Day: May 31, 2024

The United States’ proxy war with Russia is at another inflection point. The battleground is shifting dramatically to Russian territory — something without precedent even in the Cold War. How this pans out will be a momentous event in 21st century politics.  

There are three defining issues here. One, the NATO strategy going forward, given the realisation in the West that there is no question of Russia being defeated in Ukraine; two, the constitutional crisis in Kiev with the presidential term of Vladimir Zelensky having run out on May 21; and, three, germane to all this, Russia’s intentions.  

To be sure, the NATO and the EU are revamping their strategy while Russia hopes to remain “one foot ahead” of the West, as President Vladimir Putin put it. 

Russia is not interested in an escalation as it is doing well in the war of attrition with Ukraine. Russia has effectively countered the US’ Mission Creep so far to push through all of its self-imposed limitations on aid to Ukraine and eventually breach those limits. 

The big question today is how one could take the Biden Administration’s affirmation — stated by the White House National Security Council, the state department and the Pentagon — that it disfavours the use of western weaponry by Kiev to attack pre-war Russian territory. 

An established pattern has set in whereby when Washington says some advanced weapon system is off limits for Ukraine, it actually turns out that Kiev just has to sit out for a few months so that Biden can cross the self-imposed red line. 

Therefore, Russia will not take this as Washington’s final word. Curiously, the ground is being prepared to jettison the taboo, with both congressional Republicans and Secretary of State Blinken urging the White House to give the green light and both New York Times and Washington Post reporting that it is only a matter of time before the administration yields to formal American blessing to accelerate strikes on prewar Russia. (here and here) 

The New York Times and  Guardian reported on Thursday, in fact, a shift already in the US position that now allows Ukrainian US-supplied artillery to fire back at Russian batteries over the Russian border from Kharkov region and also to target concentrations of Russian forces massing on the border in Russia’s Belgorod region. 

Meanwhile, a new phase is about to begin to conclude the Battle of Donbass, which, even after two years remains unfinished business. The entrenched Ukrainian military hubs in the region — Pokrovsk, Kramatorsk and Slovyansk — still threaten southern Donetsk Oblast.

Similarly, Volchansk on the Russian border facing Belgorod city and Kupyansk, also an important logistical point and railway node (almost 20 rail lines intersect in the town with about half track straight into Russia) are a thorn in the flesh for Russia’s border region. 

Russians have openly stated that repeated raids into Belgorod city and its environs from the Kharkov Region needed to be countered with the creation of a “security zone”. Putin himself had spoken about this as early as in March. 

From present indications, Russian operations are directed on two Ukrainian towns close to the border — Volchansk and Lypsti. Russia may stretch the front with a foray into Sumy oblast but any serious effort to capture either Sumy or Kharkov seems unlikely at this stage. 

In an incisive analysis, the well-known Russia watcher Big Serge wrote last week, “The main purpose of these fronts will be to fix Ukrainian reserves in place and denude Ukraine’s ability to react on other fronts. This war will not be won or lost in Kharkov, but in the Donbas, which remains the decisive theatre.            

“We currently appear to be solidly in the preparatory/shaping phase of a Russian summer offensive in the Donbas, which (likely among other things) will feature a Russian drive on the city of Konstyantinivka. This is the last major urban area shielding the advance towards Kramatorsk-Slovyansk from the south (remembering that these twin cities form the ultimate objective of Russia’s campaign in the Donbas.)” 

Putin has strongly reacted to the recent proxy attacks on Russia’s strategic assets with western weaponry inside its territory. Putin warned that “this unending escalation can lead to serious consequences.” 

As he put it, “long-range precision weapons cannot be used without space-based reconnaissance… the final target selection and what is known as launch mission can only be made by highly skilled specialists who rely on this reconnaissance data, technical reconnaissance data. 

“For some attack systems, such as Storm Shadow, these launch missions can be put in automatically, without the need to use Ukrainian military… Launching other systems, such as ATACMS, for example, also relies on space reconnaissance data, targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews that may not even realise what exactly they are putting in. A crew, maybe even a Ukrainian crew, then puts in the corresponding launch mission. However, the mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military.

“So, these officials from NATO countries, especially the ones based in Europe, particularly in small European countries, should… keep in mind that theirs are small and densely populated countries, which is a factor to reckon with before they start talking about striking deep into the Russian territory. It is a serious matter and, without a doubt, we are watching this very carefully.”  

Importantly, Putin underscored, “If Europe were to face those serious consequences, what will the United States do, considering our strategic arms parity? It is hard to tell. Are they looking for a global conflict? I think they wanted to agree upon strategic arms…We will wait and see what happens next.” 

