - population 12,500.
While Ukraine’s ability to fight has been hampered by an artificial ammunition shortage in part related to politicking in the United States, Russia’s ability to fight has been almost exhausted. Yet, their tactics haven't changed. Russia advances by destroying what is in front of them through carpet shelling, leaving depopulated ruins that are neither worth defending nor capturing, but Ukraine has stayed behind in the remnants of what were once people’s homes to inflict maximum casualties to the waves of infantry Russia sends forward to “conquer”. It has been the same everywhere since the tide of this war turned, it was the same in Bakhmut, Soledar and Avdiivka. Chasiv Yar will be no different.
Russia has to fight this way, because they know no other way. Those waves have resulted in catastrophic human losses, but what replaces those losses is not more soldiers, it is poorly trained recruits, or prisoners hoping to make it to 6 months so Putin will pardon their crimes. As the average weighting of the Russian army has moved from trained soldiers to freshly-recruited newbies, Russia has grown less effective, and the only way to halt that trend is for Russia to get a break. For that reason, Lukashenko got his instructions to tell Ukraine to negotiate.
Such demands come with a projection of strength, but anyone who understands what is happening in the brutality of the fights across Ukrainian lands knows the reality is something quite different.
One of the reasons why the war is about to change in Ukraine’s favour is the arrival of the F-16 fighter jets. Though they are not being supplied, yet, in the volumes that Ukraine would like, 55 modern fighter jets with - according to Norway, one of the donor countries - enhanced long-range strike capabilities will certainly add to Ukraine’s competitive edge.
Another reason why things are set to get worse for the occupying forces is that, after months of delays, it looks like the essential military aid package from the United States will happen. The US is the only country in the world that holds the kind of stockpiles of weapons and ammunition that Ukraine needs to win. Those stockpiles can't be released until Congress approves the $61 billion budget.
The European Union has also sent a strong signal of long-term support, with the €50 billion 4-year Ukraine Facility programme. Ukraine’s partners have made it clear to the Kremlin that they are firm in their support, and determined to ensure Ukraine withstands Russia's attack.
Of late, Ukraine has managed to hold the frontlines thanks to initiatives led by the Czech Republic and Estonia to source shells from world markets for the coming months, which is likely the time needed for the US to resume deliveries. More significantly for the course of the war, Ukraine has been focused on operations to shape the battlefield for the next stages of the war - the seas and the skies.
As stated repeatedly, the war ends when Ukraine has regained control over all of her sovereign territory and so the ultimate goal is the liberation of Crimea. To that end, Ukraine has focused on destroying Russian naval power in the Black Sea, which mostly surrounds the occupied peninsula. The control of the skies, essential for the F-16s to operate effectively, has been facilitated by Ukraine blinding Russia by downing their A-50 spy planes and by recent significant strikes against Russian land-based radar systems inside of Russia.
The biggest challenge to both Ukraine’s ongoing ability to fight as well as the ability of Ukrainians to carry on living in their country is Russia’s resumed attacks against power generation facilities. Protecting that critical infrastructure, as well as the lives of innocent civilians, is why the request for air defence systems has become the biggest priority for Ukraine. Allies should provide them in as great a quantity as possible, and do so immediately.
While Ukraine’s fight has been made substantially more difficult due to a lack of ammunition, Russia’s ability to take further territory has noticeably diminished. Bakhmut was home to 73,000 people, Avdiivka 32,500, and Chasiv Yar just 12,500. The trend is plain to see. And now, with advanced air capabilities and a massive military aid package due, Ukraine is getting significantly stronger and the effects of the shaping operations are about to become very apparent.
A Tale of Two Genocides: Namibia’s Stand Against Israeli Aggression
The distance between Gaza and Namibia is measured in the thousands of kilometers. But the historical distance is much closer. This is precisely why Namibia was one of the first countries to take a strong stance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Namibia was colonized by the Germans in 1884, while the British colonized Palestine in the 1920s, handing the territory to the Zionist colonizers in 1948.
