Category: Uncategorized
Here is something worth reading about the Balkans
My friends in the Balkans want the West to understand some things:
Appeal by Regional Civil Society to the Governments of EU Countries, the United States, and NATO
The Accession of the Western Balkans to the European Union is a Geopolitical and Geostrategic Inevitability
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has fundamentally changed the European security context and raised a number of questions about the future of the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans.
Although surrounded by the EU and NATO member countries, the Western Balkans is only partially integrated into the Euro-Atlantic political and security structures. The ambiguous EU policy pursued over the last two decades has contributed to the regression of this region and its turn towards other partners. Russia’s infiltration into the developments in the region and its influence on Serbia and (one part of) Bosnia and Herzegovina has opened the question as to where the Western Balkans actually belongs.
These new circumstances have put the Western Balkans back on the European agenda.
The EU’s enlargement policy is currently being adjusted to the new geopolitical environment, and a new accession process is being developed.
So far, despite numerous statements and initiatives related to the Western Balkans, the West (primarily the EU) has not offered real support, protection and a concrete perspective for the region’s future .
Accession to the EU is the geopolitical inevitability of the entire Western Balkans – given Russia’s constant efforts to destabilize it.
A more efficient EU policy is not possible as long as the EU countries keep balancing between the value principles on which the EU is based and the ‘unity’ embodied in its consensual decision-making principle. This approach has disastrous consequences for the Western Balkans.
Bearing in mind a very fluid situation in the Western Balkans as well as speculation about the possibility of Putin’s opening a “second front” in the Balkans, the fears of citizens in all our countries that the situation in the region could be dramatically worsened are justified. We should not forget that, insofar as the European continent is concerned, the Balkans as a whole – particularly its non-integrated part – is the most susceptible to Russia’s influence and the escalation is underway. By preventing such devastating influence, the one-time visionary acceptance of “unprepared” Bulgaria and Romania into the EU has played a decisive role.
Due to all the reasons mentioned above, we, the undersigned, expect the following from the EU as well as the United States:
- To eliminate any possibility of changing Balkan borders;
- To ensure that the future and functionality of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not depend on Belgrade’s policy, which has been integrating/annexing B&H’s Republic of Srpska (RS) entity at all levels (economic, cultural, educational and informational) without hindrance for two decades. In addition to combating corruption and radically nationalist policies, the EU and the United States should encourage the coalescence of educational and cultural space in order to build Bosnian and Herzegovinian identity apart from its particular features. Only cultural awareness and education, as the fundamental backbone of society, can guarantee integration and solidarity within Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Croatia’s advocacy for a new election law, which would only contribute to the further ethnic disintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is unacceptable, and it is high time that the EU and the United States clearly condemn and prevent such policy options. Granting candidate status to Bosnia and Herzegovina would send a clear message to Belgrade, Zagreb and Moscow that the EU and the United States stand behind the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Due to its reliance on Russia, Serbia keeps Kosovo in a state of frozen conflict. Without the mutual recognition of Serbia and Kosovo, the region has no European perspective. As the first step Kosovo should be granted visa liberalization for which the conditions have long been created;
- When it comes to Montenegro, it is necessary to strongly and effectively support its European integration process, which is also the basic proclaimed goal of Montenegro’s minority govern-ment. It is also necessary to prevent interference in its internal affairs, which primarily originates from the governing structures in Serbia, with great help from the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro, Serbian media and security services, as well as Russia’s direct and indirect influence;
- It is necessary to unblock the situation regarding North Macedonia’s accession negotiations. It is unacceptable that North Macedonia, which has met all EU requirements for candidate status, is still on hold due to Bulgaria’s blackmailing and destructive attitude;
- It is necessary to help Albania, which deserves candidate status. In the opposite, other tendencies and policies are encouraged – like in all other Western Balkan countries;
- It must be made clear that the Open Balkans Initiative cannot be an alternative to EU membership. Chancellor Scholz announced the revival of the Berlin process which, coupled with increased control by Berlin and Brussels, opens up prospects for more intensive regional cooperation on which the EU insists, as the basis for continuing the European path for all countries in the region, based on their individual merits and achievements;
- To continue without compromise with strengthening the security and legal mechanisms in all the countries of the Western Balkans in the fight against corruption and organized crime within the state apparatus, corporations and society in whole.