However, there are growing signs that the Biden administration may have simply mothballed the idea of western long-range weaponry being used to destroy Russia’s strategic assets deep inside its territory until the NATO summit gets over in Washington (9-11 July) so as to keep the flock together. 

Equally, Biden may calculate that it is expedient to drum up tensions with Russia rather than leave the foreign policy turf to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who may land in DC to address the lawmakers. The Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi told Israel’s Kan public broadcaster on Wednesday, “we are expecting another seven months of fighting” in Gaza. The Republicans are already flagging Middle East as the single biggest foreign policy goof-up by Biden. This is where the real risk lies. 

There is a remarkable consistency in the Russian words that the depth of its proposed buffer security zone along the western borders will entirely depend on security considerations. The deputy chairman of Russia’s security council Dmitry Medvedev had explicitly stated recently that the security zone may not only include Kiev but also extend as far as the Polish border if the West sends Kiev long-range weapons. Significantly, on Tuesday, Putin called into question the legitimacy of Zelensky remaining in power in Kiev after his presidential term ended on May 21. 

The ball is in Biden’s court. But the signs are not good. Germany, which is the US’s closest European ally, is apparently switching tack and now says that Ukraine’s “defensive action is not limited to one’s own territory, but [can] also be expanded to the territory of the aggressor.” 

The chancellor’s spokesman said Berlin’s previous stance that Ukraine wouldn’t use German weapons on Russian soil had been “a statement of facts” that was true at that moment but did not necessarily apply to the future. He refused to reveal Berlin’s precise agreements with Kiev on using German weapons. 

• This article was published by Indian Punchline

By Peter Fabricius 

Kenyan President William Ruto last week made the first state visit to the United States (US) by an African leader in 16 years, and only the sixth state visit President Joe Biden has hosted since he took office.

Kenya has clearly emerged as America’s leading strategic partner – if not in Africa as a whole, then at least in sub-Saharan Africa. At a time when Africa and other parts of the world are polarising, with Russia-leaning juntas evicting Western militaries from Sahel states and South Africa and others tilting towards Russia and China, Kenya is becoming increasingly significant.

In geopolitical terms, the most important outcome of the visit was that Biden designated Kenya as a ‘Major Non-NATO Ally’ – the only one in sub-Saharan Africa. This status doesn’t include the mutual defence obligations of NATO membership but provides countries with preferential access to US military training, surplus equipment, joint research, etc. The designation confirmed Kenya as one of the US’ most important strategic military partners.

For Ruto, the US visit is also critical, probably more economically than geopolitically. Kenya is struggling with debt and balance of payments problems, and needs US help with debt relief.

A notable geopolitical outcome of the visit was that Biden designated Kenya as a ‘Major Non-NATO Ally’

The US and Kenya have been security partners for a while, helping Somalia’s government fight the persistent al-Shabaab extremists. The two leaders said they discussed options for a multilateral mission to follow the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia, which is due to leave by year-end.

Ruto has agreed to deploy 1 000 paramilitary police officers to help calm ongoing gang-fuelled mayhem in Haiti, which the US regards as its responsibility to address. But that perilous mission, largely funded by the US, has run into several difficulties, including court challenges in Kenya where it’s unpopular. Last week the deployment was delayed by three weeks due to logistical problems.

Economically, Kenya and the US have many common interests. Green energy is paramount, with Kenya already deriving over 90% of its energy from renewables. They also agreed to cooperate in building semi-conductors to diversify supply sources as part of a broader agreement to bolster collaboration between Silicon Valley and Kenya’s flourishingSilicon Savannah.

Ruto and Biden vowed to accelerate negotiations for their Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership (STIP) by the end of the year. The countries have been unable to conclude a free trade agreement, and this STIP – under negotiation since mid-2022 – is the next best thing, providing a comprehensive trade and investment facilitation deal.

Perhaps the most important outcome for Ruto was securing Biden’s support for debt relief measures

The presidents said they would welcome the timely reauthorisation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which grants exportsfrom eligible sub-Saharan countries duty-free access to the lucrative US market. They noted that Kenyan apparel exports to the US under AGOA were worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Also, more USAID and Kenyan private sector investments were expected to generate an extra US$250 million in apparel exports to the US and create over 20 000 jobs.

Perhaps the most important outcome for Ruto – who faces the challenge of repaying over US$76 billion in debt – was securing Biden’s support for debt relief measures. The two launched the Nairobi-Washington Vision, which called for greater debt relief for developing countries that invested more in their people’s development. They also announced several measures to increase lending to developing countries from the multilateral development banks.