Though the ethnic and religious fabric of Palestine and Namibia differ, the historical experiences are similar.
It is easy, however, to assume that the history that unifies many countries in the Global South is only that of Western exploitation and victimization. It is also a history of collective struggle and resistance.
Namibia has been inhabited since prehistoric times. This long-rooted history has allowed Namibians, over thousands of years, to establish a sense of belonging to the land and to one another, something that the Germans did not understand or appreciate.
When the Germans colonized Namibia, giving it the name of ‘German Southwest Africa,’’ they did what all other Western colonialists have done, from Palestine to South Africa to Algeria, to virtually all Global South countries. They attempted to divide the people, exploited their resources and butchered those who resisted.
Although a country with a small population, Namibians resisted their colonizers, resulting in the German decision to simply exterminate the natives, literally killing the majority of the population.
Since the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Namibia answered the call of solidarity with the Palestinians, along with many African and South American countries, including Colombia, Nicaragua, Cuba, South Africa, Brazil, China and many others.
Namibia rejects Germany’s Support of the Genocidal Intent of the Racist Israeli State against Innocent Civilians in Gaza
On Namibian soil, #Germany committed the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904-1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most… pic.twitter.com/ZxwWxLv8yt
— Namibian Presidency (@NamPresidency) January 13, 2024
Though intersectionality is a much-celebrated notion in Western academia, no academic theory is needed for oppressed, colonized nations in the Global South to exhibit solidarity with one another.
So when Namibia took a strong stance against Israel’s largest military supporter in Europe – Germany – it did so based on Namibia’s total awareness of its history.
The German genocide of the Nama and Herero people (1904-1907) is known as the “first genocide of the 20th century”. The ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza is the first genocide of the 21st century. The unity between Palestine and Namibia is now cemented through mutual suffering.
However, Namibia did not launch a legal case against Germany at the International Court of Justice (ICJ); it was Nicaragua, a Central American country thousands of miles away from Palestine and Namibia.
The Nicaraguan case accuses Germany of violating the ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.’ It rightly sees Germany as a partner in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians.
This accusation alone should terrify the German people, in fact, the whole world, as Germany has been affiliated with genocides from its early days as a colonial power. The horrific crime of the Holocaust and other mass killings carried out by the German government against Jews and other minority groups in Europe during WWII is a continuation of other German crimes committed against Africans decades earlier.
The typical analysis of why Germany continues to support Israel is explained based on German guilt over the Holocaust. This explanation, however, is partly illogical and partly erroneous.
It is illogical because if Germany has, indeed, internalized any guilt from its previous mass killings, it would make no sense for Berlin to add yet more guilt by allowing Palestinians to be butchered en masse. If guilt indeed exists, it is not genuine. It is erroneous because it completely overlooks the German genocide in Namibia. It took the German government until 2021 to acknowledge the horrific butchery in that poor African country, ultimately agreeing to pay merely one billion euros in ‘community aid,’ which will be allocated over three decades.
The German government’s support of the Israeli war on Gaza is not motivated by guilt but by a power paradigm that governs the relations among colonial countries. Many countries in the Global South understand this logic very well, thus the growing solidarity with Palestine.
A photo titled “Captured Hereros,” taken circa 1904 by German colonists in Namibia. Photo | German Historical Museum
The Israeli brutality in Gaza, but also the Palestinian sumud, resilience and resistance, are inspiring the Global South to reclaim its centrality in anti-colonial liberation struggles.
The revolution in the Global South’s outlook—culminating in South Africa’s case at the ICJ and the Nicaraguan lawsuit against Germany—indicates that change is not the outcome of a collective emotional reaction. Instead, it is part and parcel of the shifting relationship between the Global South and the Global North.
