It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Sunday, April 03, 2022
Fix energy-leaking homes and fund wind turbines to wean UK off Russian gas, Boris Johnson told
New analysis says ‘energy security starts at home’, as cabinet rows hold up PM’s ‘independence plan’
Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor THE INDEPENDENT
Boris Johnson is pushing to get 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity from nuclear power – requiring up to six new power stations – at a cost that is alarming Rishi Sunak, the chancellor.
Now an analysis by the climate change think tank E3G says a strategy that “starts at home” is the route to reducing reliance on Vladimir Putin’s gas supplies.
Dramatically improving the energy efficiency of the UK’s buildings “could secure an 80 per cent cut in the amount of gas we import from Russia this year”, it is arguing.
If combined with government funding for solar and onshore wind projects already in the planning pipeline, “the UK could cut the amount of gas we get from Russia by 100 per cent within a year”.
“Energy security starts at home,” said Ed Matthew, E3G’s campaigns director, ahead of the expected release of the “energy independence plan” this week.
“By ramping up the energy efficiency of UK buildings and accelerating renewables deployment, the government can take an axe to UK gas demand.
“Not only can this help cut household bills, it is the single most effective action the government can take to protect UK and European energy security.”
E3G is pointing out that a war-torn Ukraine managed to “unplug from Russia’s electricity grid” within a fortnight, adding: “We should take inspiration from Ukraine’s power engineers.”
Instead, Mr Johnson wants to focus on reviving nuclear power, with a mix of big plants and small modular reactors (SMRs), which are easier and cheaper to build.
However, the National Infrastructure Commission has warned that large nuclear power plants are “incredibly difficult to deliver on short timescales”.
Even if the government gave the go-ahead now, they would not come online until the mid-2040s if they took as long as the current Hinkley Point C project is expected to take.
The prime minister’s view on onshore wind is mired in confusion, after he appeared to come out against an expansion when speaking to MPs last week.
Despite that, the strategy is expected to trigger a review of the effective moratorium imposed by planning laws introduced under David Cameron’s government.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, has proposed doubling onshore wind turbine power from 14 gigawatts to 30GW by 2030, with the bulk of new projects in Scotland.
He is also said to be pushing for the government to go further to hit a target of 45GW of energy from offshore wind by 2035.
Kwasi Kwarteng suggests UK could massively scale up nuclear power capacity by 2050
The move to scale up nuclear power production will reportedly form part of a major expansion of homegrown energy in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.
George McMillan
SENIOR DIGITAL PRODUCER PUBLISHED Sunday 03 April 2022
The UK could massively scale up its nuclear power capability by 2050 – with new stations having far greater capacity, it is understood.
Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has suggested six or seven new sites could be in operation by that point, with all but one of Britain’s existing plants set to be decommissioned by 2030.
While the number of stations is likely to remain similar to now – the plan is for each new site to be far more powerful than those they will replace, significantly pushing up the UK’s capacity, according to the PA news agency.
The Sunday Telegraph reported that Boris Johnson is preparing to announce plans to expand the Government’s commitment to move forward with new large-scale nuclear power stations this decade. Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng James Manning The newspaper said the plan had been to back one by 2024, but it is thought the new ambition will be to support the construction of two by 2030.
The move to scale up nuclear power production will reportedly form part of a major expansion of homegrown energy in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.
It comes as the Government’s energy security strategy is expected to be unveiled on Thursday.
Asked about the scale of the its nuclear ambitions, Mr Kwarteng told The Sunday Telegraph: “There is a realisation across Government that we could do more on nuclear.
“With energy, you’re thinking maybe 30, even 40 years [ahead]. If we fast forward to 2050, there is a world where we have six or seven sites in the UK. That isn’t going to happen in the next two years, but it’s definitely something that we can aspire to.
“The Prime Minister said, in terms of the energy generation mix, we could see maybe a quarter of that being nuclear. I’d say 15 to 25 per cent. But obviously in the first three years you’re not going to suddenly have six new nuclear stations in three years. It’s physically impossible to do that.”
Steam is released from Reactor 4 at Hunterston B nuclear power plant in North Ayrshire. Jane Barlow
Britain could get seven new nuclear power stations by 2050
Edward Malnick Sat, April 2, 2022, Hinkley Point C in Somerset, under construction by French firm EDF Energy, is due to open in 2026 - Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg
Britain could build up to seven new nuclear power stations as part of a radical expansion of homegrown energy following Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the Business Secretary has said.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Kwasi Kwarteng said "there is a world where we have six or seven sites in the UK" by 2050 as part of a push for self-reliance.
Ministers have agreed to set up a development vehicle, Great British Nuclear, to identify sites, cut through red tape to speed up the planning process and bring together private firms to run each site.
As a first step, Boris Johnson is preparing to announce plans to significantly expand the existing commitment to back one new large-scale nuclear power station by 2024.
The Prime Minister and Mr Kwarteng have been battling with Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, to secure funding for new plants – a row first disclosed by The Telegraph.
However, a meeting between Mr Johnson and Mr Sunak on Wednesday is said to have ended in agreement on expanding Britain's existing set of ageing nuclear plants, all but one of which are due to be decommissioned by 2030.