Ruto has effected quite a remarkable turnaround in his relations with the US. Before Kenya’s 2013 elections, then US Ambassador Johnnie Carson famously told voters that ‘choices have consequences.’ This was a warning to not vote for Uhuru Kenyatta as president and Ruto as his running mate, as the International Criminal Court had indicted both for orchestrating violence against their opponents after the 2007 elections. They were elected anyway – and the cases closed as witnesses mysteriously disappeared.

However, Ruto’s successful Washington visit underlined to some African critics that he’s too pro-Western. He has tried to balance that by finalising negotiations for a trade deal with the United Arab Emirates in February. And he has irked the West by visiting China – probably wise since Kenya owes it around US$6 billion – and by hosting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Iran’s late president Ebrahim Raisi.

But unlike South Africa, which abstained from the United Nations General Assembly resolutions condemning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, Kenya supported them all, except one. That was the resolution demanding Russia’s suspension from the Human Rights Council. Kenya abstained – thereby maintaining a more principled balance between non-alignment and support for national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The US and the West have also appreciated Kenya’s posture on the Gaza war, which they see as more balanced than South Africa’s.

The evolving relationship should be monitored to clearly distinguish between Ruto’s and Kenya’s interests

Chatham House’s Fergus Kell noted last week that the US and others hoped Kenya could ‘fill a leadership vacuum created by Ethiopia’s internal struggles, the fall from grace of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, and Rwanda’s entanglement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.’

Kell said that ‘For Kenya, this visit offers a chance to reinforce its status as a key strategic interlocutor.’ That Ruto appears to have done. Indeed, many observers believe Ruto is trying to displace Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame as the self-proclaimed leader of Africa. Ruto is pushing for Raila Odinga to become the AU Commission’s next chairperson, which would boost Ruto’s wider ambitions. Some AU sources say however that Ruto’s pro-Western reputation may count against Odinga.

Ruto’s Washington excursion was not unanimously popular back home, perhaps not surprisingly, since he’s ‘a politically divisive figure in Kenya,’ as one anonymous observer says. His supporters are delighted at the prestige his visit brought Kenya, and the promise of greater US investment and debt relief. His critics argue that he’s overpromising again, and ‘while preaching about austerity, he hired an expensive private jet from Dubai to take him to the US,’ this observer says.

According to Institute for Security Studies Senior Researcher in Nairobi, Willis Okumu, ‘The visit could be seen as a win for Ruto, but is it for Kenyans? To me, it looks more like Ruto is being used to spearhead a neo-colonialist agenda, given the recent changes in Africa where heads of state including Museveni have rebuffed Western-backed policies.

He said it could be argued that: ‘Ruto is desperate for the Western embrace, for political and economic reasons, while America, as its power wanes globally due to loss of geopolitical influence to China, [needs] a head of state who can champion its ideals. Where does this leave the people of Kenya?

Foreign relations are not necessarily a zero-sum game, and the fact that an enhanced alliance suits the US doesn’t mean it won’t help Kenya. But, as Okumu cautions, the evolving relationship should be closely monitored to clearly distinguish between Ruto’s and Kenya’s interests.

• About the author: Peter Fabricius, Consultant, ISS Pretoria
• Source: This article was published by ISS Today

Over the past three years, the amount of interest the U.S. government has to pay on the national debt has become the fastest-growing category of government spending. It was already the second-largest government expenditure in 2024 and will soon become the largest.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates that the growing burden of the interest paid on the national debt will account for 21% of the total expected growth in government spending over the next ten years.

The cost of paying interest on the national debt is not the only contributor to the growth of future government spending. The CFRB also projects that Medicare and other healthcare spending will account for 35% of the increase in the U.S. government’s spending growth. Social Security will account for another 28% of the anticipated increase. “Everything else” accounts for 16% of the projected government spending growth.

A public health problem

The very rapid growth of how much the U.S. government pays to borrow money to support its spending imposes more than a fiscal burden on Americans. It threatens their health.

In a recent article, the American Council on Science and Health’s Alex Berezow makes that argument, calling the U.S. national debt a “public health threat.” Here’s the crux of how he arrived at that position: 

Though the national debt feels like an abstract academic concept, it isn’t. The debt itself can wreak economic havoc, a phenomenon known as “crowding out.” When the government needs to borrow money, it often gets that money from investors (in the form of government bonds like 10-year Treasury notes). But investor money is not unlimited. Other entities, like established businesses and startups, also need investor money. Competition for this money drives up the cost of borrowing that money—the interest rate. So, the more the government borrows, the higher the interest rate for everyone.