Africa has been undergoing a process of geopolitical restructuring for years. The anti-French rebellions in West Africa, demanding true independence from the continent’s former colonial masters, and the intense geopolitical competition involving Russia, China and others are all signs of changing times. And with this rapid rearrangement, a new political discourse and popular rhetoric are emerging, often expressed in the revolutionary language emanating from Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and others.
But the shift is not happening only on the rhetorical front. The rise of BRICS as a powerful new platform for economic integration between Asia and the rest of the Global South has opened up the possibility of alternatives to Western financial and political institutions.
In 2023, it was revealed that BRICS countries hold 32 percent of the world’s total GDP, compared to 30 percent held by the G7 countries. This has much political value, as four of the five original founders of BRICS are strong and unapologetic supporters of the Palestinians.
While South Africa has been championing the legal front against Israel, Russia and China are battling the US at the UN Security Council to institute a ceasefire. Beijing’s Ambassador to The Hague defended the Palestinian armed struggle as legitimate under international law.
Now that global dynamics are working in favor of Palestinians, it is time for the Palestinian struggle to return to the embrace of the Global South, where shared histories will always serve as a foundation for meaningful solidarity.
Feature photo | Hon. Yvonne Dausab, Minister of Justice of Namibia, joined representatives of over 50 nations in presenting testimony to the International Court of Justice on the legality of the Israeli occupation. Photo | International Court of Justice
Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is ‘Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out.’ His other books include ‘My Father Was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth.’ Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
The post A Tale of Two Genocides: Namibia’s Stand Against Israeli Aggression appeared first on MintPress News.
EU News Outlet Accused of ‘Being Used as a Tool of Russian Disinformation’ After Publishing ‘Fake Protest’ Video
A European news website has been criticised for publishing footage of what the Romanian authorities have called an oligarch-backed “paid protest” against Moldova’s pro-EU government.
EU Reporter published a video of the reportedly staged protest “against dictatorship in Moldova” in Bucharest as Moldovan president Maia Sandu visited the Romanian capital on March 6.
The EU Reporter story has been taken down, but is still visible on Google. Photo: Byline Times
“This [protest] is a disinformation operation: a classic way of initiating legitimate news,” Valeriu Pasha, chairman of Watchdog.MD, a counter-disinformation think tank in Moldova, told Byline Times.
The Romanian Interior Ministry claims the Bucharest protest was organised – and paid for – by sanctioned Moldovan-Israeli businessman Ilan Shor, who is currently based in Moscow.
The 37-year-old has been accused of trying to destabilise Moldova’s pro-Western path on behalf of Russia as president Sandu faces presidential elections and a referendum on EU membership later this year. In 2022, he was sanctioned by the US for “coordinating with representatives of other oligarchs to create political unrest in Moldova” with Russian state support. Shor has previously denied any role in destabilising actions in Moldova.
Byline Times has not found any evidence to suggest that Shor or his representatives either recorded or distributed the video. Neither could be reached for comment on this story, despite numerous attempts.
Pashu suggested the protest was organised to “create fake news items that push the news agenda to benefit Shor" and that the EU Reporter had been "used as a tool of Russian disinformation".
EU Reporter told Byline Times that it had started an investigation into the video, which it said had been supplied by a "usually reliable" freelance journalist who they had paid.
“If the story about the 6 March protest in Bucharest was a false narrative, then we clearly regret publishing it,” EU Reporter chief editor Colin Stevens said.
EU Reporter published the protest video under the headline, 'End Sandu’s dictatorship!' but has taken it down since Byline Times started making inquiries.
The clip shows around a dozen people holding signs protesting “dictatorship” outside a conference centre in Bucharest. Protesters in the first row show their faces, while those behind cover them with placards.
“Moldova is a dictatorship” was one of the least inflammatory protest writings spotted in the crowd,” EU Reporter’s accompanying article said.
“The protesters were extremely displeased with the fact that the Moldovan president was trying to solve her own problems at their expense,” it continued.
