Ukraine Reconstruction, Peace and Justice

BY DANIEL WARNERFacebook

\Twitter\Reddit\Email

Is it possible to speak of reconstruction while a war is still going on? The Swiss government and Ukraine co-organized an international conference in Lugano July 4-5 to deal with rebuilding Ukraine. Although not as high-level as the recent G-7 or NATO summits, the aim of the conference, according to Ignazio Cassis, the Swiss Foreign minister who also holds the rotating Swiss presidency, was to have a “Lugano Declaration” similar to the Marshall Plan that described the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. One thousand participants from 40 countries and representatives from international organizations attended as well as almost one hundred representatives from Ukraine.

With the Ukraine war still going on – the conference was initiated prior to the February 24 invasion – the challenge to rebuild is daunting. “We will help Ukraine to win this war and to win peace,” said the head of the European Commission. “The challenges are colossal,” she added, “but not insurmountable.”

Rebuilding Ukraine during the fighting adds further complexity to the relation between peace and justice. Those who favor peace point to ending the fighting as soon as possible. “Priority number one remains ending the war, because without the war ending, the suffering will definitely continue,” said a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) representative in Ukraine. Those who insist on justice first, say that human rights and humanitarian violators must held accountable immediately. “No peace without justice,” they advocate.

What about rebuilding? The final Declaration, besides condemning Russian aggression and re-iterating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, was designed as a road map to help Ukraine develop a Recovery and Development Plan. With many people returning home, “It is essential that quick repairs, improving infrastructure and public services happens as soon as possible,” said the UNDP representative. The World Health Organization also sent representatives to the conference, underlying the need to rebuild hundreds of health facilities hit by Russian strikes. Cassis stressed that “full transparency and surveillance of financial flows,” were also on the agenda in a country that ranked 122 out of 180 in Transparency International’s 2021 Corruption Perception Index.

Even if the war ended tomorrow, the rebuilding needs are enormous: More than 10 million Ukrainians have been affected by the war with one/fourth of the population needing basic food supplies; 24,000 km of road and 5.5 million houses have been damaged or destroyed; environmental damage is considerable; almost five million jobs have been lost and it is estimated that the economy will shrink 41.1 per cent this year.

But the war has not ended.  Experts say optimistically that certain areas can be helped immediately at the same time planning should go on for the future. The blend of humanitarian needs and development projects is part of a hopeful holistic approach: “We need innovative partnerships between humanitarian actors who have the capacity to go as close as possible to the frontlines, and financial institutions and development actors who traditionally engage with state entities on much more long-term programs,” said a Red Cross official.

It is estimated that Ukraine needs $700 billion dollars to rebuild.

The final Declaration focused on seven principles, including government reforms and transparency, sustainability and fighting corruption. Future conferences on rebuilding Ukraine have already been planned in Britain and Germany in the next two years.

Is it premature to talk of rebuilding Ukraine during the war? Historians point to discussions of rebuilding Europe during World War II leading to the final Marshall Plan once the war had ended. And one could easily point to the final Declaration as a wish list of liberal ideals for a country that has a history of corruption. “Corruption in Ukraine is still very present,” said the former head of the European anti-corruption office. “Systemically, this is not a state based on law, or just a little,” he observed.

Russia will not go away. Although the aim of the Western powers seems to be more and more to weaken Russia – as stated forthrightly by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin – President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen’s statement about winning the war and winning the peace overstates the reality on the ground. Some negotiated settlement will have to take place rather than an outright victory or surrender.

Rebuilding Ukraine and the Lugano Declaration are part of a process. But focusing on the aftermath of the conflict should not take energy and time away from ending the war. And while the ideal of having a stable, functioning government in Kiev is admirable, fundamental questions remain such as does the future of Ukraine include the Donbas region? And if so, how?

Certain aspects of the geopolitical reality of Ukraine cannot change. In addition to its frontier and history with Russia, one cannot start from scratch in rebuilding. Can one imagine a modern, digital, rules-based functioning state? A new Finland or Estonia? There are good reasons why Ukraine was not included in the Membership Action Plan of NATO and why some countries hesitate to include Ukraine in the European Union.