Simultaneously, every dollar invested in government debt is a dollar that cannot be invested elsewhere. That means businesses that need to borrow substantial amounts of money to finance major projects like expansion or research cannot do so because the borrowing costs are too high.

And that is precisely why the national debt is a public health threat. Biotech companies and the venture capitalists who invest in them are having difficulty raising money, and layoffs are plaguing the industry. Even large pharmaceutical companies, which many assume are swimming in cash, are cutting back. Bristol Myers Squibb is set to lay off about 6% of its workforce, some 2200 people.

To be sure, the national debt affects all industries, and the troubles facing the biotech and pharma industries cannot solely or even largely be blamed on the national debt. It is simply one factor among many. But it is a factor that the government can control—but chooses not to.

Over the next decade, 84% of the growth in federal government spending will be due to healthcare, Social Security, and interest payments. Without serious reform, the government will need to borrow yet more money to pay for these increased costs, exacerbating the aforementioned issues. Combined, this threatens to underfund basic services like Medicare as well as health innovation in America. Money problems inevitably lead to health problems.

A more direct way that burden will be imposed is through cuts to big government health care programs, like Medicare Advantage. The Biden administration is pushing through cuts to the popular program’s benefits that half of American seniors use for their health care. Those Americans will now face higher out-of-pocket costs because the government can’t afford to pay both public health benefits and the interest it owes to its creditors.

It’s important to recognize that politicians and bureaucrats have absolute control over how much money the U.S. government spends. Politicians are responsible for approving excessive spending that adds to the national debt. Bureaucrats are responsible for managing that spending, and their failure to do so prudently adds to the burden of the national debt.

Since the government can’t skip paying its creditors without defaulting on the national debt, more cuts to public health programs can be expected. What the Biden administration is doing with its cuts to Medicare is just the beginning.

• This article was published by the Beacon

When Bill Walton passed away on Monday, fans recalled the UCLA star, two-time NBA champion, and one of the great centers of all time. Walton became a broadcaster and last year he called a foul on misguided government policies in San Diego, the same policies now causing misery across California.

“I love San Diego and it breaks my heart what’s happening to it now,” said Walton a 27-minute speech last October. The dream had become a “nightmare” and the city faced an “existential challenge.”

Balboa Park, near Walton’s residence, is “not safe,” and “downtown for same reason.” Bike trails were jammed with trash and the Embarcadero “a travesty.” For Walton, this was due to homeless people who failed to grasp “the first thing you learn in life—clean up after yourself.” As Walton saw it, the homeless were also into criminality.

“They steal everything,” Walton said, including water, electricity, and “our mail.” This forced Walton to “call the police every single day.” In his speech, he called out career politicians who “never had another job,” especially San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria. He had done “a lot of preaching” but had “no plan whatsoever.”

Gloria had “instructed our police force to not enforce the rules on homeless people. That is unacceptable.” On the other hand, it wasn’t quite true that Gloria had no plan. He was an advocate of the Housing First policy of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“‘Housing First’ is not working, has never worked, and will not work,” contended Walton. If Californians have doubts, economist Lawrence McQuillan shows why Newsom’s plan is not working.

Only Hawaii surpasses California as the most expensive place to build housing, and it takes about five years “from concept to move-in.” This expense, largely due to excessive regulation, has saddled California with a “severe housing shortage.”

Housing First makes few demands on the homeless themselves, and crowds out both shelter space and treatment solutions. For every person housed under the current plan, “up to four more become newly homeless.” Simply putting a roof over the head of people with substance abuse and mental illness “does not resolve their root causes of homelessness and may make matters worse.”

Housing First, McQuillan has explained, is “a misguided, budget-busting, Sisyphean pipe dream of the state’s political class, which has produced concentrated urban areas of human misery such as The Jungle (San Jose), Skid Row (Los Angeles), the Tenderloin (San Francisco), and Wood Street (Oakland).”

Squalor also prevails in many parts of Sacramento and San Diego, once billed as “America’s Finest City.”

Like McQuillan, Bill Walton supported high-tech shelter tents as a stop-gap measure, but the “political will” is not there. With the departure of Walton, the city, state and nation have lost an eloquent advocate for common-sense policies. Still, there’s more about him people should know.Walton was a big fan of Lithuanian center Arvydas Sabonis, “a combination of Kareem, Larry Bird, and Pete Maravich.” Before 1991, the Lithuanians were forced to play for the Soviet Union. They wanted to field their own national team for the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, but their country lay in ruins. Golden State Warriors assistant coach Donnie Nelson sought out the Grateful Dead.