According to Moldovan police, 200 people were meant to participate in the protest and each participant was set to receive “hundreds of euros”, with 10,000 EUR allocated to pay for one minibus of 20 participants from Moldova. On 8 April, Romania banned 116 Moldovan citizens who joined the protest from entering Romania.
Commenting online, Shor said that Sandu and Moldovan law enforcement had “put on a whole show” with their investigation into the protest “to demonstrate once again” that he is “the only figure in Moldovan politics that the authorities are afraid of”.
EU Reporter describes itself as a “Brussels-based European multimedia news platform, providing online news and video comment on EU and world affairs”. It offers monthly subscriptions for content supplied by clients – governments, political organisations or companies – including “general news” articles, according to the site’s media pack.
Politico criticised EU Reporter –headquartered in Ireland and owned by a UK company – in 2021 for mixing in-house coverage with allegedly sponsored content from authoritarian
actors such as the governments of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and China. EU Reporter rejected the allegations at the time.
EU Reporter’s chief editor, Stevens – who also published an interview with Shor in 2023 that has since been taken down – said the publication made no editorial checks around the video and was not paid to run it.
“We have never accepted payment from [Shor], or anyone associated with him,” Stevens said.
“However odious Mr Shor and his politics may be, he is a politician operating within the Moldovan democratic political sphere, and we therefore felt fully justified in covering [the protest].
“We have never knowingly published content on behalf of Mr Shor,” he continued.
After Byline Times contacted EU Reporter, Stevens said the website initiated an investigation into “the source of the story, any links between the freelance journalist and Shor, and our internal editorial processes”.
He also said that the website would “re-examine our criteria for accepting third-party contributions […] and may update them in light of any recommendations.”
The protest story “and other stories relating to Shor” have been removed for the duration of the investigation, Stevens said.
He added: “Our only contact with Shor or his party has been by accepting press
releases and third-party articles, including interviews. We are aware that Shor and his organisation are now sanctioned by the EU and we will act accordingly within the law."
In April 2023, Shor was sentenced to 15 years on fraud and money laundering charges in Moldova as part of the “Theft of the Century” case – where $1 billion was removed from three of the country’s banks. He maintains his innocence. In May 2023, he was sanctioned by the EU for “directing and planning violent demonstrations” against the Moldovan government.
Thomas Mayne, author of a recent report on how kleptocrats use western PR and communications services, said that given the Romanian authorities’ designation of the protest as “paid” by Shor, the publication on EU Reporter “raises questions over whether Shor or someone related to him is trying to publish articles that favour his activities” at the
website.
Revealed: Israel’s Hidden History Of Attacks On Iran
Iran’s retaliatory attack on Israel was framed in the West as a reckless attempt to spark a major regional war, but in reality, Israel has been attacking Iran for decades.
As is routinely the case with Western-backed wars, the corporate media’s timeline begins at the moment that suits their narrative. We have seen this play out recently, with the attempt to rob the Gaza war of all contexts before October 7, 2023. Similarly, when it comes to Israel’s conflict with Iran, the two have been embroiled in what is referred to as a “shadow war,” the details of which are pretty shocking.
While the international media’s attention was riveted on Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel, drawing great focus to some 300 drones and missiles used in the attack, no major deal was made of Israel’s strike on April 1 against the consular segment of Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Syria, that killed a dozen people, including seven Iranian officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In this unprecedented act of aggression against Iranian soil, breaking international diplomatic norms, the Israelis were shielded by the U.S. government at the United Nations Security Council, blocking any condemnation of this act.
Despite an admission from British Foreign Secretary David Cameron that had the UK embassy been attacked similarly, they too would retaliate, the double-standard argument that Iran shouldn’t respond continues to dominate the airways.