Bearing all this in mind, Europe and the United States must boost their military, political and economic involvement in the region in order to prevent the further malignant influence of non-Balkan and non-European factors. At the same time, it is necessary to maintain an active relationship with the pro-European opposition and political structures in all countries in the region as well as with the authentic civil society in order to confirm and strengthen the support for the Euro-Atlantic orientation and future of the Western Balkans.
Many of the signatories are people I regard as friends, some of very long standing:
Dr. Prof. Ivo Komšić, sociologist, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Dr. Vesna Pusić, former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Croatia
Dr. Prof. Edina Bećirević, University, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Momcilo Radulovic, president of European Movement, Montenegro
Dr. Prof. Zarko Korać, psyhologist, Srbija
Azem Vllasi, lawyer, Kosova
Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee, Serbia
Petar Todorov, historian, North Macedonia
Tamara Nikčević, journalist, Montenegro
Dr. Boris Varga, journalist, Serbia
Shkelzen Maliqi, writer, Kosova
Dr. Prof Husnija Kamberović, historian, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Dr. Prof. Dubravka Stojanović, historian, Serbia
Dr. Prof. Dinko Gruhonjić, University in Novi Sad, Serbia
Dr. Milivoj Bešlin, istorian, Serbia
Miodrag Vlahović, former Ambassador, president of the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee, Montenegro
Dr. Aleksandra Bosnić-Djurić, culturologist, Serbia
Dr.Prof. Nikola Samardžić, historian, Serbia
Dragan Banjac, journalist, Serbia
Boško Jakšić, journalist, Serbia
Ylber Hysa, historian, Kosova
Adil Kulenović,journalist, Krug 99, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Senad Pećanin, advokat, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Prof. Ejup Ganić, izvršni direktor Sarajevo Schol of Science and Technology, BiH
Sladjan Tomić, journalist, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Izabela Kisić, executive director of Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, Srbija
Akad. Prof. Rusmir Mahmutčehajić, president of the International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Jelena Krstić, political scientist, Serbia
Andro Martinović, film director, Montenegro
Balša Božović, president of the Regional Academy for Development of Democracy, Serbia
Rade Radovanović, journalist, Serbia
Nerzuk Ćurak, University Professor, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Srećko Djukić, Ambassador, Serbia
Dušan Mijić, enterpreuner, Serbia
Aleksandra Jerkov, founder of the Regional Academy for Development of Democracy, Serbia
Dino Mustafić, theater director, Bosnia-Herzegovina
mr.sci. Memnuna Zvizdić, Regional Women Lobby, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director of the Center for Civic Education, Montenegro
Stefica Galic, Editor of Tacno.net Portal, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Milan Jovanoović, president of the Forum for Security and Democracy, Serbia
Prof. dr Duško Radosavljević, Faculty for Legal and Business Studies, Serbia
prof dr. Mehmed Slezović, painter and art theorist, Serbia
Tanja Petovar, lawyer, Serbia
Srdjan Sušnica, Master’s degree of cultural and religious studies, lawyer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Zlatko Lagumdžija, former Foreign Minister, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Nada Drobnjak, Regional Women Lobby, Montenegro
Zoran Vuletić, president of Civic Democratic Forum, Serbia
Tanja Šuković, journalist, Monteneggro
Darko Šukovic, journalist, Montenegro
Ivana Šundić Mihovilović, journalist, Serbia
Davor Gjenero, politologist, Croatia
Andrej Nikolaidis, writer, Montenegro
Tinka Đuranović, sculptor, Montenegro
Draško Đuranović, Editor of Pobjeda, Montenegro