The group’s foundation cut the Lithuanians a big check and had their logo designer send a box of tie-dyed T-shirts in Lithuania’s national colors, with an image of a skeleton dunking a basketball. The Lithuanians defeated Russia for the bronze medal and the victors posed in their T-shirts.

In 2011, when Sabonis was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, he asked Bill Walton to be his presenter. Before the ceremony, Sabonis slipped Walton one of the original T-shirts from 1992. For Walton, a huge Grateful Dead fan, “It was as emotional and powerful of a moment as I’ve ever had in my life.”

It was a life like no other. Rest in peace big fella.

• This article was also published in The Orange County Register

By Alexander Brotman

Well over two years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United States has finally given limited support to Ukraine to use its weapons on Russian soil, but only in the immediate vicinity of Kharkiv. The ability for Ukraine to strike military targets inside Russian territory with US- and Western-supplied weapons is a logical next step in the course of the war. At present, Russia is making more territorial gains in the north and east around Kharkiv; the political calendar in the West is looking less favorable toward Ukraine, and pressure will continue to build for a negotiated settlement. Given this operating environment, a green light from Washington for striking targets deep inside Russia, not just across the border, would provide Ukraine with significant leverage and a morale boost. However, long-range strikes are still deemed too escalatory by the U.S. and Germany, but notably not by France, previously one of Ukraine’s most cautious supporters, which in the early phase of the war was worried about ‘humiliating’ Russia.

So far, the UK, Finland, Sweden, Poland, the Baltic states, and others have given Kyiv approval to use their weapons to strike inside Russia, with the Dutch defense minister adding that it ‘shouldn’t even be a subject of debate.’ France has come to a similar conclusion, with President Macron saying Ukraine should only ‘neutralize’ specific military sites inside Russia from where missiles are launched. Germany has started to relax its stance but still hasn’t provided Ukraine with the Taurus weapons that are capable of reaching Russian soil.

As the 2024 election nears, Washington looks increasingly isolated from its European allies in NATO who are beginning to carry their weight and act in the name of strategic autonomy and burden-sharing that has long been a sticking point in the transatlantic alliance. Coupled with the fact that the U.S. and Germany are likely to continue to oppose a membership action plan for Ukraine at the upcoming NATO summit in July in Washington, Ukraine’s future Euro-Atlantic trajectory looks more perilous. President Macron will host Biden for a state visit in Paris one month prior to the summit, where he is likely to press Biden further on Washington’s long-term commitment to Ukraine. There will be immense pressure on Washington in the coming months to discard its fears over escalation in order to lend greater support to Ukraine should Donald Trump win re-election in November. A second Trump administration will likely be much more conciliatory towards Moscow and its security needs while placing less faith in US intelligence agencies.

The course of alliance unity has shifted remarkably since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began over two years ago. Some states have remained consistent in their clear-eyed military and strategic support while others like France have witnessed a remarkable turnaround. The United States remains Ukraine’s strongest ally when it comes to military materiel and logistics, but it has not yet demonstrated the strategic confidence and the political will necessary to enable Ukraine to win. Germany remains a reluctant power in Europe, while Poland has become a confident and self-assured power in its own right. France is no less confident but has only recently developed the strategic insight to view Central Europe, and thus Ukraine, as part of the formerly ‘kidnapped West,’ or formidable allies in protecting Europe rather than wayward and trapped vassal states. Biden and his team are proud Atlanticists, but the shock of the Trump presidency, increased competition with China, and the perception that American power and influence is decreasing in certain areas of the globe has dimmed the vigor behind Biden’s transatlantic agenda.

Like most other policy debates surrounding the conflict, Washington has started to come around but only after most NATO allies have shown greater leadership and confidence in dealing with Russia. Russia is committed to a protracted war in Ukraine, mobilizing the nation towards a war economy and notably tapping an economist to lead the defense ministry. It is naturally harder for NATO allies to remain committed to Ukraine as most are full or flawed democracies susceptible to a range of domestic factors and the changing will of the voters. The upcoming NATO summit in Washington is the time to ensure that Ukraine wins this war and becomes a member of the alliance once hostilities have ceased and Ukraine’s pre-invasion territory is fully recovered. President Putin will no doubt view this as a sign of aggression and escalation on the part of the West, and he may even threaten nuclear consequences. NATO should defiantly make clear, however, that the process of enlargement and the unity of the alliance does pose a direct threat to Russia – a direct threat to Russia’s ability to prosecute and ultimately to win this war.

• The views expressed in this article belong to the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect those of Geopoliticalmonitor.com.