This is as Iran’s IRGC has received condemnation for seizing a container ship in the Persian Gulf associated with the Zodiac Maritime shipping company of Israel billionaire Eyal Ofer and his family. In 2021, the Mercer Street oil tanker, which Zodiac Maritime also operated, was struck by Iranian drones, prompting similar condemnation. Yet, little was to be said regarding the Israeli-owned company’s role in collaborating with the Israeli military and intelligence establishment to ferry arms and operatives around the region and carry out assassinations or reconnaissance missions.
However, the Israel-Iran “Shadow War” did not begin with recent events. Israel has been carrying out brutal assassinations of civilian scientists on Iranian soil since 2010 while also carrying out acts of espionage that have endangered innocent civilians in the country.
As early as in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, Israeli Mossad agents have been planting viruses designed to cause malfunctions in Iranian oil and nuclear power facilities. Another kind of provocative action occurred in 2018, when it was reported that an Israeli Mossad team had raided an archive facility in Tehran, stealing documents that pertained to its nuclear power program.
In 2020, the New York Times and Washington Post reported that Israel planted bombs inside Iran’s Natanz Nuclear facility, which almost caused an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe. Later that year, the Israeli Mossad assassinated Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, in Tehran. Then, in April of 2021, another explosion occurred at the Natanz facility, which the New York Times reported was Israel’s doing.
The Israelis have also trained members of the MEK terrorist group to carry out attacks on civilian targets inside Iran. The list of Mossad-linked cells that have been arrested by the Iranian authorities or carried out acts of espionage and sabotage is simply too numerous to cover at length. Early last year, U.S. officials even told Reuters that a suicide drone attack targeting a factory in the city of Isfahan was an Israeli attack.
More recently, in late December, Israel launched airstrikes on Damascus and assassinated IRGC official Seyed Razi Mousavi. And in January, Israel launched airstrikes in Damascus, murdering five Iranian military personnel members and Syrian citizens. Then, in early February, Israel was accused of blowing up gas pipelines in Iran. None of these actions, which would likely illicit a response by most nations, provoked Iran to launch a direct strike on Israel.
In addition to all of this, Israel has been the world’s top cheerleader for the West’s crushing sanctions that have significantly impacted Iran’s civilian population, specifically access to lifesaving medical supplies. AIPAC, the powerful Israeli Lobby group in the United States, worked hard to prevent the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal from passing, then pushed for the Trump administration to unilaterally withdraw before pressuring the Biden administration to refrain from reviving the deal despite this being a campaign promise. Israel even played a role in the Trump administration’s assassination of Iran’s top general tasked with battling ISIS, Qassem Soleimani.
Yet, despite Israel’s long history of documented attacks against Iran and around 30 years of false predictions as to when Iran is supposedly going to develop a nuclear weapon, which is the premise for Western sanctions, the corporate media is still trying to sell the public on the lie that Israel is an innocent victim and that there was no justifiable reason for Iran to retaliate.
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the occupied Palestinian territories and hosts the show ‘Palestine Files’. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’. Follow him on Twitter @falasteen47
The post Revealed: Israel’s Hidden History Of Attacks On Iran appeared first on MintPress News.
Ukraine Court Finds Shell ‘Dishonest’ Over Russian Oligarch Deal
A Ukrainian court has called Shell’s actions over its joint venture with a sanctioned Russian oligarch “dishonest” – and confiscated a slice of its business in Ukraine.
The Appeals Chamber of Ukraine’s Higher Anti-Corruption Court ruled on 2 April that Shell had sought to “reduce the amount of assets held by a sanctioned individual” as it “diluted” the shares held in a joint venture with Russia’s Independent Petroleum Company (IPC).
The proceedings were held after Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice sought to confiscate assets held by IPC’s owner, top Russian oil executive Eduard Khudainatov.
Khudainatov, a former Rosneft CEO, the sole owner of IPC and thought to be the proxy owner of Vladimir Putin's $500 million yacht, was sanctioned by the EU and later Ukraine in 2022.
Shell told Byline Times the decision was an “unjustified appropriation of Shell’s foreign investments by Ukraine”. The company promised to “take all necessary steps to protect our people, assets, investments and reputation”.