The energy security strategy, due to be unveiled on Thursday, is expected to commit the Government to supporting the construction of at least two new large-scale plants by 2030 in addition to small modular reactors.
A government source said: "Nuclear will definitely look larger in the British energy mix by the end of this decade."
Mr Johnson and Mr Kwarteng then want to more than treble the country's existing seven gigawatts of nuclear capacity to 24 GW by 2050.
The Business Secretary acknowledged that in France, which now generates the majority of its electricity using nuclear power stations, "it has cost a fortune... but it has given them a measure of independence which is envied, frankly, by other people on the continent – by the Germans, for example, and the Italians".
The Prime Minister told industry leaders he has "a dream" that a giant floating wind farm could provide "gigawatts of energy and do it within a year", according to a government source.
Nuclear and offshore wind energy are expected to be at the centre of the document being finalised by No 10. A separate row has been sparked by Mr Kwarteng's push for a dramatic expansion of onshore wind farms following a moratorium imposed by David Cameron in 2015.
The strategy is expected to raise the prospect of relaxing planning laws in England to make it easier to build turbines on land but, in the face of significant opposition from ministers and backbenchers, Mr Kwarteng acknowledged: "Any movement has to have a large measure of local consent."
His remarks appear to backtrack from his recent declaration that, while there "were quite understandable political reasons that people didn't want to see large scale, onshore wind farms in their vicinity... I think that's changed".
Mr Kwarteng confirmed ministers are discussing possible incentives, such as reduced energy bills, that could be offered to people in exchange for agreeing to the development of a wind farm in their area.
Asked about the scale of the Government's nuclear ambitions, he said: "There is a realisation across Government that we could do more on nuclear.
"With energy, you're thinking maybe 30, even 40 years [ahead]. If we fast forward to 2050, there is a world where we have six or seven sites in the UK. That isn't going to happen in the next two years, but it's definitely something that we can aspire to.
"The Prime Minister said, in terms of the energy generation mix, we could see maybe a quarter of that being nuclear. I'd say 15 to 25 per cent. But obviously in the first three years you're not going to suddenly have six new nuclear stations in three years. It's physically impossible to do that."
The Great British Nuclear delivery body is likely to be a government-owned company akin to HS2 Ltd, which is building the high speed railway line.
Asked which arguments he had used to lobby Mr Sunak for vast sums at a time when the Chancellor is resisting further public spending, he said: "I think it's a long term thing. Also, we're committed to having a vehicle which looks at this, and which actually can facilitate that, and I think there's a measure of agreement on that.
"Obviously I don't want to anticipate what's in the strategy, but I think there is a realisation across government that we could do more on nuclear, and that's why in the Prime Minister's 10-Point Plan, which was published in November 2020, the third point was all about nuclear."
Mr Kwarteng said that if the emerging technology of small modular reactors was successful, Britain could deploy up to 10 on one site to provide the equivalent output of a large-scale nuclear plant.
Last Energy wants to build its first "mini-nuclear" power plant by 2025 and has identified a site in Wales. The company will invest £1.4 billion to build 10 reactors by the end of the decade.
AUSTRALIA
As water levels rise so too does the pressure to stop building houses on flood plains
Residents of flood-prone Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley near Sydney say real estate agents should have to advise buyers of risks
Stacey O'Toole, a property owner in Sydney's north-west says prospective buyers need to be informed of risks, as the threat of flooding in the area worsens.
Before Stacey O’Toole bought her new property in North Richmond, on the outskirts of Sydney, she diligently checked everything she could to ensure it wouldn’t be affected by flooding.
But when Australia’s east coast was hit by a “rain bomb” in early March, it had to be evacuated because two local stormwater dams were at risk of failing.
They didn’t – but O’Toole says “we were very concerned because we thought we’d bought somewhere that wasn’t going to be impacted”.
O’Toole has lived and worked in north-west Sydney for nearly 30 years and has three properties in the area – making her a seasoned navigator of the flood-prone region.
But the flooding has been getting worse with the area hit with two “one-in-100-year” floods in two years, she says.
“It’s starting to change and places are flooding that have never flooded before, especially around the Pitt Town area. It might be nuisance flooding or local flooding – but it got to a point where it was impassable.
“I’ve never really been concerned with floods before because I know where the water is going to go. [But this time] our main evacuation route went underwater while we were on it.”
Potential flooding presents a dilemma for prospective buyers. In Sydney’s white-hot housing market the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley proved an opportunity for buyers – although prices surged by up to 45% during the pandemic, according to real estate website Domain.
In Richmond, prices grew by up to 32%, and O’Toole believes the influx of new homeowners aren’t as well informed as they should be.
Stacey O'Toole says north-west Sydney is ‘starting to change and places are flooding that have never flooded before’.
Photograph: Blake Sharp-Wiggins/The Guardian
“A lot of people in the new areas thought the floods wouldn’t impact them but they had power and water cut to their homes because it all comes from the same place,” she says.
“They weren’t particularly educated, they think they are safe up on a hill, but they’re absolutely not.”
There are many blocks of land and properties for sale in flood zones – including in Richmond, Windsor, Pitt Town and Penrith – where the advertisements do not mention the flood risk. None of the real estate agents selling the properties contacted by the Guardian responded to requests for comment.