No amount of money or promises from exterior sources will change the internal situation in Ukraine. While the Russian military invasion has shocked the world, meetings like the Lugano conference risk repeating errors made after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It will finally be up to the Ukrainian people, including those in the Donbas region, to rebuild their country, with, we assume, considerable help from their friends.

Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.

The Illusion of Military Dominance

BY KEVIN MARTIN - BRAD WOLF

TwitterRedditEmail

Image by Diego González.

United States military analysts love strategies and the theories behind them. The theories provide what appear to be perfectly reasonable and rational approaches to warfighting, even offering a sense of certainty about the outcome. After all, they’ve been designed with military precision. Authorized personnel at the Pentagon or military think tanks are assigned to create strong, catchy names for the theories. A longtime theory is “Escalation Dominance,” which has a close cousin called “Full-Spectrum Dominance.”

Both theories promote the idea that effective deterrence comes from being able to defeat the enemy in every step of a potential conflict, in any place, and at any time, from small-scale skirmishes between proxy guerillas up to and including nuclear war, and possible escalation within a specific conflict. Such strategies would, in theory, deter any adversary from initiating any step up the escalation ladder.

Like all military strategies they sound convincing enough on paper, even alluring. What red-blooded American, or Russian, would walk away from dominance? But in the concrete, these theories fail to deliver, and we could quite likely end up with escalation disaster. Escalation Dominance has already failed given that Russia invaded Ukraine and took a substantial step up the escalation ladder, with perhaps more to come.

A hubris undermines such military theories, a woefully misplaced and dangerous self-confidence, not to mention a stunning disregard for the millions of lives sacrificed if such theories are put to the test, and fail. Gaming this out with computers is one thing, unleashing it on the world another. Reading the enemy’s mind once the escalation begins and missiles are flying is futile, even suicidal.

Some say Ukraine should not have relinquished its vast nuclear arsenal when the Cold War ended in exchange for protective assurances from the West. In the eyes of some commentators, President Zelensky implied that Ukraine might now have to develop its own nuclear deterrence program. Putin quickly responded with retaliatory threats. Meanwhile, military analysts tinker with their theories and fine-tune their messages as world events continue to stump them.

These military analysts are paid well, often by the U.S. government, weapons manufacturers, and the mass media, all of whom have an interest in warmaking. Military think tanks are funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars, as are military research programs at American universities across the nation. We spend tens of millions of dollars playing computer war games. We spend close to $1 trillion a year funding personnel and machinery for actual warmaking.

Where are the millions for peace? Is it unfathomable to think that the same money, talent, and resources could be invested in creating a strategy for a new security arrangement in Europe that would include Russia? After the atrocities that Putin and his military have inflicted on Ukraine, it is a bitter pill to swallow. But the alternative is either a drawn-out proxy war with Russia which bleeds the Ukrainian and Russian people (while bleeding Western economies), or to continue up the escalation ladder with deadlier weapons delivered and deployed by Ukraine. In either case, far more die. And as the fog of war sets in, escalation dominance becomes escalation guesswork. At some point, the military must concede it possesses only a theory. Given their track record, risking all of humanity on one of their theories is a gamble for the delusional.

A new security arrangement including Russia would mean the gradual phase out of NATO. Russia, one of the major Petro-states, could be weaned off its fossil fuel exports and brought into a new economy of alternative energies. As opposed to our unkept promises of the 1990s, we would truly integrate the Russian economy into Western economies without the perceived threat of NATO. Compromises would be necessary, on both sides. We could slowly, gradually escalate towards peace.

Peace is no harder (or easier) than war, and yet we are obsessed with war. We have simply not dedicated the resources to wage peace in the same determined, relentless way we have waged war. No million dollar think tanks to develop peace strategies. No big dollar grants for university peace initiatives. No highly paid peace analysts.

We posit no sexy title for our strategy. Peace, and only peace. That’s it. We can split the atom and rocket to the stars. Surely we can resolve our disputes without incinerating each other. We need set our minds, money, and resources to it. Dominance is for tyrants. It must fall and humanity must prevail. Peace is everything.

Kevin Martin, is President of Peace Action Education Fund, the country’s largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization with more than 100,000 supporters nationwide.  Brad Wolf, a former lawyer, professor, and community college dean, is co-founder of Peace Action Network of Lancaster, PA and writes for various publications.