Armenia: Waiting to recover health and reunite with husband  ICRC

Former USDA official testifies in federal corruption trial that Sen. Menendez warned him to ‘stop interfering’  AOL

By Mike Eckel

(RFE/RL) — Earlier this week, a Russian early warning radar installation was hit by unidentified projectiles; Ukrainian drones, Ukraine’s military intelligence agency claimed.

It was unclear if there was any significant damage, but of more significance was where the facility was located: around 1,800 kilometers from the Ukrainian border.

Throughout the 27 months since Russia launched its all-out invasion, Ukraine has been attacking sites inside Russia: first quietly and sporadically, then boldly and loudly, including cross-border raids by loosely affiliated paramilitary groups and spectacular drone strikes in the heart of Moscow.

But Ukraine has chafed at the restrictions that have kept it from utilizing its Western-supplied arsenal to make more substantive attacks further inside Russia: on troop staging grounds, or railways, or weapons depots, for example. A 3-week-old offensive near Kharkiv in the northeast that has stretched Ukraine’s forces thin has added to the impatience.

As of May 30, that’s changed, as the United States joined more than a dozen NATO allies and signaled for the first time it would give Ukraine permission to strike some targets inside Russia itself.

The shift is limited in scope, allowing Ukrainian forces to use short-range missiles from HIMARS launchers, or artillery, to hit command-and-control posts, arms depots, and other military targets used as part of the Kharkiv offensive. Ukraine will still be barred from using longer-range surface-to-surface missiles known as ATACMS against targets inside Russia.

U.S. President Joe Biden “recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S.-supplied weapons for counter-fire purposes in the Kharkiv region so Ukraine can hit back against Russian forces that are attacking them or preparing to attack them,” a U.S. official told RFE/RL. “Our policy with respect to prohibiting the use of ATACMS or long-range strikes inside of Russia has not changed.”

The change was first reported by Politico.

“Ukraine has the right to strike targets in Russia,” Jack Watling, senior researcher at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said during a Financial Times podcast prior to the announcement. “It is at war with Russia, and Russia is striking targets in Ukraine every day.”

But he said the question is what kinds of weapons Ukraine would be allowed to use to make a substantial difference. Howitzers fired across the border are one thing; longer-range Storm Shadow or Scalp cruise missiles or ATACMS missiles are another.

“I think if we just draw a hard line and say, ‘Strikes in Russia? No.’ That’s very unhelpful,” he said. “But we do also need to appreciate that there are different kinds of strikes using different kinds of systems that hold quite different risks.”

Red Lines

In the past, Russia has warned that Washington supplying longer-range weaponry to Ukraine “would cross a red line.” But even as Western weapon supplies have grown in frequency and number, Russia has refrained from targeting shipments or depots where they could be located.

Asked about the reported change in U.S. policy, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed that Moscow knew nothing about it and suggested that the Russian government did not see it as a significant change in the status quo.

“It’s well known that on the whole American weapons have already been used to try and target Russian territory,” he said on May 31. “That is enough for us to know and is very eloquent evidence of the level of involvement of the United States in this conflict.”

Ukraine for months has enthusiastically gone after targets in Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula that Russia seized in 2014. Russia has a substantial deployment of troops, aircraft, and equipment there, not to mention its Black Sea Fleet naval ships, which until recently have been based in the port of Sevastopol.

In late April, Ukraine used ATACMS, or Army Tactical Missile System, to hit an airfield in Dzhankoy in Crimea. Though Ukraine had received shorter-range versions of the ATACMS in the past, the Dzhankoy attack was the first time Ukraine had used the longer-range model — something that the United States had secretly supplied months prior.

Ukraine has also used the British-French-designed Storm Shadow missiles to target Russian naval facilities in Crimea.

Since the United States, like most of the international community, does not recognize Russia’s claim to Crimea, there were few, if any, restrictions on Ukraine targeting sites in Crimea.

Ukrainian forces have been struggling on the battlefield for months now, a situation caused in part by the pause in U.S. weapons supplies that resulted from political infighting in Washington.

On May 10, their struggles deepened further when tens of thousands of Russian troops crossed the border north of the city of Kharkiv, opening up a new offensive and forcing Ukrainian commanders to rush more experienced units to the region from other hot spots.

The policy change “will allow for Ukraine to target Russian troops, especially high-value targets such as command-and-control elements, artillery, logistics, and air-defense units that are located on Russian territory near Kharkiv and concentrating or rehearsing future operations against Ukraine,” Mick Ryan, a retired Australian Army major general, said in an e-mail newsletter. “This is the kind of operational strike — the ability to destroy Russian military forces before they are committed to combat operations — that is essential while Ukraine reconstitutes its forces in 2024.”

