UKRAINE FRONTS AMERICAN VOICES PUSH FOR UKRAINE CONCESSIONS — UKRAINIANS REJECT THAT: In an editorial titled "What Is America's Strategy in Ukraine?" The New York Times insists "A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal." Global Insider met with a high-level group of Ukrainian women Thursday — members of Parliament, the head of the Ukraine Investment Council, anti-corruption activists and think tank leaders, among them. There wasn't a single person who thought Ukraine should concede territory. This high-level group is also clear about who they think their problem is in the administration: It's not the Pentagon or State Department, or Congress pressuring the White House to negotiate. It's Sullivan they worry about: seeing Sullivan as willing to negotiate with Moscow to allow the U.S. to return to worrying about China. "I'm not afraid that Ukrainian forces or people would surrender. (For them) it's not about territory or some concessions, it's about the physical consequences of concessions: arrest, disappearance, death," said Hanna Shelest, director of security programs at Foreign Policy Council "Ukrainian Prism." "The suppression is stronger in territory Russia has held (since 2014). Men are afraid to even go out on the street," Shelest said, adding "in the last negotiations in Istanbul there was no longer a discussion by Ukraine about returning to the situation of Feb. 24. The position of the leadership has changed." "If, for example, our government said tomorrow 'let's give up some territory,' the Ukrainian people would throw them out and continue fighting on the local level," said Olena Davlikanova , from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation Ukraine. RISK IN NOT GIVING LONG-RANGE WEAPONS: As Congress and the White House debate whether to offer Ukraine longer-range weapons, the visiting Ukrainians said they are convinced that Russia's protocols for deploying tactical nuclear weapons (as opposed to strategic nukes) involve too many steps, and carry too high a chance of officers refusing to carry out the orders, that Putin would never invoke them in this conflict. Tetiana Shevchuk, from Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, went as far as to label as "bullshit" claims that delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine would increase the chance of nuclear conflict. She added: "Look at Mariupol: It's already basically nuked. The level of tactical destruction is equivalent to the use of tactical nukes, minus the radiation pollution. But there is other terrible chemical pollution from the destroyed factories." BRAND MANAGEMENT MESS: The Atlantic Council last week awarded Claudio Descales, CEO of Italian energy giant Eni, a "distinguished leadership" award at a black-tie gala, for "leading an example-setting effort to wean Italy off Russian gas." Fast-forward a week and Eni, which is 32 percent owned by the Italian state, is defying the EU's sanctions regime by opening a second rubles account for Russian gas payments. ICYMI — VIDEO: Former President George W. Bush: "The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine." AUSTRALIAN ELECTION POSTCARD Around one-third of Australian voters have cast ballots during early voting in the country's federal election, which wraps up Saturday. Unlike other major democracies, voting in Australia is compulsory and voters are required to prioritize every candidate on the ballot, a system known as preferential voting. The center-left Labor is hoping to end nine years of conservative rule. What the polls say: The race has tightened to a virtual dead heat in the final week of campaigning. Accounting for the full preferences of voters, the Labor Party leads the ruling Liberal coalition 51 to 49 (the margin of error in Australian polls is just 2 percent) — mirroring the polls in the 2019 campaign. Australia's social democrats ended up losing that election because they couldn't convert their overall support into enough votes in the country's swing districts. Prime Minister candidates: Prime Minister Scott Morrison is facing off against the leader of the Labor's "Hard Left" faction, Anthony Albanese. What the two men share is a reputation for saying or doing anything to obtain power. A range of Morrison's counterparts — from his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull to French President Emmanuel Macron — accuse him of naked lies. While Albanese's ideological roots resemble those of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), he has an obsessive eye on victory, believing ideology is worth nothing if you don't hold power. Morrison leads Albanese as preferred prime minister by an average 40 percent to 36 percent. State of Australia: The country is in a years-long bitter dispute with Beijing, its top trading partner, which views Canberra as increasingly impertinent after decades of compliant relations. The economy is back to growth (Australia has been in recession for only one year since 1991) and unemployment is down to 3.9 percent — the lowest level since 1974 — but Australia suffers from a severe housing shortage that has driven home prices to New York City levels in many cities. Climate and cost of living issues have been the most divisive themes of the campaign. Labor wants to spend more abating emissions and raising wages. The government has attempted to showcase its national security credentials, but come in for criticism from intelligence communities for attempting to politicize national security in its efforts to label Labor as weak on China. Where the parties stand on key issues . The billionaires shaping Australian politics: Maddison Connaughton looks at two of Australia's wealthiest men pulling strings of political candidates, Clive Palmer (mining) and Simon Holmes à Court (mining). It doesn't stop there: tech billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes and Andrew Forrest (another mining billionaire) are increasingly throwing their political weight around with environment-themed investments designed to change the direction of Australia's abysmal carbon emissions track record. U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION ON BREXIT A high-level delegation of U.S. members of Congress touched down in Brussels on Thursday, kicking off a week-long visit that includes stops in London, Dublin and Belfast examining Britain's threat to change the Brexit-linked Northern Ireland Protocol. Delegation leader Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), head of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, who was closely involved in 1990s Good Friday Agreement negotiations, told my Brussels Playbook colleagues: "I don't think that Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement and the elections in the North [of Ireland] ought to be held hostage by a disagreement the U.K. has with the European Union." He promised to judge the U.K. by its actions, rather than its words. Neal rejected suggestions from London that the Protocol had to change to ensure a Northern Ireland government that includes the anti-Protocol Democratic Unionist Party, which lost Northern Ireland's recent election to the pro-Protocol Sinn Fein. Only "about 7 percent of people cast their vote based upon the protocol," Neal said. "The U.S. ultimately wants a trade deal with the U.K. — not, however, at the expense of eradicating the Good Friday Agreement which America is a co-guarantor of," Neal said. He added he would like to see a trade deal with the EU similar to the U.S. deal with Canada and Mexico.
| 
Comments
Post a Comment