We have a name!
This podcast will from now on be called ‘Round the Globe with John and Claire. We like it because it’s simple and it says what it’s about.
From now on you’ll receive ‘Round the Globe with John and Claire every weekday. It’s a bonus, not a substitute for any of the other things we do. We’d love it if you subscribed:
What’s your verdict so far? How can we improve it?
The show notes are interleaved among the other articles, below. I’ve appended GLOBAL EYES to the podcast because these items are related to what we discuss.
“We are surely approaching a moment for Europe in which it will be necessary not to be cowards.” —Emmanuel Macron, March 5, during a visit to the Czech Republic
The situation along the front in Ukraine is absolutely critical, with Russia bearing down on the front with its mass in several directions, said the chair of Estonia’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Marko Mihkelson, after a visit to the front:
“I’ve been here for three days, and moved around along the entire front together with volunteers; I’ve met with troops and officers from around a dozen different fighting brigades, from Kupiansk to Lyman, Bakhmut and the Avdiivka region, and currently I’m on the southern front toward Orikhiv. … In each of these directions, Russian forces now have absolutely massive initiative, massive firepower and massive manpower, which is pushing the Ukrainian front in all of these directions, both to the east and the south … Everyone I’ve spoken to has the message that they’re catastrophically short on artillery shells as well as quite a lot of other equipment. And Russia’s quantitative force is what's currently very troubling on the front.”
According to the Estonian committee chair, many people are very angry about what’s currently being said in Europe and the US. “They can see that the West doesn’t comprehend the current extremely critical situation in this war, where what’s needed is actions, not words … This morning, in one part of the southern front right here, there was such a barrage of Russian artillery fire from 5-8 am that there wasn’t even a second of silence. … Along one part of the front, Russians have a 100:1 advantage in artillery fire. In a situation like that, it’s easy to understand why the Ukrainians are questioning what Western powers want to achieve.” The MP also noted that despite the incredibly difficult situation, Ukrainian morale still remains high.
Commenting on French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent statement about how the deployment of Western troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out, Mihkelson described Macron’s words as ill-considered rhetoric. “Talk regarding whether to send ground troops to Ukraine should first and foremost be worked out among ourselves, and not argued publicly,” he said. “This isn't exactly the best rhetoric at a time when Ukraine needs actual military support in order to curb Russian pressure.”
(This is the only video I could find with English subtitles. It should search to the important part automatically.)
Blast from the Past: Remember this? Macron’s behavior toward Putin had been so delusional, for so long, that in 2002 I wrote this article:
…. He has spent the past five years trying to draw Russia into his embrace, evidence be damned. Apart from Germany, the rest of Europe—the Baltic states and Ukraine, in particular—have viewed Macron as a preening, Putin-loving nincompoop, at best; an outright menace to European security and NATO’s integrity at worst.
Leaked files reveal Russian military’s criteria for nuclear strike. (The article I mentioned to John.)
Macron tells party leaders France’s support to Ukraine has “no limits.” French President Emmanuel Macron met with leaders of the opposition to discuss the war in Ukraine. He has suggested that Ukraine’s allies should not rule out sending troops.
Macron urges Ukraine’s allies not to be “cowardly.” The French president is on a visit to Prague to clarify his country’s standpoint on a Czech plan to buy weapons outside Europe for Ukraine.
Macron ready to send troops to Ukraine if Russia approaches Kyiv or Odesa. At a meeting with a range of political parties, the President of France floated a scenario that could potentially lead to French troops deployed in Ukraine.
Prime Minister Kaja Kallas: Ukraine has asked for ammunition and air defense—not ground forces.
Troops for Ukraine: Macron’s big moment, by Nicolas Tenzer. Macron ended the taboo on discussion as part of a carefully considered switch in policy. He means what he says—the question is whether others will follow.
French ambassador: We provide a lot of support to Ukraine, but don’t always announce it.