FAUX OUTRAGE

MSNBC guest faith leaders slam Supreme Court over Dobbs, reverend claims abortion is ‘not a biblical topic’

Nikolas Lanum
Fri, July 8, 2022

An MSNBC guest reverend vocal about her disagreement with the recent Supreme Court overturning of Roe v. Wade said Friday on "Morning Joe" that abortion is not a "biblical topic."

During a conversation with faith leaders supportive of abortion rights, co-host Mika Brzezinski asked Reverend Dr. Selene Jones about the SCOTUS decision and whether the Bible is being used "incorrectly" to curb abortion access.

Jones, who also serves as the president of the Union Theological Seminary, told Brzezinski that abortion is "not a biblical topic" and claimed there are only "one or two" biblical references to abortion that undoubtedly prioritize the "life and agency" of the mother over a fetus.

"To turn around and act as if the Bible has a mandate that is anti-choice when the Bible on every page is affirming the agency of people and the care of the vulnerable, the poor, the orphan, the woman at every turn," Jones said.

ROE V. WADE OVERTURNED: REV. FRANKLIN GRAHAM, OTHER FAITH LEADERS REACT TO 'SIGNIFICANT' ABORTION RULING

The reverend noted that 50 years ago the Southern Baptist Convention, which she said is now "100% anti-choice," came out with multiple platforms affirming women’s privacy and said that the state should not have a role in women’s pregnancy decisions.

Jones, alongside another reverend, Fred Davie, wrote an opinion piece published in The Hill in May that asserted overturning Roe threatened LGBTQ+ rights, and served as a rallying cry for faith leaders to defend them.

Earlier in the segment, Jones said that the Supreme Court ruling was about a "small minority" imposing their views on others.

"It runs directly against religious freedom," she added.

AS ABORTION DEBATE CONTINUES, SUBURBAN WOMEN SHARE HOW SUPREME COURT DECISION WILL INFLUENCE MIDTERM VOTES

Reverend Jennifer Butler, who shared the segment with Jones, chimed into the conversation by stating that religious freedom is now being used as a "weapon" by the Supreme Court in order to "discriminate against others."

The segment did not include any faith leaders who were pro-life.

The complete and staunch support for abortion among the MSNBC panel of faith leaders is notable given the breakdown of opinions on abortion among religious Americans.

According to Pew research, less than half of Catholic’s believe abortion should be legal in most cases. Meanwhile, 47% believe it should be illegal in most cases.

WHY DEMOCRATS ARE NOT PURSUING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR ABORTION RIGHTS

Furthermore, only 33% of evangelical protestants agree that abortion should be legal in most cases, while 63% think it should be illegal.

Generally Christians are close to a split on the legality of abortion, with 53% saying it should be legal while 45% said it should be illegal.

Two weeks after SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, President Joe Biden signed an executive order on abortion access Friday.

The economy is experiencing something not seen in decades, economist says

Nick Papantonis

Fri, July 8, 2022 

You’d be forgiven for thinking the economy has been sending mixed messages recently, with stellar jobs reports rolling out of Washington – and more dollars rolling out at payments at the grocery store due to inflation.

On Friday, a report showed the US added another 372,000 jobs in June, continuing the trend of economic recovery that gave President Biden a rare moment to cheer, while acknowledging the pain many are going through.

This period of high inflation and low unemployment is something that hasn’t been seen in more than 70 years, University of Florida Economist Dr. Amanda Phalin explained.

“If you’re someone who’s worried about a recession happening, today’s jobs report was fairly good news. It came in better than expected, we have replaced 98% of the jobs that we lost during the pandemic,” she said. “If you’re someone who’s worried about inflation, this is bad news. Because the economy is still humming along, prices are still rising.”

For much of the last year, Phalin has been predicting that inflation wouldn’t peak until mid-2022, something she stuck by in her interview Friday. According to her, supply chain issues should be beginning to resolve themselves, easing up on the pressure being put on prices.

However, she said the Biden administration could be doing more to facilitate that, while pressuring corporations to increase their inventory supplies to ensure this post-pandemic situation doesn’t repeat.

Phalin upgraded her future outlook ever so slightly, saying the chances that the Federal Reserve will be able to ease the nation out of inflation while avoiding a recession – a so-called “soft landing” – were better than before thanks to the continued strong jobs numbers.