One of the reasons Russia is making gains at present is its dominance of the air. Russia has been able to use jet-dropped glide bombs to devastating effect, said Johan Norberg, a senior analyst and expert on Russia’s military at the Swedish Defense Research Agency FOI.

Ukraine has been unable to push back due to a lack of robust air defenses such as U.S.-made Patriot systems.

With Western weaponry and the ability to strike Russian airfields, Ukraine should be able to curtail Russia’s ability to attack effectively with planes, Norberg said.

“They have to move farther away, also making things more difficult in terms of the frequency of sorties you can make over Ukraine,” he told RFE/RL. “And then the military rationale is clear. There could be other arguments I could find, like striking on command posts…deeper inside Russia or various logistics hubs…. But I think right now, air power seems to be some of the Ukraine’s biggest problems at the moment.

‘Boiling A Frog Slowly’

It’s unclear exactly what prompted the Biden administration to change its policy. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who traveled to Kyiv last month, reportedly received a sober assessment of the ability of Ukraine’s forces to hold out. In Congress, lawmakers from both parties had criticized the White House for holding Ukraine back.

Speaking to Blinken at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on May 22, the committee’s Republican chairman, Michael McCaul, accused the Biden administration, and White House national-security adviser Jake Sullivan more specifically, of creating a “sanctuary” for Russian forces across the border.

Germany, which has been one of the most hesitant NATO members where Western weaponry is concerned, on May 31 signaled it was in agreement with the new U.S. policy. Ukraine has repeatedly asked Berlin for its Taurus KEPD-350 cruise missile.

Over the past two weeks, a growing chorus of NATO members have come out in support of using various Western weaponry more aggressively, to hit targets inside Russia itself.

“However, with regard to weapons that can operate over a long distance, of hundreds of kilometers, there is still a reluctance on our part,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told reporters during a visit to Moldova.

“Looking at where we are today, where we…supply missiles, armored vehicles, what have you — they would have been out of the question two years ago. But everything is done very gradually,” Norberg said. “Whether this was deliberate to, sort of, slowly boil the frog, and not pass any Russian red lines, or just because of decision-making taking a long time at the West, I don’t know.”

Complicating the discussion: Ukraine’s willingness to go after Russian targets – civilian or military – on its own, with its own technology, in all likelihood without U.S. and NATO approval. The attack on the Voronezh-M radar installation near the city of Orsk on May 27 was the latest example.

That drew criticism from some arms control experts who say it’s potentially dangerous for Ukraine to target military objects used for nuclear deterrence – not something directly related to the Ukraine conflict.

RFE/RL correspondent Todd Prince contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.

• Mike Eckel is a senior correspondent reporting on political and economic developments in Russia, Ukraine, and around the former Soviet Union, as well as news involving cybercrime and espionage. He’s reported on the ground on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the wars in Chechnya and Georgia, and the 2004 Beslan hostage crisis, as well as the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

After the jury came in with its verdict that Donald Trump was guilty of a scheme and coverup to illegally influence the 2016 election, the Biden campaign issued a statement saying that the judgment demonstrated that “no one is above the law,” not even a former President. The overwhelming truth is that the majority of criminal laws are not a deterrent to the serious violations of law committed by sitting presidents of the United States.

This includes the incumbent Joe Biden, especially with regard to foreign and military decisions.

At least five long-standing federal laws explicitly condition the shipment of weapons to foreign countries.  It is legally impermissible for the U.S. government to provide weapons to countries that violate human rights or use these weapons offensively. Day after day, Joe Biden has become a co-belligerent with Netanyahu’s genocidal war crimes and mass slaughter of innocent children, women and men. He has violated all five of these federal laws. (See my February 16, 2024 column: Biden & Blinken – Rule of Illegal Power Over Rule of Law).

As the military, diplomatic and political enabler of the Israeli government’s siege, with the unconditional shipment of weapons of mass destruction, along with civilian bombardment and starvation of defenseless Palestinians in Gaza, Biden is violating the UN Charter and other treaties that past Administrations have signed and that have been ratified by the U.S. Senate.  Biden and other presidents act like they are above these and other laws.

One president after another has spent monies not appropriated by Congress, has defied subpoenas issued by Congress, launched wars undeclared by Congress, sent deadly weapons to nations that obstruct the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid, and that do not protect civilian populations under foreign military rule. All violations of federal law.

Donald Trump in 2019 brazenly stated the lawlessness in one sentence: “ I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” Trump got away with defying over 125 Congressional subpoenas, and with violating the criminal statute known as the Hatch Act by using the White House and other federal property to promote his re-election campaign. Then of course there was the January 6 insurrection, and the likely delay of his trial until after the election, if at all.