Đorđe Šćepović,writer, Montenegro
Milorad Pustahija, journalist, Montenegro
Rajko Todorović Todor, painter, Montenegro
Boro Kontić, journalist and writer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Rade Bojović,lawyer, Montenegro
Miodrag Strugar, communicator, Montenegro
Danilo Burzan, journalist and writer, Montenegro
Majda Šahman Zaimović, University Professor, Montenegro
Kaćuša Krsmanović, journalst, Montenegro
Vladimir Šibalić, Lawyer, Montenegro
Janko Ljumović, professor FDU, Montenegro
Andrej Nedović, economist, Montenegro
Nada Bukilić, playright, Montenegro
Jelena Đurović, journalist, Montenegro
Momčilo Zeković, artist, Montenegro
Ljubomir Filipovic, political scientist, Montenegro
Danilo Marunović, film director, Montenegro
Aleksandar Saša Zeković, activist, Montenegro
Šeki Radončić, writer and journalist, Montenegro
Miodrag Živković, lawyer, Montenegro
Izudin Gusmirović, economist, Montenegro
Irina Peckova, economist, North Macedonia
Ines Sabalić, journalist, Croatia
Raif Dizdarević, former Foreign Minister of SFRY, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Lula Mikielj, activist, Serbia
Pavel Domonji, political scientist, Serbia
Edin Omerčić, historian, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Andrea Lešić, Literature and Culture Theorist, Univerzitet u Sarajevu, Bosna-Herzegovina
Zilka Spahić Šiljak, University Professor of Gender Studies, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Aleksandar Obradović, antropologist, Director of Philopolitics Association, Srbija
Prof.dr. Ivan Obradović, Belgrade University, Serbia
Nebojša Kaludjerovi, Ambassador, Montenegro
Prof,dr.Amila Buturović, Toronto York University, Canada
Slobodan Beljanski, lawyer, Serbia
Dr Adnan Prekić-Historian, Montenegro
Jakob Finci, writer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Nenad Prokić, playwright, Serbia
Prof.dr Šerbo Rastoder, Academic,Montenegro University, Montenegro
Prof. Dr. Edin Šarčević, Law School Leipzig, Germany
Srdjan Dvornik, , translator, consultatnt, Croatia
Xhezair Dashi, journalist Albanian Post, Albania
Prof. Asim Mujkić, University Sarajevo, Bosna-Herzegovina
Žarko Papić, director IBHI (Nezavisni biro za humanitarna pitanja), Bosnia-Herzegovina
Zlatoje Martinov, writer and publicist, Serbia
Mirsada Čolaković, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Reuf Bajrović, Vice President of the US-Europe Alliance in Washington, DC, USA
Prof. Senadin Lavić, Faculty of Political Science, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Ljilja Spasić, Executive Director, Civic Actions, Serbia
Staša Zajević, Women in Black, Serbia
Isidora Farley, UK
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 10
How many wars are in involved in today? Fifteen plus, according to the latest war powers report to Congress. The uncertainty comes because the report says” approximately 90,000 United States Armed Forces personnel are deployed to North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries in Europe” without naming the countries. The conflicts are basically the same as in recent reports: Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti, Niger, Cuba [at Guantanamo], Philippines, Egypt, and Kosovo plus NATO. The law requires reporting of places where troops equipped for combat are deployed; there does not have to be active combat.
FP, citing an unnamed “senior defense official” on Gen. Milley’s plane to Singapore, says the US wants more hotlines with China to prevent miscalculations.
WSJ says Ukrainian forces are being outgunned.
Nicaragua welcomes Russian troops.
Writer in Foreign Affairs says China is “using the global South to constrain America.“
WSJ says US is trying to get Israel and Saudi Arabia to work together on air defenses against Iran.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 8
– Does US govt know more about Russian military than about Ukraine’s? NYT says yes.