The case centered around a Dutch court decision made at the height of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As the West rushed to sanction Russian companies and top officials, Shell moved to exit its Russia projects.
The oil and gas multinational also sought a solution to its Ukraine gas station business, the Alliance Group, a joint venture of 131 Shell-branded petrol stations in the country with IPC. Shell held 51% of the shares in a Dutch holding company for the venture, Cicerone Holding BV, IPC held 49%.
On 3 June 2022, the EU sanctioned Khudainatov for “benefiting from the Russian government”. The 61-year-old worked on Putin’s first presidential campaign in 2000, and later worked closely with Putin ally Igor Sechin at Russian state oil company Rosneft before setting up IPC, a leading oil producer in the country.
Five days later, on 8 June 2022, Shell asked the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to permit the issuance of new shares in Cicerone – against IPC’s protests in the UK courts – so it could invest in the Alliance Group, which at the time, it claimed, was facing an “acute liquidity crisis”.
The Dutch court permitted additional shares to be issued on 15 December 2022, and Shell gradually gained more shares in Cicerone as the company said it poured money into the gas station business. By summer 2023, it had 97%. Khudainatov’s shares were gradually “diluted” to 2.56%.
The Ukrainian court said that Khudainatov had been sanctioned by Ukraine in October 2022, and then had his Ukrainian assets seized as part of a criminal case on 13 December 2022, yet Shell neither “accounted” for these actions, nor “informed” the Dutch authorities of them when it sought relief for its Ukraine business.
Shell’s dilution of Khudainatov’s shares “clearly go against the interests of the Ukrainian state” as it seeks the assets of sanctioned individuals to fight back against Russia’s war, the court found.
As a result, the court ruled in favour of the Ukrainian Justice Ministry, confiscating 49% of Cicerone’s shares in Alliance Holding in favour of the Ukrainian state. Shell will receive its previous 51%.
The Appeals Court decision overturned a previous Ukrainian court ruling to not confiscate Shell’s enlarged interest in Alliance in January 2024 because “it would violate the rights of a legal entity not under sanctions” and Ukraine has no mechanism to compensate losses suffered by unsanctioned legal entities.
Shell said that it had “injected millions of dollars to keep its loss-making Ukrainian retail business operational [...] all with the goal of maintaining critical national infrastructure for the people of Ukraine”.
In its appeal, Shell said that Khudainatov “had no influence” over Cicerone, and that the additional shares had been issued in accordance with Dutch sanctions authorities and courts.
Neither Khudainatov, nor any legal representatives, appeared in court.
Amal Clooney’s Silence on Gaza Shows the Limits Of Liberalism
Amal Clooney, the internationally acclaimed lawyer, is a liberal icon. She and her organization, the Clooney Foundation for Justice (CFJ), never shrink from pronouncing their global verdicts on human rights matters. And yet, despite being Lebanese and of Palestinian descent herself, Time magazine’s 2022 Woman of the Year has maintained complete silence on Israel’s continued bombardment of those very countries – a crime other human rights experts have labeled a genocide.
It has now been six months since the October 7 attack, Israel’s wholesale destruction of Gaza and its attacks on Lebanon, yet Clooney has made no public statement on the matter, either in public or on social media, despite mounting calls for her to do so.
Condemning Enemy Nations, Ignoring Crimes of Friends
Born in Lebanon to a Druze Lebanese father and a Sunni Muslim mother of Palestinian descent, Clooney’s family sought refuge in the United Kingdom after the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War. After practicing law for many years in the U.K. and U.S. in 2016, she founded the CFJ alongside her film star husband, George. “We founded the Clooney Foundation for Justice to hold perpetrators of mass atrocities accountable for their crimes and to help victims in their fight for justice,” the pair explain on their website.