[Ambassador Mignot said], “I think he really said that on purpose. To create, to show that we have resolve and determination, and we are not afraid of going further in supporting Ukraine. There were many issues in that Paris meeting; in particular, I think there is an assessment that Russia is becoming more and more aggressive. This is clear in France, where we see disinformation campaigns orchestrated by Russia. We see also Russia being more aggressive and creating chaos in Africa and the Middle East.” …
According to the French ambassador, the attitude of Paris towards Russia has changed significantly, and this is also reflected in its support for Ukraine. “In France, we have tripled the production of ammunition for Ukraine. We have increased our training capacity. We are training more specialists, so we are doing more and more. But it takes time, I think to adapt the industry to produce more capacity …to produce Cesar guns, I think this has now decreased from 30 months to 15 months; we are delivering cruise missiles, and President Macron announced a new batch of cruise missiles and bombs to be delivered to Ukraine. … “We are doing a lot, and we are not telling everything about what we are doing, that's why we are in international reports, we might be a little below.”
I have been talking a lot about this in the foreign media lately and used the expression that before things get better, they usually get worse. But Estonian people are more direct and maybe have a slightly more realistic attitude towards the war in Ukraine. The reality is that things get worse before they get better. Then they get even worse. And then they suddenly go completely crazy. And only then do they slowly get better. Today we are somewhere between bad and getting worse.
—Estonian Ministry of Defense Permanent Secretary Kusti Salm
Estonian Minister of Defense: Europe needs to take a bigger, stronger and more aggressive role in supporting Ukraine:
… “[I]t is possible that Ukraine can lose this war. This is a sentence that is considerably more complex and difficult to say. It is all the more important that we say it. Because the prospect of Ukraine losing this war is absolutely catastrophic for Estonian security, for European security, and for NATO security. …
One of Ukraine’s biggest problems is a “catastrophic” shortage of ammunition that is “getting worse every day. As it stands today, of all the artillery that has been given to Ukraine, one-third is in use. The daily norm per artillery piece is six to eight rounds. This is total starvation when we are talking about winning a war. Russia has a huge surplus. They have many times more artillery and dozens of times more ammunition.” …
Salm said Ukraine has been able to spread its artillery over a 1,000-kilometer front with the help of allies, intelligence and targeting. But ammunition stocks are quickly diminishing. The rapid recruitment of soldiers also means their training is “insufficient.” … “This will lead to even greater loss of human life, which in turn risks greater territorial concessions. This adds some fuel to the Russian war of attrition victory theory.”
He said Western allies struggle to provide ammunition for many reasons, such as logistics and production, but the focus should be on political will and money. “Today, there is not a single head of state in the Ramstein coalition who has not stated the need to support Ukraine and spoken at length about it, made a speech, or taken a selfie with President Volodymyr Zelensky. There is plenty of political will. What is lacking is the capacity. The capacity to put enough money on the table for Ukraine to win this war.” …
Salm said if the US does not want to finance Ukraine’s victory, then Europe must step up. “And if Europe, for whatever reason, does not want to, then we [Estonia] have to do it. It is as simple as that. And that is what this existential threat means for us.”
Former Estonian diplomat Harri Tiido: Macron is acting this way because of Scholz’s weakness:
“When I examine Britain’s views, and now those also held in France, it seems there is actually a completely rational explanation as to why Macron is acting as he has been. This is because Scholz has shown weakness, but Europe needs a leader. This is particularly the case in a situation where America’s leading role in this may evaporate,” Tiido continued. “Plus I think Macron has been aspiring for some time to get France in place as a lead country, and to be at the helm of that leading country. So he’s looking to play that role,” Tiido added.
… “Indeed, actually every herd needs a leader of that sort. And I think that the ‘herd’ of European politicians needs such a leader, one who could point them in the right direction.” … Tiido said he believes that France will be ready to fulfill Macron’s pledges. “I think that Macron wants to back up his words with something concrete. But the question is that the lead ram can bring the flock in one direction, but the flock may prefer to head to the slaughterhouse.”