O’Toole argues communication with prospective buyers must improve.
“People spend a lot of money on those homes, but you can’t change the fact that you are on a flood plain,” she says. “There needs to be a better system for people to actually understand what the dangers are.”
Sign up to receive the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning
Marcus Claxton, who is building a house on a block of land in the Redbank estate in North Richmond, agrees. He says it should be mandatory for real estate listings to mention the flooding risk.
“If it is in a flood zone, they should have it front and centre, because people may not know to ask,” he says. “If a home is in those flood zones – and long term Hawkesbury residents know those areas – I would strongly advise against buying there.”
Claxton and his wife have always lived in the region and intended to stay – but are worried about the rising flood levels.
“During this year’s flood, the road used for flood-free access actually flooded, which was a bit weird,” he says.
“I was a bit unnerved watching the water rise because it did come a lot higher. They [the authorities] really need to scrutinise what land they make available for building. And they need to rethink the one-in-100 year flood line … we need to go maybe one or two metres above that.”
Chief executive of the real estate institute of NSW, Tim McKibbin, says it is not mandatory to include flood-risk warnings on listings but agents must disclose if a property has been flooded in the past five years. There is no obligation to disclose if a property is on a flood plain. Josh Frydenberg open to intervening in insurance market as climate change pushes up premiums
“It becomes very uncertain because the legislation and the regulation only talks about the past five years,” McKibbin said. “The legislation and regulation are also silent on how agents should disclose that [recent event] information – they only need to demonstrate they have made that disclosure.”
Tom Hubble, a geologist and associate professor at the University of Sydney, says it is “quite reasonable” to expect more frequent and higher floods to hit the region.
“I’m expecting repeat events of floods of similar sizes and possibly quite a bit larger over the next few decades,” he says.
“If I was placed in charge, I would be endeavouring to reduce the number of people that are located in what we would recognise to be flood-prone ground.
“The inherent cyclicity that is probably evident in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, and the specific nature of the channel geometry suggests to me that that’s not the best place to have large urban populations, or even large, semi-urban and semi-rural populations.”
NSW floods: drone footage shows scale of devastation in Lismore – video
The NSW government is pausing new developments while it revises its flood strategy but pressure to open up more land for housing isn’t expected to ease. The Coalition is pursuing a controversial plan to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam which it argues could mitigate some risk.
Hubble says the area has experienced long term cycles where floods then droughts dominate – with each period lasting 30 to 50 years.
He says the lack of major floods in the region between the early 1990s and recent years reflects we are shifting into a new cycle. “If the observation of the flood-dominated regime versus drought-dominated regime is real then we can expect floods as large or larger to occur on a relatively frequent basis.”
The geologist says authorities should rethink planning decisions based on the one-in-100-year flood line and the advice given to people buying land or homes in the area.
“Unfortunately, the geography and the geology of that area means that the one-in-200-year and the one-in-500-year flood and the probable maximum floods are much, much higher events than we would expect to encounter on most flood plains.
“So the probable maximum flood is about twice the height of the one-in-100 year flood in that particular river system down around Windsor and Sackville. And if there is cyclicity in the system, then a lot of our estimates may well be underestimates.”
Northwest India records highest temperature in 122 years
The temperatures are rising across the country and in some places the heat wave conditions can be witnessed. But there is some respite from April 2 to April 4 before the temperature rises again.
SNS | New Delhi | April 2, 2022 Representational image (Photo: Facebook)
The temperatures are rising across the country and in some places the heat wave conditions can be witnessed. But there is some respite from April 2 to April 4 before the temperature rises again.
RK Jenamani, senior scientist, India Meteorological Department (IMD), while speaking with agency, said, “Northwest India has contributed to the highest temperature of 30.73 degrees Celsius which is the highest in 122 years. The temperature was continuously higher and the western Himalayan region recorded heatwave conditions.” “Along with this, Northeast India which normally gets thunderstorms did not receive much rain and because of that, Northeast India’s minimum temperature is the highest in 122 years. It was 25.20 degrees Celsius,” he said.
Jenamani said that India got an early heatwave, particularly Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra.
Azov Battalion hopes to relieve the blockade of Mariupol and calls on rescue workers to clear rubble
Saturday, 2 April 2022, 20:13
Sviatoslav Palamar, Deputy Commander of the Azov Battalion, said that another "batch" of Russian military equipment has been destroyed and called for the relief of the blockade of Mariupol and for rescuing people from under the rubble of the destroyed buildings.
Source: Sviatoslav Palamar’s Twitter video address
According to Palamar: "Mariupol’s defenders are constantly on the verge of life and death. Despite the complete blockade, they continue the heroic struggle for Ukraine and for their fellow citizens, fighting for every metre of their land.
I would like all Ukrainians to be as true to themselves, as courageous, as determined as our guys. Yesterday alone, they destroyed 2 infantry fighting vehicles. And today, one tank and enemy infantry.
We hope for the blockade to be relieved. We know that politicians and the military are doing everything they can to achieve this. We believe that Ukraine has a way out of this situation.