“If the GDP data shows that we have negative growth, or have had negative growth for two consecutive quarters, one rule of thumb says, yes, we are in a recession,” she said. “But, our unemployment rate remains very low. It’s not even ticking upward, so that says we’re doing just fine.”

She summarized her thoughts by saying the economy wasn’t in bad shape, nor was it in great shape. It was somewhere in between, though a person’s outlook on it tended to be colored through their political views.

While she said it would still be very difficult to avoid a recession as it’s never been done before, she said if one were to happen, it would be far less severe than 2008.

Undo-Tweet: Right Wingers Implode Over Elon Musk’s Termination of Twitter Deal

 Nikki McCann Ramirez Fri, July 8, 2022

Elon Musk - Credit: Susan Walsh/AP

Elon Musk no longer wants Twitter, and right wing figures who saw the purchase as an opportunity to reshape the platform in their favor are devastated.

A statement filed to the Securities and Exchange commission by Musk’s attorneys declared that “Mr. Musk is terminating the Merger Agreement,” alleging that “Twitter is in material breach of multiple provisions of that Agreement, appears to have made false and misleading representations upon which Mr. Musk relied when entering into the Merger Agreement.”

It turns out buying a sports car for your midlife crisis carries far less financial penalties than backing out of a $44 billion dollar purchase agreement. The termination of the deal means Musk will likely need to pay a $1 billion penalty, that is if Twitter declines to take him to court and force the $44 billion purchase. 

Following the announcement of Musk’s intent to purchase the company, the Tesla billionaire’s own Twitter account became a hub for far-right reactionaries looking to influence the potential new owner of the platform. Now that the deal is seemingly dead in the water, the reaction from those same personalities has been a public mixture of panic and lament. 

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk unpinned the viral tweet announcing his return to Twitter due to “new management” from his profile. 

Writer Wesley Yang tweeted that “the purge will be brutal.” 

Commentators previously enthusiastic about the deal have latched on to Musk’s dubious public reason for terminating the deal: accusing Twitter of misrepresenting the presence of bots on the platform. 

Some are still holding out hope that Musk’s filing with the SEC is a strategic ploy to tank Twitter’s stance (Chairman Bret Taylor took to the platform to confirm the company is looking to force the sale via legal means) and discount the purchase price.

Gun reform: These states are the most dependent on the firearms industry

Luke Carberry Mogan

Sat, July 9, 2022 

As lawmakers enact new gun reforms in the wake of recent mass shootings, one factor shaping the political debate is how reliant states are on gun culture.

WalletHub ranked all 50 states by how dependent they are on the gun industry. The study compared states on the size of their firearms industry in terms of jobs and sales, the prevalence of gun culture, and gun-related political contributions.

The most dependent state on the gun industry was Idaho, followed by Wyoming and Kentucky.

While other states like California are among the largest producers overall in the gun industry, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) data shows that Idaho led on a per capita basis with nearly 7,000 jobs, $435 million in wages, and almost $1.6 billion in gun-related economic output in 2021.

"Rural states are more dependent on the gun industry, with no exception," WalletHub Analyst Jill Gonzales told Yahoo Finance. "In terms of gun politics, northern states like Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas have the highest gun rights contributions to congressional members and no gun control contributions."

New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Rhode Island were the least dependent on the gun industry, the analysis found. And although WalletHub did not factor political alignment into their analysis, Gonzales noted that "what is clear is that Blue states are least dependent overall on the gun industry."

Republican-leaning states, meanwhile, were far more likely to have a robust gun industry. In fact, the top 20 states in the study voted Republican in the 2020 election.

Gonzales stressed that while the number of mass shooting events fits into a broader trend of higher firearm-related fatalities and injuries, the relationship between the gun industry and mass shootings isn't straightforward.

"There is no direct correlation between the gun ownership rate or the number of NICS background checks and the prevalence of mass shootings,” Gonzales explained. “For example, New Jersey has the lowest gun ownership rate and one of the smallest numbers of NICS background checks but ranks in the top 20 states with the most mass shootings, while West Virginia has the third-highest gun ownership rate and one of the lowest number of mass shootings.”