Macron today produced maps of a possible Russian breakthrough towards Kyiv or Odessa which could oblige the West to act to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine. In talks with French opposition leaders, Macron said there should be no more “red lines” on French involvement in the conflict.
Macron summoned leaders of all French parliamentary parties to talks at the Elysée Palace to explain his controversial remarks last week in which he said the deployment of western troops in Ukraine should no longer be excluded. Participants in the meeting said Macron had explained his theory of “strategic ambivalence”—keeping Moscow guessing. Since Vladimir Putin clearly knew no limits, he said, the West had been handing him an advantage by fixing or “interiorizing” limits of its own.
But Opposition leaders of the Far Right, Right and Left said they had been left worried and unconvinced by Macron’s approach (which has also been rejected by the US, UK, Germany and several other NATO countries). Jordan Bardella, the president and de facto Number Two of Marine Le Pen’s far-right Rassemblement National, said threatening to send French soldiers “to fight a nuclear power like Russia is irresponsible and extremely dangerous for world peace.” The Communist Party leader Fabien Roussel said that he feared that Macron was “ready to engage in a bellicose escalation which would be very dangerous.”
Today’s meeting was the prelude to a two-day parliamentary debate next week to discuss a ten-year defense pact signed by Macron and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, last month. Macron told French journalists on Wednesday that he hoped this debate would “make it clear” which political forces in France supported Ukraine and which supported Russia.
Elysée officials deny domestic politics and June EU elections have influenced Macron’s new rhetoric on Ukraine. They say he is driven by the difficult situation on front line, Navalny’s murder, and Kremlin talk of a possible attempt on his own life when he visits Kyiv later this month.
Macron is, however, evidently hoping the new rhetoric will embarrass Le Pen, who had a long history of Putin worship before the Ukraine invasion. The government’s spokeswoman, Prisca Thevenot, says it is “quite evident” that Le Pen, unlike Macron, is not “committed to Russia’s defeat.”
How a deepfake launched a rumor about a plan to assassinate Emmanuel Macron in Ukraine. This is in French, but you can set it to show you English subtitles. I noticed this was being widely shared on Twitter by the kind of people Elon Musk finds very persuasive.
With Sweden in NATO, the alliance has new ways to strike Russia’s prime targets.
Nima Khorrami, an analyst at the Arctic Institute, [said] that Sweden’s membership “extends NATO’s missile range, putting strategic locations in Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg within reach. This adds another layer of deterrence against potential Russian aggression, as NATO forces can effectively respond to threats in real time.”
St. Petersburg, Russia’s second city, has long been the base of Russia’s Baltic fleet. Kaliningrad was formerly named Königsberg and was seized by the Soviet Union from Germany in World War II. It extends Russia’s capacity to project its power into the Baltic region, containing air defenses, electronic warfare units to scramble GPS systems, cruise missiles, and more. It would likely play a key role in any Russian attempt to attack the Suwalki Gap and Baltic nations. “Degrading Russian assets there is critical for NATO operations in the area. That would, in particular, need a saturation of Russian air defense systems. … Sweden is important for both safely receiving NATO troops and capabilities and by being hard to target for Russian forces, while being close enough to Kaliningrad to launch long-range precision capabilities. At its closest, Sweden is 280 kilometers away from Kaliningrad which is a good distance.”
★ Sweden joins “NATO lake” on Moscow’s doorstep. All countries with shores on Baltic Sea except Russia are now part of western defense alliance. (An excellent article.)
Sweden finally joined NATO on Thursday, meaning the western defense alliance has nearly ringed the entire Baltic Sea, a significant oil trading route for Russia and home to one of its fleets. “The Baltic Sea becomes a NATO lake,” said Krišjānis Kariņš, Latvia’s foreign minister and a self-declared candidate to head NATO. As it formally becomes the 32nd member of the US-led alliance during a ceremony in Washington, Sweden brings with it the mid-Baltic island of Gotland—dubbed a “giant aircraft carrier”—which makes the defense of the three small Baltic states easier.
Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, has announced plans to reorganize Russia’s military and beef up forces in the region to “neutralize threats” he said arose from Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said last week that “all the long decades of good neighborliness have gone to dust” because the US military “has the right to do whatever they want in Sweden—visit any site and create any of their own.” Russia’s response would include “additional systems that will be appropriate to the threats that could appear on the territory of Finland and Sweden,” he said.
Russia’s interests in the Baltic Sea are both economic and military. St. Petersburg, which has substantial oil refineries, ships its exports via the Gulf of Finland through the Baltic Sea. The Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, wedged between Poland and Lithuania, is home to Russia’s Baltic fleet and nuclear-capable Iskander ballistic missiles. Russia has threatened to change the region’s “non-nuclear” status in the past but has not said whether the weapons carry nuclear warheads.
In case of a conflict, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania up until now would have relied almost exclusively on securing reinforcements and supplies via the Suwałki Gap, a narrow and vulnerable 100-kilometer strip separating the Baltics from Poland. By joining NATO, Sweden provides new possibilities via the sea, as Gotland is less than 200 kilometers from the Latvian coast. “It reduces the vulnerability of the Baltics through only the Suwałki Gap. The entire security of the region is made stronger because it makes the eastern Baltic less vulnerable,” said Kariņš. …
The Baltic states may be the biggest immediate beneficiaries from Sweden joining, with Stockholm set to send a battalion to join the multinational presence in Latvia. But the deepest changes over time are likely in the Nordic region itself. Cooperation between the four main countries—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland—has long been close but is now set to become more intense. A taster was provided last year when the four Nordic air forces announced their intention to operate their fleet of about 230 fighter jets as one seamless operation, making it larger than the RAF in the UK or Germany’s air force. Already, Norwegian F-35 and Swedish Gripen fighter jets have practised landing on Finnish roads. ... “The airspace over the Scandinavian peninsula is important and always has been if you look at World War Two or the Cold War. If you control the airspace over the Nordics, you really have an advantage.”
NATO’s new map: Sweden officially joins alliance in blow to Russia.
Sweden’s inclusion in NATO will enhance the alliance’s strategic breadth and depth:
Sweden’s membership in NATO brings several advantages, key among them its comprehensive defense capabilities, strategic influence over the Baltic Sea and a robust defense industry. Expertise in navigating the Baltic Sea, particularly due to the strategic significance of the Swedish island of Gotland, enhances NATO’s control in the region. This is increasingly vital in the context of any potential conflict with Russia. Sweden has the third-largest navy in the Baltic Sea after Russia and Germany. Together with the air force, it will contribute to securing the transport of troops and materiel across the Baltic Sea.
Sweden’s contributions to NATO: Bolstering the alliance’s defense industry and air capabilities:
What Sweden brings to NATO. The traditionally neutral country has built a formidable military-industrial complex:
… It makes everything from Saab JAS 39 Gripen single-engine supersonic fighters to Carl Gustav recoilless rifles, AT4 shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons, Gotland-class submarines, and RBS15 anti-ship missiles. It also cooperates with other military producers, with one example being the Stridsvagn 122, the Swedish version of the German Leopard 2 tank.
★ Sweden and Finland add both muscle and risk to NATO. In a bigger NATO with waning leadership, new members could bolster a political appetite for dialogue with Russia. The alliance must prepare all members to reinforce a collective defense vision:
… worryingly, unlike in past crises, time is not on NATO’s side. China and the Global South are growing, and Russia is on a war footing. The United States is wavering; Germany lacks a geopolitical compass; France talks of Europe but delivers more words than action; and Eastern European allies know that “Europe” cannot extend deterrence to protect them.