In the history of our country there have been many victories, instances of fortitude and heroism among our military […] Therefore, we have to win, because we are capable of it. I call on all Ukrainians to fight for our territory, for our children, for our future. I urge that everything possible be done, that rescuers come to Mariupol with special equipment to clear away the rubble…"
Background: On 31 March, the command of the Azov Battalion of the National Guard of Ukraine called on the military and political government of Ukraine to carry out an operation to relieve the blockade of Mariupol.
Pavlo Kyrylenko, Head of the Donetsk Regional Military/State Administration, said that Ukraine’s military leadership is making every effort to help those fighting in Mariupol, but it remains very difficult to break the blockade of the city.
Earlier, Sviatoslav Palamar, the deputy commander of the Azov Battalion, explained why Ukrainian defence forces have not left Mariupol when the situation there became particularly grave, in spite of President Zelenskyy having given permission to do so.
How the West enabled genocide in Mariupol with its misguided Azov obsession
Editor’s NoteThe Azov Regiment has been combating Russia’s genocidal invasion of Ukraine, heroically resisting the siege of Mariupol, where Russia murdered at least 5,000 civilians, with incredible stamina. Yet, they are woefully underarmed in their epic struggle against a superior invading force: because of the Kremlin-abetted Western obsession with the “Neo-Nazi threat” of Azov, the defenders of Mariupol are armed with neither Javelins nor Bayraktars. As Azov continues to resist the brutal slaughter of Ukrainians in Mariupol, political scientist Anton Shekhovtsov invites Western commentators to contemplate their own moral procrastination that enabled a true genocide to unfold before their eyes.
More than a month has passed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian invaders have already committed multiple war crimes, and the genocidal intentions of the current Russian leadership towards the Ukrainian nation are becoming increasingly obvious.
Although massively demoralized and often – and understandably – turning arms against each other, Russian invaders do not hesitate to shell and bomb any building they can reach. No matter if it’s a residential building, a hospital, a kindergarten, a local council, a theater, or a museum. They destroy everything, they kill indiscriminately.
It sometimes feels that they have adopted the United Nations definition of genocide as literally their program: Killing members of the group – check! Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group – check! Preventing births within the group – check! And now they have started kidnapping Ukrainian children and moving them to Russia. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group – check!
In order to distract Western attention from the immense humanitarian catastrophe caused by the invasion, Russia is using a wide range of “smoke and mirrors” techniques. One of those deceptive practices is Moscow’s focus on the Ukrainian Azov Regiment which is falsely described in the Russian and pro-Russian media as a “fascist” or “neo-Nazi” “battalion” or “militia.”
All these descriptions are wrong, and this article discusses Azov, its history, and evolution, as well as explaining the reasons behind the information attacks on this military unit that plays an important role in resisting the Russian genocidal invasion. From the Azov Battalion to the Azov Regiment
Back in 2014, when pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia after his regime had killed more than a hundred of protesters, Russia took advantage of the political turmoil in Ukraine and the hesitancy of Western leadership.
It illegally annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine. Ukraine could hardly defend itself – years of corrupt pro-Russian leadership almost destroyed Ukrainian armed forces. And many in the Ukrainian military were simply not psychologically ready to offer an armed response to those who were their neighbors. Malicious Russian leaders were obviously aware of those weaknesses of the Ukrainian society at that time and exploited them to the maximum. What Moscow was not aware of was the strength of Ukrainian volunteer networks.
Those networks were built during the EuroMaidan revolution and following the beginning of the Russian invasion, they formed the first resistance groups that were eventually transformed into volunteer territorial defense battalions and special tasks patrol police units. Azov was formed as a volunteer police battalion in May 2014.
The original battalion consisted mostly of football hooligans and members of the Ukrainian far-right, and it was the far-right organization “Patriot of Ukraine” that was in charge of the original battalion.
Like many of my colleagues researching the far right, I was extremely skeptical and critical of the original Azov battalion for the following four major reasons: The “Patriot of Ukraine” was one of the most racist and anti-Semitic groups in Ukraine. Its members were involved in spreading far-right propaganda and occasional political and criminal violence. It was almost impossible to trust those people, especially given their anti-establishment and anti-democratic rhetoric. With very few exceptions, the leadership of the “Patriot of Ukraine,” including the first commander of Azov, did not participate in the Maidan revolution, as they were imprisoned on different charges. They were released – together with other people who were considered political prisoners of the pro-Russian regime – right after Yanukovych fled to Russia. That meant that the leaders of the “Patriot of Ukraine” did not have an opportunity to show their worth during the dramatic periods of the Ukrainian revolution, and we did not know what to expect of them. The far-right imagery of the original Azov battalion played into the hands of the Russian propaganda that pictured the Ukrainian revolution as a “fascist coup” and presented all Ukrainian volunteer military units as “neo-Nazis.” As the West was hesitating to help Ukraine in its defense against the Russian aggression, the far-right imagery of the battalion contributed to the Russian discreditation of Ukraine on the international level. Several key people who were directly involved in the formation of the Azov battalion had an extremely dubious history of cooperating not only with pro-Russian forces in Ukraine but also with Russian political spin-doctors. Moreover, neither Azov nor other battalions did proper screening of volunteers, some of whom came from Russia. All that created a huge security risk of Russian operatives seizing control of Azov and turning it into an anti-Ukrainian force.