Joe Biden shuffles around unappropriated monies, continues to allow the violation of a 1992 federal law requiring the Pentagon to provide Congress with an audited military budget, and is constantly sending unlawful armed incursions into other weaker countries with impunity.

To make matters easier for presidents, there is the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel memo, from decades ago, that asserts there can be no criminal prosecution initiated against a sitting president.

As attorney Bruce Fein, who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel, has said repeatedly, this baseless opinion has no legal force and should be rescinded. (See, Letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, May 31, 2024).

The courts have shielded presidents from accountability for perpetuated crimes committed either by the White House or by the president’s administration.  For example, citizens have no “standing to sue,” to challenge in court a variety of Executive Branch abuses says the Supreme Court, not even members of Congress. As for presidential violations of the Constitution and federal laws by launching illegal wars or armed attacks abroad, the courts dismiss such cases, saying they raise “political questions” outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Being allowed to get away with crimes is what constitutional law specialist Bruce Fein calls “a way of life at the White House.” Obstruction of justice or deliberate non-enforcement of seriously violated laws marks every presidency. Trump just boasted about what he inherited and intensified it.

Again, presidents operate in a system of considerable sovereign immunity, and law that either can’t or has not breached this shielded impunity. They really are above the criminal laws. Only the very difficult political penalty of impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by two-thirds of the Senate can only evict them from office, after which they are free to enjoy life, and receive huge lecture fees and large book advances.

By Alex Willemyns 

A Thailand-based Chinese man who created a cybercrime operation that seized control of Americans’ computers and led to $5.9 billion in fraudulent claims from the U.S. COVID-19 relief program was arrested in Singapore, according to the Justice Department.

The U.S. Treasury Department on Tuesday issued sanctions against YunHe Wang, 35, and two associates based in the Thai beach resort of Pattaya, alleging that they created a “botnet” – or robot network – called 911 S5 that took control of 19 million computers so criminals could use their internet connections.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department said Wang was arrested in Singapore last week following an international law enforcement effort led by the FBI, which included Thai and Singaporean authorities.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said Wang made “more than $99 million” selling access to his network of hijacked computers, which he gained control of by offering victims free access to virtual private networks, or VPNs, which people use to hide their online activity.

What the free VPN users did not know, he said, was that their internet connections were being hijacked by Wang’s operation and sold on to “customers” who used their I.P. addresses to commit crimes.

“We estimate that 911 S5 customers are responsible for more than $5.9 billion in losses due to fraud against pandemic relief programs,” he said at a news conference. “We and our partners have seized over $29 million in criminal assets tied to the botnets operation.”

“This case makes clear that the long arm of the law stretches across borders and into the deepest shadows of the dark web and the Justice Department will never stop fighting to hold cybercriminals to account.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray said 911 S5 was “likely the world’s largest botnet ever,” and had provided its users with a veil that also facilitated identity theft and child exploitation crimes.

Stolen credit cards

An analysis by Krebs on Security, an online security news website, said users of Wang’s free VPN services – including MaskVPN, DewVPN, PaladinVPN, Proxygate, Shield VPN, and ShineVPN – would have had few clues about the ways their connections were being used.

“911’s VPN performed largely as advertised for the user – allowing them to surf the web anonymously – but it also quietly turned the user’s computer into a traffic relay for paying 911 S5 customers,” the analysis said, adding that the service was a lucrative one.

The botnet’s “reliability and extremely low prices quickly made it one of the most popular services” available on “the cybercrime underground,” with criminals able to use the service to make it appear as if they were nearly anywhere in the United States, according to the analysis.

That was useful, it explains, because it let a criminal route “malicious traffic” through a connection that is “geographically close to the consumer whose stolen credit card is about to be used, or whose bank account is about to be emptied” and thereby avoid fraud detection.

Besides the $5.9 billion in fraudulent COVID-19 relief losses sustained because of the 911 S5 botnet, U.S. financial institutions identified “millions of dollars more” in losses because of fraudulent credit applications, according to a statement issued by the Justice Department.

With the proceeds of the botnet, Wang bought property in the United States, China, Singapore, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and the Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, where he also gained citizenship through investment in May 2022, the statement said.

An unsealed indictment says “dozens of assets and properties” have been seized, including a Ferrari F8 Spider, a BMW i8, a BMW X7, a Rolls Royce, several luxury wristwatches, 21 properties, more than a dozen bank accounts and two dozen cryptocurrency wallets.

Wang was charged with conspiracy to commit computer fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering and faces up to 65 years in prison if found guilty.