Sooner or later, some allies will be tempted to open a dialogue with Russia—to take the pressure off and buy Europe time, and to bow to the reality that without the United States, Europe must recognize limits to its community. Such a dash for dialogue would be both a reversal of NATO’s Harmel legacy and a dire sign of waning political will.
(Although the author, Sten Rynning, raises reasonable points, I’m not worried that Finland and Sweden will undermine the alliance by wavering in their resolve toward Russia. It’s the US I’m worried about.)
Sweden’s membership will strengthen NATO, but the delays associated with its accession has revealed several concerns about the credibility and future of the alliance. … In the short term, the alliance will want to complete the work on preparing for the defense of its eastern members. In the longer term, the key question that needs to be settled is that of a more global role for NATO: Is it merely the security guarantor of Europe or the bedrock for the wider defense of the West and the liberal international order?
Also notable:
★ Escalation Management in Ukraine. Assessing the US Response to Russia’s Manipulation of Risk:
… As failures on the battlefield and domestic criticism intensified, US intelligence overheard a conversation among senior Russian military commanders about when and how Moscow might use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Putin was reportedly not part of these conversations. That intelligence was circulated inside the US government in mid-October. Almost at the same time, Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, in one of his calls with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, accused Ukraine of planning to use a “dirty bomb.” The vagueness of the threats along with an increase in their frequency deepened concern that Russia could be manipulating risk in the face of a tactical defeat. The available evidence cannot establish whether Russian generals were deliberately manipulating risk, as Schelling would have recommended, but the effects were similar in many ways.
As tensions grew, the United States made multiple efforts to clarify and reduce the uncertainties directly with Moscow. In a long phone call, General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff, discussed Russia’s doctrine that governed the use of nuclear weapons. Gerasimov made clear that Russia would use nuclear weapons only in the narrow set of enabling conditions made clear in Russia’s strategic doctrine. That shared understanding helped to reduce somewhat the uncertainty between the two most senior generals in Moscow and Washington. In this case, doctrine played a larger role in reducing uncertainty than strategic analysts expect. Gerasimov’s willingness to put some boundaries around these conditions simultaneously reduced uncertainty and made a threat to use nuclear force more credible should these conditions occur. At least at that time, although the Russian army was under pressure, Russia’s military leaders chose to focus on reducing uncertainty rather than on manipulating risk through a threat that left something to chance.
Claire—this is a fascinating study. It helps—very much—to explain Biden’s decisions about which weapons to send and when. Reading it made me feel more sympathy for his decision-making.
Estonian Defense Forces Colonel: The Russian Armed Forces are still holding the initiative on the ground, and the tempo of their operations have begun to pick up again.
★ How a little-used parliamentary maneuver could decide the fate of Ukraine funding, and perhaps the war. House members are trying to bypass Speaker Mike Johnson by forcing a floor vote on the aid package via a discharge petition:
Oleksandr Batalov, a 39-year-old member of Ukraine’s armed forces, says he would not have lost his leg on the battlefield if his country’s armed forces had more artillery. The delayed flow of weaponry to Kyiv meant the Ukrainian forces couldn’t reach him and evacuate him quickly enough to save his leg. Instead, he lay wounded for more than six hours as bullets whizzed above his head. …
Batalov traveled to Washington this week as part of a delegation of Ukrainian veterans to address officials in the Pentagon and lawmakers in Congress … Johnson did not meet with the Ukrainian veterans due to a tight schedule. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.
… “You just can’t do this and think you can get it all done in a week or two,” O’Donnell said. “They need to get all of the actors on the outside, the interest groups and everybody else on the outside, to put together a plan to lobby these members on this stuff. To get somebody to sign a discharge petition, you’ve got to have your targets and then you’ve got to lobby the party,” he added. “You need time. You need a whip team for the Republicans and a whip team for the Democrats.” So far, neither McGovern nor Fitzpatrick are attempting to whip votes. And even getting a vote in the House isn’t a silver-bullet solution. If one of these bills gets enough signatures and passes the chamber, it must head back to the Senate for approval. That would further lengthen the process.