To sum up these points, we had well-justified concerns about Azov and did not trust it. Nobody doubted the fact that, at that time, Ukraine needed volunteers of any social or political background – again, the Ukrainian army was almost non-existent then. If you are drowning, you are unlikely to ask about the social attitudes or political convictions of those willing to save you from drowning. But what if they were willing to save you just to kill you in a different manner?
With time, some of our concerns disappeared. In June 2014, Azov played an important role in liberating the Ukrainian city of Mariupol from pro-Russian forces, and that proved not only Azov’s combat effectiveness but also their truly pro-Ukrainian position. Because of its proven fighting abilities, Azov started to attract more volunteers, and many of them had no political background at all.
In autumn 2014, the battalion was transformed into a regiment and was enrolled in the National Guard of Ukraine, which is part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. That created a hierarchical vertical to ensure – as much as possible – that Azov would remain loyal to the Ukrainian state.
A military ceremony in the Azov battalion on 19 November 2021.
Photo: t.me/polkazov
Moreover, within a few months after the creation of the Azov battalion, people with a history of dubious links to Russian and pro-Russian stakeholders moved away from Azov. And although several Russian agents indeed infiltrated the regiment, they were never able to exert any serious impact on its military service.
The remaining major concern was the political aspect of the regiment. However, because of the domestic and international criticism of the far-right background of the regiment’s original leadership, Azov started the process of de-politicization. In 2015, a number of former fighters of Azov formed an NGO “Azov Civil Corps,” which was transformed into a political party National Corps in 2016.
Far-right figures departed from the command of Azov and became engaged in the party-building.
They hoped that the popular support for defenders of Ukraine would somehow translate into political success and electoral victories. Hence, at that time, the separation of the National Corps from Azov was yet not complete – they had to keep the link, even if only symbolical, between the defenders of Motherland who enjoyed respect from the Ukrainian society and the political project. But already then, it was clear that the regiment followed orders of Ukraine’s Interior Ministry, while the National Corps had no power over the military unit.
The party’s hopes to benefit from Azov’s military valor were all in vain.
Figures for the National Corps and other Ukrainian far-right parties in public opinion polls were devastatingly low. The National Corps kept on referring to Azov as its affiliated organization, and naïve Western journalists and experts took all that bluster at face value instead of realizing that Azov was not a political organization and that its command structure was completely separate from the National Corps.
By the time of the parliamentary elections in 2019, it became evident that no Ukrainian far-right party would make it to the parliament. Out of despair, the Ukrainian far-right joined forces to compete in the parliamentary elections. However, their united list, which included members of the Freedom party, National Corps, Right Sector, and a few minor far-right groups, received only 2.15% of the vote and failed to get them elected into the parliament. The electoral failure of the Ukrainian far-right can be explained by the fact that they cannot offer any viable modernization program to the Ukrainian state and society.
Men evacuate a pregnant woman injured by a Russian airstrike on a maternity hospital on 9 March 2022. It was later reported that the woman and her unborn child died.
Photo: Yevheniy Maloletka/Instagram
The only time when the Ukrainian far-right was relatively successful in the elections was in 2012 when the Freedom (Svoboda) party received 10.45% of the vote.
The only reason for their relative success was because at that time they were considered the most radical opposition to the pro-Kremlin foreign policy agenda of Yanukovych’s regime. It is important to stress: they secured seats in the Ukrainian parliament not because of their far-right program but because of their radical criticism of Russia and its agents in Ukraine.
After the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the Ukrainian far-right lost their monopoly on radical criticism of Russia, and, with that, they lost all the electoral appeal they had.
The Ukrainian far-right in general fell into irrelevance, and the National Corps and groups around it suffered an identity crisis. They tried to experiment with different ideological narratives, largely borrowed from Western far-right discourses, but none of them worked outside of very small circles
Ironically, while Western far-right groups tried to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021 to promote their anti-establishment conspiracy theories, the National Corps ran an information campaign on how to avoid getting infected, and their explanations and recommendations conformed to the mainstream domestic and international understanding of the new coronavirus and its spread. The National Corps still refers to its symbolical link to the Azov regiment, but it is rather political propaganda of the National Corps than a reality.
Azov today: defenders of Mariupol
Azov today is a highly professional special operations detachment. Not a political organization, not a militia, not a far-right battalion. It is still formally subordinated to the National Guard of Ukraine’s Interior Ministry, but now it largely coordinates its military activities with the Armed Forces, therefore, one can expect that Azov will move under the command of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry.
The Azov regiment uploaded this video of a street fight in which they destroyed a Russian IFV on 14 March 2022
Azov consists predominantly of Ukrainian citizens of various ethnic backgrounds. Among Azov’s members there are ethnic Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, Crimean Tatars, Jews, Georgians, Greeks. But whatever their ethnic origin, they are all Ukrainian patriots who are risking and sacrificing their lives for Ukraine’s sovereignty, freedom, and democracy.
The Kremlin, pro-Kremlin, and far-left media picture Azov as haters of Russian speakers. But not only do Azov fighters speak mostly Russian language among themselves, on average they speak better Russian than the Russian invaders. This fact alone dismisses blatant Kremlin lies about Azov allegedly fighting against Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine.