People look at semi-automatic guns at the Kalashnikov booth inside of the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center, on May 27, 2022, in Houston, Texas. (Photo by STRINGER / AFP) (Photo by STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images)

In any case, the gun industry in the United States is an anomaly compared to other nations. Overall, the U.S. has an estimated 393.3 million firearms — an average of 120.5 guns per 100 residents.

The firearms industry has also continued to grow over the past decade. According to National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) 2022 economic impact report, the industry created 375,000 U.S. jobs, $21 billion in wages, and over $70 billion in economic output since 2008.

Gun politics

Political polarization has made it difficult for gun reform laws to be passed, though President Biden signed a $13 billion gun safety bill into law on June 25 after a spate of mass shootings.

The bipartisan legislation, led by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), funds expanded background checks and safety procedures, particularly for prospective gun buyers between the ages of 18 and 21. It also implements more sophisticated checks using mental health records.

The politics remain: Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, and North Dakota tied for the top spot regarding gun politics, a metric WalletHub used to evaluate the financial relationship between state elected officials and gun rights lobbyists.

According to political watchdog OpenSecrets, gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), Gun Owners of America, and the National Association for Gun Rights spent a total of $15.8 million on lobbying in 2021 — a record amount that outspent gun control advocates by five times.

President Joe Biden signs into law S. 2938, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act gun safety bill, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Saturday, June 25, 2022. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

In 2021, gun groups in Texas spent the most of any state, according to OpenSecrets data, with $963,000 in lobbying expenditures for gun rights. The nonprofit also found that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who opposed the recent gun safety bill, has received the most campaign contributions throughout his career.

And while the recent gun safety law found some consensus among politicians, the complicated issue is far from resolved in the wake of yet another mass shooting that took place in Highland Park, Illinois, over the Fourth of July weekend.

"Different states have different versions of similar laws (extreme risk protection orders — ERPO) and some have none," University of Michigan Professor Marc Zimmerman told Yahoo Finance. "What we need is to study which existing laws are effective. We also need research on how laws are implemented and how that might affect their effectiveness."

Gun safety research has been underfunded in recent decades, though there are some emerging trends.

For instance, "background checks may not eliminate unlawfully gained firearms, but they may eliminate impulsive behaviors that could be detected with some time to look into the individual purchasing the firearm," said Zimmerman, who is also the co-director of the Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention (IFIP) at the University of Michigan. "So they are part of the solution, but they are not the only thing we can do to address the firearm injury epidemic."

A child holds a firearm on display at the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual convention in Houston, Texas, U.S. May 29, 2022. REUTERS/Callaghan O'Hare

Another aspect that the bipartisan gun law aims to address is preventing those with mental health concerns from accessing firearms.

"We need to recognize that for younger individuals (those under 25), the brain is not fully developed so they may not make decisions like adults and may be more impulsive," Zimmerman said. "Mix that with fewer conflict management skills and lower-level conflicts (physical fighting) can escalate into retaliation with firearms."

Zimmerman stressed that Americans "own guns and gun ownership is not going away," highlighting that the majority of gun owners are responsible when handling personal firearms.

"Yet these deaths and injuries are preventable, and it is especially concerning when one person can cause so much death and injury from a single incident," he said. "We have to get away from the politicizing of this issue and just roll up our sleeves and do what we need to do to help prevent these incidents from happening."

PAN-AFRICAN PRIDE

Ons Jabeur is the first Arab woman to reach a Grand Slam singles final in the modern era.

The New Arab & agencies
09 July, 2022

Jabeur of Tunisia during the trophy ceremony after losing to Elena Rybakina of Kazakhstan in the womens singles final of The Championships Wimbledon 2022. [Photo by Robert Prange/Getty Images]

Hailing her as the "nation's pride" and "ambassador of happiness", Tunisians remained enthralled with tennis star Ons Jabeur Saturday, celebrating her presence in the prestigious Wimbledon final despite her loss.

Jabeur became the world number two player and then made history as the first African or Arab woman to reach a Grand Slam singles final in the modern era.

Although she missed out on the title at the All England Lawn Tennis Club, she said she'll learn from the experience and can't wait to play in another final.

"I just try to inspire as many generations as I can," she said.

At a cafe not far from the Hammam Sousse tennis club where the 27-year-old began her career, a group of young Tunisian men had been intently watching the match, yelling in excitement at each point she won.