– Can the Marshall Plan be repeated? The author of a fine history of the MP says no and explains it wasn’t just pouring money into Europe.
– What’s in retired SAIS prof Michael Mandelbaum’s new book? Tom Friedman tells.
– What was Jared Kushner doing while President Trump plotted Jan 6? Peter Baker of NYT says he was scouting real estate in Florida. NOTE: Baker and his wife Susan Glasser, who writes for the New Yorker, have a book about Trump coming out in September. Often reporters who write such books get criticized for saving nuggets for their books. It seems that these authors are in effect releasing chapters early in their respective publications.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Open Balkans is a dead letter
Colleague Ed Joseph tweeted an excellent reaction to Russian Foreign Minister’s endorsement of Open Balkans, which Belgrade and Tirana are advocating:
1/ Just as thanks go to #Putin for injecting life into @NATO, kudos to #SergeyLavrov for giving the kiss of death today to #OpenBalkan. This #Trump Administration brainchild advances the agenda of #Russia’s strategic partner in the region, #Serbia, under @avucic.
2/ #Russia’s main outlet in the country, Sputnik Serbia @rs_sputnik, has supported #OpenBalkans consistently. And why not?
3/ #OpenBalkan is open invitation for #Vucic to exploit #Serbia’s economic size for political advantage – free from political constraints or values of #EU. #OpenBalkan = ‘Serb World’ via the marketplace for Serbia’s smaller neighbors.
4/ Believing @avucic wants to join the #EU, US officials have bought into the notion that ‘#Trade Equals #Trust.’ What counts is the character of the regime you are trading with. Ask #Ukraine: up to 24 Feb, Russia has been a top trading partner of #Kyiv, for exports and imports.
5/ Ask #Japan, #SouthKorea or #Taiwan if trade has built trust with #China.
6/ Same story in the #Balkans. #Serbia is #Montenegro’s number one trading partner, for imports and exports – and #Belgrade is in last place in terms of trust. Montenegro PM’s recent endorsement of #OpenBalkan has exacerbated divisions in the country.
7/ Any polity in the #Balkans that faces direct threat from #Serbia is skeptical, if not suspicious of #OpenBalkan.
8/ As @EBRD has noted in its #Bosnia diagnostic, the core economic problems are political in nature. Just as #Putin has boosted @NATO, hopefully #Lavrov will boost the alternatives to #OpenBalkan that build a Regional Common Market on common #EU values.
My own reaction is less well put, in an interview for Kosovo’s RTV Dukagjini:
- What is your comment on the “Open Balkans”, do you think that Kosovo should be part of it?
A: The only circumstance in which Kosovo should even consider a proposition is if it is afforded equal status with the other sovereign states involved. That has not, I understand, been offered to Kosovo in Open Balkans, so the proposition should not even be considered.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia has supported this initiative, what does this mean for the participating countries?
A: I think most of them will now have second thoughts about joining. Russia is not a welcome factor in the Balkans these days, with the exceptions of Serbia and Republika Srpska.
3. Do you think that such an initiative would be the right step for the Balkan countries?
A: Not really. Everything I’ve heard about Open Balkans suggests its activities could all be accomplished within the Berlin Process and SEFTA.
4. Do you think it is in the US interest if such an initiative is implemented?
A: I don’t but the US Government does. They get to call the shots.
5. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania and Serbia have said they will participate, does this mean that Kosovo is becoming isolated?
A: I’m not sure those positions will all be maintained. My guess is that under current circumstances, due to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, Open Balkans is a dead letter.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The economists destroy the linguist
Noam Chomsky thinks he knows a lot about Ukraine and Russia:
Dear Professor Chomsky,
We are a group of Ukrainian academic economists who were grieved by a series of your recent interviews and commentaries on the Russian war on Ukraine. We believe that your public opinion on this matter is counter-productive to bringing an end to the unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine and all the deaths and suffering it has brought into our home country.