One may ask: why has Azov become one of the main targets of lies, falsehoods, and fabrications produced by the Kremlin and pro-Kremlin propaganda?[/box]
An obvious explanation is that the attack on Azov is part of the Kremlin’s disinformation narrative on Nazis in Ukraine.
A less obvious yet probably more important explanation is linked to the place where Azov has been stationed since 2014. This is the Ukrainian city of Mariupol and the area around it. Back in 2014, Azov greatly contributed to the liberation of Mariupol from the pro-Russian henchmen.
Mariupol is not simply yet another Ukrainian city. If you look at the map of Ukraine, you will see that Mariupol is the largest and most important city located in the area that is considered to be a potential land bridge from Russia to the annexed Crimea. Given the logistical troubles that Russia has with supplying Crimea with water, electricity, and other resources, it is crucial for Russia to occupy the territories of that potential land bridge. But Mariupol stands in the way. And Azov stands in the way.
The entire regiment is now in Mariupol.
Through its agents in Ukraine and elsewhere, Russia has been trying to destroy Azov or, at the very least, weaken its military capabilities.
Especially in NATO member states, there was a massive effort to prevent members of the Azov unit from receiving training from Ukraine’s Western allies, as well as to prevent Azov from obtaining advanced weapons and hardware.
The Kremlin’s efforts have, to a certain extent, succeeded. And today, the Azov regiment, which defends Mariupol completely surrounded by the Russian invaders, has neither Javelin portable anti-tank missile systems nor Bayraktar combat aerial vehicles that would have helped them to defend the city and save the lives of thousands of residents of Mariupol.
All “thanks” to those people – Western pro-Russian politicians, pseudo-journalists, fake experts, ignorant consultants – who directly or indirectly lobbied against training Azov and equipping it with advanced weapons. There is no doubt that they all share responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe in Mariupol.
Mass graves in Mariupol, where the dead killed by a Russian airstrike on 9 March 2022 are buried. Photo: Yevheniy Maloletka/Instagram
The West’s dysmetropsia and moral procrastination
Naturally, one can say that the Westerners obsessed with the alleged “neo-Nazi” threat of Azov are all victims of dysmetropsia, an inability to judge an object’s size. In one of the episodes of the great British sitcom, “Father Ted,” the main character tried to explain to his less smart colleague, Father Dougal McGuire, the difference in size between the small toy cows in his hand and the real cows in the distance. Father Ted was unsuccessful because Father Dougal had dysmetropsia and, frankly, was an eejit. The same can be said about Western commentators who see no difference between the alleged “far-right” threat of Azov and the Russian genocidal invasion of Ukraine.
But I think that dysmetropsia cannot explain everything, and I would rather talk about Western moral procrastination.
Procrastination is about voluntarily distracting ourselves with insignificant activities from performing really important tasks. Moral procrastination is about giving preference to small exciting things instead of dealing with difficult issues that actually matter.
Mariupol, where Azov is based, is a predominantly Russian-speaking home of ethnic Ukrainians, Russians, Greeks, Belarusians, Armenians, Jews. Or it used to be their home; before the Russian invaders came.
The Russian invaders have already killed thousands of people in Mariupol and are killing them as I write.
Many of the dead are lying on the streets of Mariupol because every time their relatives and friends try to pick them up to bury them, Russian invaders shoot at them. If people are lucky to pick up the dead, they often have to bury them in mass graves. And those Ukrainians who still survive are forced to hide in the basements, where they starve, freeze, and die.
This chilling horror is psychologically hard to process, but we are morally obliged to be aware that this is happening in Europe, just around the corner. And our human nature pushes us to do something to stop Russian inhuman war crimes. There are many in the West who – instead of even starting to comprehend the brutal horror of the Russian war against Ukraine – prefer to distract themselves with inquiries of whether Azov fighters have any politically incorrect tattoos or t-shirts.
It’s much more exciting, of course, than to stand up to the Russian genocidal invasion. This is moral procrastination that should be met with disdain and contempt.
For Azov’s selfless epic struggle against superior numbers of the Russian enemy forces in Mariupol, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently awarded the country’s highest award, “Hero of Ukraine,” to Azov Commander Denys Prokopenko. Well deserved.
President Zelenskyy awards Azov commander Prokopenko during the Independence Day parade on 24 August 2021
In Mariupol, Azov defends not only the living and the wounded but also the dead. Not only do they deserve to be properly buried, but they are also silent witnesses of the Russian war crimes. As we well know, Russian invaders are equipped with mobile crematoriums which they use to destroy evidence of their villainy. And in Mariupol, Azov is now defending not only the freedom of the living but also the dignity of the dead.
Dr. Anton Shekhovtsov is Director of the Centre for Democratic Integrity (Austria), Senior Fellow at the Free Russia Foundation (USA), and an expert at the European Platform for Democratic Elections (Germany). Follow him on Twitter: @A_SHEKH0VTS0V
Guantanamo inmate sent to Algeria after almost 20 years
IMAGE SOURCE,REUTERS
Image caption,
The US says 37 detainees remain - including 18 eligible for transfer - at Guantanamo Bay
Guantanamo Bay inmate Sufiyan Barhoumi has been repatriated to Algeria, US officials say, after spending nearly 20 years at the detention facility.