"She's our Tunisian national product," said Safwen Ghairi, a 21-year-old student.

Supporters of Tunisian tennis player Ons Jabeur watch her final Wimbledon match at a coffee shop in the city of Sousse, her hometown. [(Photo by BECHIR TAIEB/AFP via Getty Images)]

He and his friends had rushed through their traditional Eid al-Adha meal to get to the cafe -- one of the few open on the national holiday which began Saturday -- to watch the match.

Jabeur represents the African continent "and the region at Wimbledon", Ghairi said. "It's a real achievement."

Nation's pride

His friend Zaher Edine Dahman, 27, called Jabeur "our ambassador of happiness".

"The authorities could never match the publicity Ons Jabeur has brought for Tunisia, even if they spent millions," he said.

"We used to dream of a Tunisian player simply qualifying for Wimbledon, and today, Tunisia is at the final," he added.

Her former trainer Nabil Mlika told AFP after the match that Jabeur was "the nation's pride", wishing her luck for the US Open, which begins next month.

Cafe worker Hafedh Amrouni, 25, said that Jabeur had "honoured" the country despite her coming in runner-up.

Her success has been a rare good news story for a North African country mired in economic and political crisis, made more acute by the coronavirus pandemic and the impact of the war in Ukraine.

On Friday, the country's Sports Minister Kamel Deguiche said celebrations were planned for after Wimbledon and that he wanted to officially award Jabeur the title of "Minister of Happiness", adding: "It's the state's duty to her."

Inspired by her mum

The youngest of four, born on August 28, 1994 in Ksar Hellal, Jabeur started her career as a child on hotel tennis courts in the nearby resort town of Hammam Sousse.

She has called her mother her inspiration.

"She is a big fan of tennis and took me to a tennis club when I was only three years old," she said in a BBC column.

"My mum used to play with her friends and I used to commentate... I used to spend the whole day there in the tennis club and I loved it," she added.

Jabeur said her mother was not in the crowd to watch her play on Saturday because there "wasn't enough time" for her to apply for a visa.

Jabeur moved o the capital, Tunis, at the age of 12 to train at a highly rated state-backed sports club.

She made a splash on the global scene in 2011, winning the girls' singles at the French Open when she was 16.

She reached the world's top 50 at the Australian Open in January 2020 -- the first Arab woman to reach a Grand Slam quarter-final - and has since surged up the rankings.

Her fame has sparked an increased interest in tennis in her home country, and membership levels have skyrocketed at her home club, from 320 in 2018 to more than 700 today.

Wimbledon women’s final makes tennis history

PBS NEWS NIGHT

Jul 9,2022

Wimbledon women's final was destined to be historic. Elena Rybakina on Saturday became the first ever player representing Kazakhstan to win a Grand Slam. She beat Tunisia's Ons Jabeur, the first woman from Africa to reach a Grand Slam final. Christopher Clarey, author and New York Times tennis correspondent, joins Nick Schifrin to discuss.
Read the Full Transcript

Nick Schifrin:

On the English grass at Center Court, today's Wimbledon women's final was destined to be historic. Elena Rybakina became the first ever player representing Kazakhstan to win a Grand Slam. She beat Tunisia's Ons Jabeur, the first woman from Africa to reach a Grand Slam final. To discuss this I'm joined from Wimbledon by New York Times Tennis Correspondent and Author Christopher Clarey. Christopher Clarey, welcome to "PBS News Weekend." Both women's stories, of course, are interesting, first Rybakina, how did she win? And how did she end up playing for Kazakhstan?


Christopher Clarey, New York Times:

Well, Elena Rybakina is a very powerful six footer who can run like a deer to be honest with you. And she played a wonderful match today. And started a bit slowly was nervous. I mean, both women are in uncharted territory form. Not ever having gotten past the quarterfinals in the Grand Slam before in Singles. So we didn't know how they were going to react. Rybakina had trouble with their strokes early and she really found a rhythm in the second and third sets, started dominating with her big flat shots, track down a lot of gibberish signature drop shots, and finish it off. And the amazing thing was when she won, this is the biggest moment of her life. It was like she basically just won the first point of the match. Hardly any expression on her part. Hardly any emotion. But the emotion came later in the press conference when she broke down in tears. But on the court, you'd never would have known it was her first Wimbledon title.