Lithuanian intelligence: Russia preparing for long confrontation with NATO:
… The report noted that the Kremlin has initiated a major reform of the armed forces, which expands Russia’s military capabilities in the Baltic Sea region. Planned structural and leadership changes have already begun, with some of them being implemented in Kaliningrad and western Russia. “This reform is a long-term project that requires significant resources and is expected to take up to ten years,” representatives of Lithuanian intelligence noted.
They stated that the overall pace and scope of the reform depend directly on the course, duration and outcomes of military actions in Ukraine. It was also noted that Russia has sufficient financial, human, material and technical resources to continue hostilities with similar intensity at least in the short term, with intelligence estimating up to two years.
Thirty years ago, Estonian President Lennart Meri delivered a speech at a formal ball in Hamburg. Vladimir Putin, at the time relatively unknown, was in the audience. He stormed out in fury. Three decades later, Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas returned to give the keynote address:
… From a subjective point of view it is understandable that the breakdown of the Soviet Union caused the West to feel a kind of triumph; it is also understandable, subjectively, that the West concentrated all its hopes and empathies on the true or ostensible forces of reform in Russia. This attitude, however, has brought the West to a risk of wishful thinking.
These are not actually my words. These words were spoken 30 years ago in this very room by Lennart Meri, Estonia’s first president after we escaped from the Soviet prison and restored our independence. … What exactly did President Meri say that so upset Putin? It is clear by now that his speech reads like a prophecy of what has gone on since then. Putin’s storming out revealed his true colors, very early on. Many just didn’t get that message, however, or didn’t want to pay it any attention. …
I come here almost directly from the Munich Security Conference. There, President Zelensky rightly posed the main question we should be asking ourselves now: “Please do not ask Ukraine when the war will end. Ask yourself why Putin is still able to continue it.”
We need to answer that question—not just in words but actions.
What I missed in Munich this time around was a spirit of triumph.
Estonia’s mantra during our Singing Revolution within the Soviet prison was: One day we will win, no matter what (Estonian: Ükskord me võidame niikuinii). This is what we all should be calling for at the top of our voice, for Ukraine, and for ourselves. Without real belief, no real action will follow. It’s a losing game to build your strategy upon pessimism.
… Fear is the trap that Putin has set up against all of us in the Free World. Threats by Russian leaders and images of nuclear explosions on Russian state TV are aimed to scare our people and influence our decisions. By sowing fear, they want to change the perception of war in our societies. By getting rid of political opponents—as Alexei Navalny's death tragically reminds us-- they want to kill all hope.
I keep receiving questions about what Putin would do if Russia loses. My answer: We should worry more about what he will do if Russia wins. And it makes no sense to keep asking if Estonia is afraid, or if Poland is next. Don’t forget, that question really is one asking whether NATO will be next. We all have skin in the game. But if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, there is no need to ask this question any more. So let's not blur our focus, but do everything to support Ukraine in pushing Russia back to its own territory. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the 1930s. Our mantra should be that defense is not escalation. Resistance does not provoke Russia—weakness does.
… We must tell the truth to ourselves. The truth is that Ukraine will run out of ammunition unless we come up with quick deliveries. Long-term commitments are important, but it is also a fact of war that the side having the most ammunition will win.
Unity is our hardest currency. Together we can help Ukraine win this war. We have the resources, the economic might, the expertise. Our strength outweighs Russia’s. Let’s not be afraid of our own power.
Dictators also know that democracies have elections. They think that makes us weak, but if we have a clear goal of victory and a winning strategy in place, our democracies are also our strength and force. This means our focus should also be on making sure Ukrainians receive help regardless of party-political distractions and realities within our own countries. Regardless of the comings and goings of elections. For that, we need to have our public on board, so it is highly important to keep them informed of how our adversaries act and what they think—in short; of what the threats around us are.