He was captured at a safehouse in Pakistan with a top al-Qaeda member in 2002, and accused of taking part in a plan to bomb the US.
But the US Department of Defense said his detention was no longer considered necessary.
It said Algeria had given assurances that he would be treated humanely.
In a statement, the department added that US authorities recommended that Mr Barhoumi could be sent back to his native country "subject to security... assurance".
"The United States appreciates the willingness of Algeria, and other partners to support ongoing US efforts toward a deliberate and thorough process focused on responsibly reducing the detainee population and ultimately closing of the Guantanamo Bay facility," the statement said.
The department provided no further details about Mr Barhoumi.
With the latest release, 37 detainees remain - including 18 eligible for transfer - at Guantanamo Bay, which is part of a US naval base complex in south-eastern Cuba.
Since 2002, the detention facility has been used to hold what the US describes as captured unlawful combatants during America's war on terror.
Pakistan's Embattled PM Repeats Claim That U.S. Is Trying To Oust Him April 02, 2022 By RFE/RL
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan (file photo)
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has repeated his claims that the United States is behind efforts to remove him from office and said he might not accept the results of a no-confidence vote in parliament.
"The move to oust me is a blatant interference in domestic politics by the United States," Khan told a select group of foreign journalists in Islamabad on April 2, a day before parliament is scheduled to debate a no-confidence motion against him.
"How can I accept the result when the entire process is discredited?" Khan said. "Democracy functions on moral authority -- what moral authority is left after this connivance?"
The comments came after Khan announced on April 1 that his government had handed an official protest to the U.S. Embassy.
Earlier in the week he said the alleged conspiracy against him was the result of disappointment over his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on February 25, the day after Russia invaded Ukraine.
While addressing the nation on March 31, Khan referred to an "official document" Pakistan had received that was evidence of a conspiracy to remove him from office. After initially mentioning the United States, he later said the document was "not from America” but from “a foreign country I can't name.”
The document, Khan said, "says we will forgive Pakistan if Imran Khan loses this no-confidence vote. But if it fails Pakistan will have to face tough time."
Khan's government later described the document as a formal letter from a "senior official of a foreign country to Pakistan's Ambassador in the said country in a formal meeting."
Local media have reported the message was in a briefing letter from Pakistan's ambassador to Washington recording a senior U.S. official telling him they felt relations would be better if Khan left office.
Addressing the allegations on March 31, U.S. State Department Ned Price said that "there is no truth to them," and that the United States supports "Pakistan's constitutional process and rule of law."
Opposition parties in Pakistan have said that allegations that their filing of a no-confidence motion against Khan are the result of foreign interference are "baseless."
Protesters rally in support of Imran Khan in Islamabad on March 27.
Supporters of Khan have staged protests against the United States in cities around the country amid the controversy, including one in Peshawar on April 1 led by members of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. Khan has called for more protests on April 3.
The no-confidence debate in the 342-member National Assembly was originally due to start on March 31, but the deputy speaker suspended proceedings when legislators declined to first address other items on the agenda.
Khan is facing his biggest challenge since being elected in 2018. The PTI effectively lost its majority on March 30 when a coalition partner said it would vote with the opposition.
More than a dozen PTI lawmakers had already indicated they would support the no-confidence vote, but the PTI has been attempting to win them back.
The opposition accuses Khan of mismanaging the economy and foreign policy, and political analysts also say Khan has fallen out with Pakistan's powerful military, whose support is critical for any party to attain power.
On April 2, Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javad Bajwa expressed concern about Moscow's war against Ukraine, saying that "despite Russia's legitimate security concerns, its aggression against a smaller country cannot be condoned."
Bajwa also said Pakistan had enjoyed excellent defense and economic relations with Kyiv since Ukraine's independence, but that while some positive developments had taken place in its ties with Russia of late, its relations with Russia had been "cold" for a long time for numerous reasons.
He added that Pakistan sought to expand ties with both the United States and China, which has refused to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine and criticized the West's punitive sanctions against Moscow.
With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Mashaal, AFP, Dawn, and Reuters
DAWN.COM Published April 3, 2022 - A NEW chapter in the history of Pakistani democracy may be written by parliament today. Though a vote of no-confidence against the prime minister is not without precedent, today may mark the first time the National Assembly sends a government packing.
Before Prime Minister Imran Khan, Benazir Bhutto and Shaukat Aziz had, in 1989 and 2006, respectively, faced a test of their government’s resilience. Unlike those two, however, Mr Khan — unless he springs a last-minute surprise which he has promised to — seems positioned to lose the vote. There are similarities, too, between the past and the present. Reprehensible and damaging precedents have been set once again by both opposition and government parties. Elected leaders have again shown that they can shamelessly abandon both allies and principles in their pursuit of personal gains. Loyalties have again been bought and sold, greatly diminishing the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy in the eyes of the citizenry.
As defeat looms, Mr Khan has made it clear he will not go gentle into the night. Determined to turn his ouster — if he remains unable to prevent it — into a moment of political martyrdom, Mr Khan has built up a combative narrative, melding religious beliefs with nationalistic fervour. He has framed his troubles as the result of an international conspiracy abetted by local actors, accusing PTI dissidents and opposition leaders of being ‘traitors’ for their alleged complicity in the plot.