Today, the CFJ works in over 40 countries. This includes many countries the U.S. treats as enemy nations or candidates for regime change. Clooney and her foundation have taken strong stances against many of those nations. She has demanded that Russia be prosecuted for war crimes. “Ukraine is, today, a slaughterhouse. Right in the heart of Europe,” she told the U.N. Security Council in 2022. The following year, the CFJ filed three cases in Germany. The cases accused Russia of many war crimes, including leveling a civilian building in a missile strike on Odesa, killing 40 people, unlawfully detaining, torturing and killing four Ukrainians in the Kharkiv region, and sexual violence and looting in the Kiev region. The CFJ is also suing the Venezuelan government over alleged human rights abuses.
In 2016, Clooney condemned Iran and North Korea for serially abusing their citizens’ human rights. She did this at a conference in the United Arab Emirates, attended by the country’s ruler, Sultan bin Muhammad Al-Qasimi. Far from criticizing the UAE’s dismal human rights record, she praised the government and merely offered friendly “advice” to the emirate on how it could improve.
And yet, the Clooney Foundation has been entirely silent regarding arguably the dominant human rights issue of our time. A search for the words “Israel,” “Gaza,” and “Palestine” on both its website and its Twitter account elicits zero relevant results.
While we cannot expect either Clooney or her organization to work on every country simultaneously, it has disappointed many of Clooney’s admirers that neither has even put out a statement about the country of her birth and the country of her ancestry being torn apart by a Western-backed power.
Even when directly questioned about it, George Clooney appeared to dodge the question, stating:
The whole area [the Middle East] is just on fire, and it is heartbreaking all the way around. All you can do is pray that there is some version of this that comes to some peaceful end soon. But I don’t see it happening in the very near future, and I don’t think anybody does.”
This relative silence on Gaza contrasts with other major Western human rights organizations, who have vociferously condemned the state of Israel. Amnesty International, for example, wrote that “there are alarming warning signs of Genocide given the staggering scale of death and destruction” and that “The collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population by Israeli authorities is a war crime – it is cruel and inhumane.” This sentiment was shared by Human Rights Watch, which noted that “The Israeli government is using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in the Gaza Strip, which is a war crime.”
Friends in High Places
Why have Clooney and her foundation shown little to no interest in Palestine (or Lebanon)? Firstly, the CFJ is sponsored primarily by large liberal institutions, such as the Ford Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and foreign sources like the German and Swedish Postcode Lotteries, none of whom have shown any interest in pro-Palestine activism.
Moreover, Clooney herself has close connections to many in the Democratic Party establishment, including some of the most hardcore pro-Israel zealots anywhere. In 2016, she and her husband hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton with Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban at their mansion. Tickets for the event cost $34,000 each.
Saban is one of America’s most influential political donors but considers himself a “one-issue guy.” “And my issue is Israel,” he once said. He has also called for “higher scrutiny” of Muslim Americans, suggesting they are a threat to the country’s security, and branded Muslim-American Democrats such as Keith Ellison “anti-semites.” Clinton, who describes herself as an “emphatic, unwavering supporter” of Israel, wrote Saban an open letter promising to stamp out the spread of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement by any means necessary.
George and Amal Clooney, right, pose with Hillary Clinto and Bryan Lourd and Bruce Bozzi at at an event at the Clooney home in Hollywood. Photo | Instagram
Moreover, Clooney has accepted a number of U.K. government posts – positions that rarely go to radical outsiders but rather to those firmly inside the establishment beltway. Those posts include being appointed to the Attorney General’s Office Public International Law Panel, meaning she represented the British government in domestic and international courts. The government also appointed her the U.K. Special Envoy on Media Freedom and the Deputy Chair of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom.