… has become increasingly clear that the front line of Putin’s so-called shadow war runs through the hearts of our own democracies: universities, parliaments, media and other institutions. The Kremlin’s disinformation is reaching wide audiences via social media; it sits literally within our pockets, phones and apps. The aim of Russia's influence operations is to influence democratic decision-making—including decisions we make at the ballot-boxes.
… To return to where I started—this room, thirty years ago. Listen to Putin’s footfalls as he stormed out. Really listen. Are we now going to let him walk all over Ukraine? Are we going to let dictators call the shots? Or are we going to finally learn from history? ...
A letter to Mike Johnson from the speakers of the parliaments of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Croatia, Estonia, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, the Netherlands, North-Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Ukraine:
Dear Mr. Speaker,
In recent days, a solemn anniversary loomed large, commemorating the two-year mark since Russia and its dictatorial regime invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked and unjustified act of aggression. This invasion has obviously endangered not only the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, but has also challenged the entire democratic world, jeopardizing the security in the whole European and Euro-Atlantic area.
Over these past two years, the countries that remain committed to our shared values and believe in a world based on rules and respect to the UN Charter have united to help Ukraine and its people in repelling the brutal aggression that is claiming hundreds of lives every day. Our joint assistance has helped to stop the aggressor and liberate a large share of previously occupied territories of Ukraine. We welcome the indispensable and prominent role of the United States in this joint effort. The US has consistently demonstrated strong bipartisan support for Ukraine’s victory in its fight against the Russian invasion.
We also observe that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a significant impact on the development of the security situation in the world. We see that while Iran and North Korea have begun to provide direct military support to Russia, the criminal actions of the Kremlin regime have inspired other dictatorial and undemocratic regimes, become a catalyst for the escalation of old conflicts, and put us on the brink of new confrontations. Today, the world is rapidly moving towards the destruction of the sustainable world order.
We see it as our responsibility and our task to prevent this descent into chaos and impunity, and therefore our countries are committed to further increasing our support to Ukraine and its defense forces, seeing it as a considerable investment in our individual and collective security. The axis of evil must be defeated, and all perpetrators brought to justice. This will serve as a significant deterrent to further conflicts and will return a sense of control and security to our peoples.
We believe that thanks to your personal leadership, the Congress will demonstrate historic bipartisan unity in support of the collective efforts to assist Ukraine; therefore, we ask you to take the next step toward adopting a historic decision on HR 815 that will secure US assistance to foreign countries and provide Ukraine with the necessary funds to continue its fight.
With faith in our common democratic values, sincerely yours.
I hate Mike Johnson in a way I’ve never hated a politician before. He is condemning the brave, valiant Ukrainians to rape, murder, and servitude. He is ensuring a wider European war—a wider global war—in which countless young Americans will die. I look at my nephew, who will be of draft age in a few years, and I think—actually, I don’t think I should finish this sentence.
A spooky thing happened today. Zoom’s AI assistant sent this to me:
Meeting summary for Claire Berlinski’s Zoom Meeting (03/08/2024)
Quick recap
Claire warned about the possibility of a Russian attack on NATO and urged Europe to prepare for this eventuality within the next three years. She expressed concerns about the potential loss in a war against Vladimir Putin and the severe consequences that could arise.
Summary
Russian Threat: Europe’s Three-Year Warning
Claire issued a warning about the potential threat of a Russian attack on NATO, suggesting that Europe only has three years to prepare for this eventuality. She indicated that it could lose a war to Vladimir Putin, painting a dire picture of the potential consequences.
Next steps
Next steps were not generated due to insufficient transcript.
What’s wrong with that, you may be asking? Here’s what’s wrong: I never had that conversation. With anyone. I wasn’t speaking to John, or anyone else, at the time this conversation supposedly took place. Yes, I’m certain of that.
Make of that what you will.
Share this post