Having familiarized ourselves with the body of your interviews on this matter, we noticed several recurring fallacies in your line of argument. In what follows, we wish to point out these patterns to you, alongside with our brief response:
Pattern #1: Denying Ukraine’s sovereign integrity
In your interview to Jeremy Scahill at The Intercept from April 14, 2022 you claimed: “The fact of the matter is Crimea is off the table. We may not like it. Crimeans apparently do like it.” We wish to bring to your attention several historical facts:
First, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 has violated the Budapest memorandum (in which it promised to respect and protect Ukrainian borders, including Crimea), the Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation (which it signed with Ukraine in 1997 with the same promises), and, according to the order of the UN International Court of Justice, it violated the international law.
Second, “Crimeans” is not an ethnicity or a cohesive group of people – but Crimean Tatars are. These are the indigenous people of Crimea, who were deported by Stalin in 1944 (and were able to come back home only after the USSR fell apart), and were forced to flee again in 2014 when Russia occupied Crimea. Of those who stayed, dozens have been persecuted, jailed on false charges and missing, probably dead.
Third, if by ‘liking’ you refer to the outcome of the Crimean “referendum” on March 16, 2014, please note that this “referendum” was held at gunpoint and declared invalid by the General Assembly of the United Nations. At the same time, the majority of voters in Crimea supported Ukraine’s independence in 1991.
Pattern #2: Treating Ukraine as an American pawn on a geo-political chessboard
Whether willingly or unwillingly, your interviews insinuate that Ukrainians are fighting with Russians because the U.S. instigated them to do so, that Euromaidan happened because the U.S. tried to detach Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence, etc. Such an attitude denies the agency of Ukraine and is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who are risking their lives for the desire to live in a free country. Simply put, have you considered the possibility that Ukrainians would like to detach from the Russian sphere of influence due to a history of genocide, cultural oppression, and constant denial of the right to self-determination?
Pattern #3. Suggesting that Russia was threatened by NATO
In your interviews, you are eager to bring up the alleged promise by [US Secretary of State] James Baker and President George H.W. Bush to Gorbachev that, if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin NATO, the U.S. would ensure that NATO would move ‘not one inch eastward.’ First, please note that the historicity of this promise is highly contested among scholars, although Russia has been active in promoting it. The premise is that NATO’s eastward expansion left Putin with no other choice but to attack.
But the reality is different. Eastern European states joined, and Ukraine and Georgia aspired to join NATO, in order to defend themselves from Russian imperialism. They were right in their aspirations, given that Russia did attack Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Moreover, current requests by Finland and Sweden to join NATO came in direct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, consistent with NATO expansion being a consequence of Russian imperialism, and not vice versa.
In addition, we disagree with the notion that sovereign nations shouldn’t be making alliances based on the will of their people because of disputed verbal promises made by James Baker and George H.W. Bush to Gorbachev.
Pattern #4. Stating that the U.S. isn’t any better than Russia
While you admittedly call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a “war crime,” it appears to us that you cannot do so without naming in the same breath all of the past atrocities committed by the U.S. abroad (e.g., in Iraq or Afghanistan) and, ultimately, spending most of your time discussing the latter. As economists, we are not in a position to correct your historical metaphors and, needless to say, we condemn the unjustified killings of civilians by any power in the past.
However, not bringing Putin up on war crime charges at the International Criminal Court in the Hague just because some past leader did not receive similar treatment would be the wrong conclusion to draw from any historical analogy. In contrast, we argue that prosecuting Putin for the war crimes that are being deliberately committed in Ukraine would set an international precedent for the world leaders attempting to do the same in the future.