One senior position Clooney publicly rejected, however, was to serve on the United Nations Human Rights Council inquiry looking into Israeli war crimes in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge (2014). When pressed to explain her decision, she simply cited a scheduling conflict (while refusing to condemn Israel), stating:
I am horrified by the situation in the occupied Gaza Strip, particularly the civilian casualties that have been caused, and strongly believe that there should be an independent investigation and accountability for crimes that have been committed… I am honored to have received the offer, but given existing commitments – including eight ongoing cases – unfortunately could not accept this role. I wish my colleagues who will serve on the commission courage and strength in their endeavors.”
“Moral Mercenary”
The refusal to investigate Israeli war crimes is especially notable, given that Clooney has made her career taking controversial posts concerning the Middle East. She previously served as an advisor on Syria to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. She currently represents hundreds of Yazidi survivors of ISIS massacres and is in the process of suing cement maker Lafarge. The lawsuit alleges that the French company provided material support to the terrorist group, which kept many Yazidi women as slaves.
In 2014, she defended Abdullah al Senussi, the Former Chief of Intelligence under Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. The International Criminal Court charged Senussi with crimes against humanity, who was alleged to have overseen torture, assassinations and public executions.
Perhaps most surprising, however, was her appointment as legal advisor to King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain during the Bassiouni Commission – a royal investigation into the events of the Arab Spring. The people of Bahrain briefly participated in their own popular anti-government uprising before the monarchy called in Saudi, Emirati and Kuwaiti forces to crush the revolt, killing hundreds and injuring or torturing thousands more. In this instance, Clooney worked on behalf not of the oppressed but of the monarchy, presumably attempting to absolve it of any blame or responsibility for the crackdown on civil liberties, leading one commentator to dub her a “moral mercenary.”
Silent on Genocide
It is barely in doubt that Israel is currently engaged in some of the most egregious crimes against humanity seen anywhere in the 21st century, from genocide to attacks on schools, hospitals, mosques and churches to the deliberate targeting of journalists and other civilians, to the leveling of entire cities and the systematic starvation of a people.
And despite this, Amal Clooney, who presents herself as a champion of progressive, liberal values and human rights, has had nothing to say about it. This is doubly noteworthy, given her country of birth and her ancestry. As an ethical leader with a considerable audience, any pronouncement she utters on the issue would likely make a significant impact.
Palestine is so often, however, the rocks on which the moral and ethical underpinnings of liberalism are dashed. While Western liberals constantly speak in the language of human rights, using them as a weapon against enemy states and even justifying the bloodiest military interventions on their basis, they fall silent when allied nations carry out similar barbaric actions.
This “progressive except for Palestine” mentality is pervasive across the Western world and highlights the profound limits of modern liberalism. While foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin, Nicolás Maduro or Xi Jinping (or even domestic ones such as Trump) are considered beyond the pale for their transgressions on human rights, beltway politicians like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are held up as heroes. This is despite their crimes, which range from using jihadists to overthrow the most prosperous country in Africa to bombing seven countries simultaneously.
It should, therefore, be of little surprise that Clooney and her foundation have remained tight-lipped about the current slaughter. Those who are shocked by their inaction underestimate the moral bankruptcy of modern liberalism.
Speaking on a panel with Michelle Obama and Melinda Gates (two other liberal icons), Clooney outlined the “real driving force” behind her work.
“My son drew a picture the other day of a prison, and he was like, ‘Putin should be here,’” she said before continuing:
I do think about in a few years when they’re more than five when they start to learn about some of these issues that we’re talking about and what’s happening in the world… When they ask us, ‘What did you do about this? What did you say about that?’ I’ve thought about what will my answer be, and I hope it will be a good one.”
If Clooney’s son ever asks her what she was doing as Israel carried out war crimes across the Middle East, she will also have a clear answer: she was silent on genocide.
Feature photo | Amal Clooney speaks during a conference called “Press Behind Bars: Undermining Justice and Democracy” at the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Sept. 28, 2018. Craig Ruttle | AP
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 a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.
The post Amal Clooney’s Silence on Gaza Shows the Limits Of Liberalism appeared first on MintPress News.