This is a dangerous ploy, as it will provoke the sentiments of PTI’s charged up-supporters and may trigger violence in the streets. With the prime minister urging his electorate to turn out in large numbers before the vote to protest this ‘conspiracy’, matters can take a dangerous turn. There are fears that protesters may violently confront opposition and dissident MPs ahead of the vote. The opposition has already expressed concerns for the safety of those going to parliament today. One hopes sufficient preparations have been made to prevent matters from spiralling dangerously out of hand.
Meanwhile, the army chief seems to have chosen a questionable time to publicly break ranks with the PTI government. His statement at the Islamabad Security Dialogue on the Russia-Ukraine conflict is likely to rekindle civil-military tensions. His opinion reveals he stands considerably at odds with the PTI government on the matter. The army chief is entitled to his views, but it would have been better if they were expressed through policy formulated by the National Security Committee rather than before a public audience including foreign observers. This decision has only renewed doubts regarding the actual ‘neutrality’ of the establishment. With Pakistan on the verge of what may be a period of political turmoil, the public should not have been left feeling as if yet another public representative is being prematurely shown the door because they crossed the powers that be.
Published in Dawn, April 3rd, 2022
Voices: Behind Imran Khan’s downfall lies arrogance and incompetence
Murtaza Ali Shah Sat, April 2, 2022 He promised he would change the fate of Pakistan in 90 days
(Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)
Pakistan’s prime minister Imran Khan is in serious trouble. He lost his majority in parliament after key allies switched their support to the opposition alliance called the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM). He is now facing calls to resign or be ousted through a vote of no-confidence, which is due to take place on Sunday.
Both are humiliating scenarios for the former cricket star and celebrity who has desperately tried to stay in power. Even, in my view, at the cost of avowing all his promises and principles. Two words now define his legacy as PM: arrogance and incompetence.
It wasn’t like this when Imran Khan came to power in 2018. He was popular and a significant number of Pakistanis thought he deserved a chance to rid the country of chronic corruption and mis-governance.
There was hope in the air. He promised he would change the fate of Pakistan in 90 days; he would bring respect from other nations, attract unprecedented investment, create ten million jobs and root out corruption. He would bring back the billions looted from the country.
Nearly four years later, he has been unable to fulfil a single promise. And, until recently, Imran Khan enjoyed the full support of Pakistan’s military establishment in every manner possible. In fact, Khan’s most important ally, Pervaiz Elahi, said in a recent interview that for three-and-a-half years someone else changed his nappies and thus didn’t let him learn – a reference to the military’s support.
Instead, Imran Khan was widely criticised as spending his time cracking down on opponents. Dozens of journalists were taken off the air when they didn’t toe the line, or worse, were imprisoned. Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman, the editor in chief of Pakistan’s largest media group, the Jang Group, was locked up in a case that Human Rights Watch condemned as “politically motivated”. He was later acquitted by a court.
He would make long, threatening speeches dismissing his rivals as inferior beings who deserved no respect and no humanity. He would use airtime to abuse and issue threats against rivals. In 2022 HRW again lambasted the government for the crackdown on dissent by citizens, journalists and opposition politicians.
Meanwhile, it has become evident to me that Imran Khan didn’t actually have an economic development plan. He changed one finance minister after another, but the economy continued falling and the number of jobs kept dwindling. Today, inflation in Pakistan is amongst the highest in South Asia. For the ordinary people, living and surviving has become much harder.
Eventually his popularity sapped among his middle-class support base. Things took a different turn three months ago when General Nadeem Ahmed Anjum was appointed chief of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. A thorough professional who spent three years studying in London, General Nadeem ordered the spy agency not to interfere in politics, to stay neutral and let politicians settle their matters among each other. That made it easier for his allies to start talking to the main opposition parties and plan for their independent future.
Imran Khan is not one to sit quietly.
A number of feverish allegations have since emerged that he is the victim of an international conspiracy engineered by the US because he was pursuing an independent foreign policy with Russia. One of his aides claimed he faced an assassination threat from the same western forces who have hatched the conspiracy to oust him from power. It then turned out there was no threatening letter written by the US, but a cable written by a Pakistani diplomat based in Washington – a routine matter.
In front of thousands of his supporters on Sunday, at one point he started sobbing.
To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here
The Pakistani military – who supported him throughout – has reportedly become increasingly concerned about the manner in which Khan has run the economy and done little to improve governance. He named Pakistan’s army chief in public rallies and replied to the army’s decision to stay neutral by saying that “only animals are neutral”. But the army is in no mood to take blame for the administrative and political failures of someone they supported for many years.
My feeling is that Imran Khan knows there is no conspiracy against him and no western power wants to throw him out. But he needs to fuel his support base into believing he has fallen out of favour due to a plot against him. The fact remains he is under threat from his own party and own allies because he promised the moon but delivered nothing. It’s the sheer frustration with his arrogance and misgovernance that is tearing apart his coalition.
But no more. It’s now just a matter of time before Imran Khan is out of power. His fate is sealed.
The writer is a London-based journalist for Pakistan’s largest media house Geo TV Network & The News International