Pattern #5. Whitewashing Putin’s goals for invading Ukraine
In your interviews, you go to great lengths to rationalize Putin’s goals of “demilitarization” and “neutralization” of Ukraine. Please note that, in his TV address from February 24, 2022, marking the beginning of the war, the verbatim goal declared by Putin for this “military operation” is to “denazify” Ukraine. This concept builds on his long pseudo-historical article from July 2021, denying Ukraine’s existence and claiming that Ukrainians were not a nation.
As elaborated in the ‘denazification manual’ published by the Russian official press agency RIA Novosti, a “Nazi” is simply a human being who self-identifies as Ukrainian, the establishment of a Ukrainian state thirty years ago was the “Nazification of Ukraine,” and any attempt to build such a state has to be a “Nazi” act. According to this genocide handbook, denazification implies a military defeat, purging, and population-level “re-education”. ‘Demilitarization’ and ‘neutralization’ imply the same goal – without weapons Ukraine will not be able to defend itself, and Russia will reach its long-term goal of destroying Ukraine.
Pattern #6. Assuming that Putin is interested in a diplomatic solution
All of us very much hoped for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement, which could have saved many human lives. Yet, we find it preposterous how you repeatedly assign the blame for not reaching this settlement to Ukraine (for not offering Putin some “escape hatch”) or the U.S. (for supposedly insisting on the military rather than diplomatic solution) instead of the actual aggressor, who has repeatedly and intentionally bombed civilians, maternity wards, hospitals, and humanitarian corridors during those very “negotiations”. Given the escalatory rhetoric (cited above) of the Russian state media, Russia’s goal is erasure and subjugation of Ukraine, not a “diplomatic solution.”
Pattern #7. Advocating that yielding to Russian demands is the way to avert the nuclear war
Since the Russian invasion, Ukraine lives in a constant nuclear threat, not just due to being a prime target for Russian nuclear missiles but also due to the Russian occupation of Ukrainian nuclear power plants.
But what are the alternatives to fighting for freedom? Unconditional surrender and then elimination of Ukrainians off the face of the Earth (see above)? Have you ever wondered why President Zelenskyy, with the overwhelming support of the Ukrainian people, is pleading with Western leaders to provide heavy weapons despite the potential threat of nuclear escalation? The answer to this question is not “Because of Uncle Sam”, but rather due to the fact that Russian war crimes in Bucha and many other Ukrainian cities and villages have shown that living under Russian occupation is a tangible “hell on earth” happening right now, requiring immediate action.
Arguably, any concessions to Russia will not reduce the probability of a nuclear war but lead to escalation. If Ukraine falls, Russia may attack other countries (Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Finland or Sweden) and can also use its nuclear blackmail to push the rest of Europe into submission. And Russia is not the only nuclear power in the world. Other countries, such as China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are watching. Just imagine what will happen if they learn that nuclear powers can get whatever they want using nuclear blackmail.
Professor Chomsky, we hope you will consider the facts and re-evaluate your conclusions. If you truly value Ukrainian lives as you claim to, we would like to kindly ask you to refrain from adding further fuel to the Russian war machine by spreading views very much akin to Russian propaganda.
Should you wish to engage further on any of the above-mentioned points, we are always open to discussion.
Kind regards,
Bohdan Kukharskyy, City University of New York
Anastassia Fedyk, University of California, Berkeley
Yuriy Gorodnichenko, University of California, Berkeley
Ilona Sologoub, VoxUkraine NGO
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 23
– Biden says US will defend Taiwan, aides say no change in policy.
– NYT explains IPEF. So does WSJ.
– US may use special forces to defend Kyiv embassy.
– Israel evicts Palestinians in advance of Biden visit.
– NYT reports on Ukraine peace ideas.
– Here’s the list of Americans sanctioned by Russia.
– WSJ reports on China’s subsidies to businesses.
– Politico has interesting report on how aides plan foreign travel by the president.
– History lessons: Politico argues the Scopes trial mirrors current fights over what can be taught in schools. And Jill Lepore has a good short history of the trial.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