Nick Schifrin:

And tell us about her story, she decided to play for Kazakhstan four years ago. How did that come about?


Christopher Clarey:

There been a number of Russian players over the years, when they've been lacking funding at home. We'll look to some of the other Soviet Republics where the fundings greater, looking for some athletes who can play certain sports, and then make a shift. She wasn't the first but she was, in many ways, one of the most recent ones to do it. And at the time, she wasn't considered one of the most promising Russian juniors, wasn't getting the funding that she needed. And so she decided to switch, doesn't speak Kazakh obviously, there's language, there's Kazakh and Russian, big former Republic. And, you know, she got coaching, all kinds of support. And we just talked to her a few minutes ago, and she was saying she wasn't sure she would have actually won this title if she hadn't had that backing from Kazakhstan. But the timing, of course, is awkward for the club and for people in tennis because Russians and Belarusians have been banned from Wimbledon this year, because of the invasion of Ukraine. And I don't think the angling club had in mind to having an ethnic Russian who grew up in Russia and recently lived there receiving the trophy on the center court today. That wasn't part of the operational plan.


Nick Schifrin:

Well, there's always politics when it comes to this. So tell us about that decision that Wimbledon made, the other Grand Slam tennis tournaments have not banned Russians. Why did Wimbledon?


Christopher Clarey:

Look, I think it was a combination of factors. You're right, Wimbledon is really an outlier on this issue in tennis, not so much in world sport, but definitely in tennis. And thinking I think was the British government led then by Boris Johnson was pretty adamant that there had to be some sort of either concession from the Russian players, or they were to take part, some sort of denunciation of their government and its objectives in Ukraine, or some other sort of gesture and I felt the club here that runs Wimbledon felt they had to do something, and they didn't want to make the players basically go against their country publicly could have put their families at risk. So they decided to disband Russians and Belarusians altogether, which is been a long time since that happened in tennis, since post World War II era with the Germans and the Japanese.

So it was pretty extraordinary. And there was a lot of reaction within the tennis tours, they took away the ranking points, which is unprecedented from Wimbledon, which created a lot of backlash to players who did very well here this year, for example, will not rise in the rankings. Some of them will even drop.


Nick Schifrin:

Let's talk about Ons Jabeur. The crowds seem to be behind her certainly all day, she's well liked on the tour. She's known as the Minister of Happiness. What does she represent the women's games?


Christopher Clarey:

Look, I think people were really excited and they still are about Ons Jabeur and all that she can bring to tennis and sports. There aren't that many people in the history of this game, from Arab nations, or from the African continent on the women's side who have done particularly well. Ons is an exceptional talent. And she's very charismatic, extremely likeable. Her game is magnetic, all kinds of variety and style and panache there. So I think, really, everybody was sort of primed to celebrate that and, in some ways, Elena Rybakina upset the applecart in that regard. But I think Ons, she brings is a chance to really reach a whole new audience and market, not just for women's tennis but for women's sports and people here in the game and Wimbledon are very aware of that.


Nick Schifrin:

And on the men's side, of course, we should talk about that, Novak Djokovic going for seven Wimbledon, he's facing the fiery, the unpredictable and a curious, could a win for Djokovic, do you think cement his legacy as the greatest of all-time?


Christopher Clarey:

Look, I personally don't believe in that debate. But I think there's too much that's changed over the years to compare the greats of the past long ago with the greats of today. The grandstand tournaments didn't matter as much in terms of the counting all your numbers of titles back in the days of Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, and Bill Tilden, if you want to go way back as they do now. Not everybody played them for a long time either.

But in terms of this era, and what it represents, that number of who has the most Grand Slam singles titles is big. And right now Rafael Nadal, who had to pull out of here with an injury as 22 Djokovic and Roger Federer have 20. And Djokovic is very, very committed to chasing that number down. He has been number one longer than any other player in this area. He has winning head to head records against Nadal and Federer. So this is a huge match for him. And he may not be able to play the U.S. Open at all because he remains unvaccinated and may not be able to get into the country as the way the rules stand right now.


Nick Schifrin:

Christopher Clarey of New York Times joining us from Wimbledon, thank you very much.


Christopher Clarey:

My pleasure.