Support group helps parents of LGBTQ Iranians in California

In Iranian communities outside of the country, queer identity is still often seen as something that must be kept secret, and many suffer from social isolation within their family and community. One organization is looking to change that by helping parents reconcile.

Rights groups condemn Texas governor

 order on transgender youth medical care


Texas Governor Greg Abbott has sparked outrage after ordering a state agency to investigate transgender medical care for youth as potential child abuse 

(AFP/Brandon Bell) (Brandon Bell)


Sat, February 26, 2022, 1:00 AM·2 min read

"Unethical," "scary" and "maddening" -- human rights groups have reacted with fury to a Texas order that a state agency should investigate cases of transgender children receiving gender-affirming medical care as child abuse.

Earlier this week, Republican Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, directing it to probe "any reported instances of Texas children being subjected to abusive gender-transitioning procedures".

The order -- which has been condemned by US President Joe Biden's Democratic administration -- followed a legal opinion issued by the Texas attorney general stating that "a number of so-called 'sex-change' procedures for minors already constitute child abuse under existing Texas law."

Human Rights Campaign, a US-based LGBTQ advocacy group, called the opinion and order "unprecedented" and "a craven, politically motivated attempt to criminalize healthcare decisions made between parents, medical experts, and transgender youth."

In a virtual meeting hosted by the group, 11-year-old Libby Gonzalez said it "feels very scary".

"It's also super annoying that all of these lawmakers are just bullying me and other trans and non-binary kids. It's really sad," she said.

"To say that it's scary is an understatement of a lifetime," said her mother, Rachel Gonzales.

The US-based League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) on Friday called the order "unethical and illegal."

In a statement, LULAC LGBTQ committee chair Jesse Garcia said the move was "attacking a marginalized population... to score political points" and "fueling discrimination."

Dr. Stephen Rosenthal, medical director of the Child and Adolescent Gender Center, which offers medical care and advocacy to transgender children, called the moves "maddening."

"There are more than 25 years of published scientific evidence that support current clinical practice guidelines and standards of care," he said.

"This interdisciplinary model of care that is referred to as a gender-affirming approach has been endorsed by every major medical and mental health professional health society in the United States."

The Transgender Law Center has slammed the opinion and order as seeking "to criminalize parents, caregivers, guardians, or health care professionals."

The White House issued its own condemnation on Thursday.

"The Texas Attorney General’s attack on loving parents who seek medical care for their transgender children is dangerous to the health of kids in Texas and part of a much larger trend of conservative officials cynically attacking LGBTQI+ youth to score political points," a spokesperson told US media.

Several US states, including South Dakota, Alabama and Florida, have put forward legislation regarding transgender youth in recent years.

erl/gm/sw/reb/cwl

Pakistan: New cybercrime law threatens to to stifle social media dissent

Pakistan's new social media-related cybercrime ordinance has drawn ire from civil society activists who say the "draconian" legislation is likely to be used against government critics.

The ordinance allows the government to arrest social media activists and jail them up to five years

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan's government recently passed a cybercrime ordinance that prescribes a punishment up to five years in jail for posting "fake news" about government officials, the military and judiciary on social media.

Human rights groups have said the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 2022 is merely a tool to curb freedom of expression in the South Asian country.

Khan's Cabinet adopted the ordinance swiftly after President Arif Alvi signed it over the weekend. The legislation, however, needs to be passed by the country's parliament within 90 days.

Khan's government has come under heavy criticism locally and internationally for curbing free speech in Pakistan.

A 2021 Reporters Without Borders report lists Khan as one of the "press freedom predators" in the world.

A move against 'fake news'?

Opposition parties have criticized the ordinance, saying the people arrested under the law will not have the right to file a bail application during the trial.

"This ordinance is a violation of fundamental rights. It curbs media freedom," Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, a former prime minister and member of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz group) party, told DW.

But Law and Justice Minister Farogh Naseem defends the legislation as an effective way to stop "fake news" and "hate speech" on electronic and social media.

"The government believes in the freedom of expression, but it also wants to end the spread of fake news," Naseem told reporters.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), an independent rights organization, termed the legislation "undemocratic" and expressed concern that the law will be used to target critics of the government and state institutions.

"The government should be accountable to the citizens, and the ordinance should be rolled back immediately," it said in a statement.

Watch video 04:29Pakistan: Why RSF deems PM Khan a 'press freedom predator'

Stifling political dissent

Critics say it is easier for Khan's populist government to control mainstream media through existing laws, but social media has always been a tough ground for the authorities.

With the new legislation, the government can now clamp down on social media activists as well.

"The law is introduced to target only political opponents and journalists who speak against the government. Its only purpose is to control political dissent. The nonbailable clause and arrest before investigations are draconian in nature," Abbasi asserted.

Farieha Aziz, co-founder and director of Bolo Bhi, a nongovernmental organization advocating for the rights of internet users, told DW that the government has already started taking actions against journalists and activists under the new ordinance.

"All these measures will lead to self-censorship," Aziz said.

Nighat Dad, a digital rights lawyer and human rights activist, told DW that the "space for dissent has shrunk" in Pakistan during Khan's tenure.

"These kinds of laws will increase censorship, primarily widespread self-censorship, and they would be misused against anyone accused of spreading 'fake news' and 'defamations,'" Dad said.
Legal challenge

The ordinance has been challenged by multiple stakeholders, including opposition parties and the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, in Islamabad and Lahore high courts.

The Islamabad High Court has temporarily stopped the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) from making arrests under the law.

"The ordinance needs to be scrapped lest it will continue to be misused against political opponents and journalists," former Prime Minister Abbasi said.

Activist Aziz hopes that the judiciary will strike down the ordinance, or that the Senate, the upper house of Parliament, will set it aside.

"The onus is on the judiciary and lawmakers to do the right thing. Rights groups and press freedom groups are trying to raise awareness on the issue," Aziz said.

Osama Malik, a legal expert in Islamabad, told DW that such laws are not in "consonance with principles of free speech in modern democracies."

"The attorney general for Pakistan has admitted that the law, after new amendments, is draconian, and its application will have to be regulated," Malik said.

Watch video 03:46 Asad Ali Toor: Khan government 'worst for media in Pakistan's history'

Edited by: Shamil Shams

Is free speech a crime in President 

Akufo-Addo's Ghana?

Journalists and civil society activists who speak their minds about public figures and the government are being hauled off to court in Ghana. This recent spate of arrests and prosecutions has many worried.

Several journalists have already faced the law for criticizing President Akufo-Addo

Since the start of the year, at least three journalists and one prominent social activist have been prosecuted in Ghana for what authorities deemed are unfounded statements.

These developments have many in the West African country worried that freedom of speech, a right guaranteed under Ghana's 1992 Constitution, is being curtailed.

On February 10, Accra FM radio presenter Kwabena Bobie Ansah was charged with the "publication of false news and offensive conduct." Police had detained him after he'd said that First Lady Rebecca Akufo-Addo had fraudulently obtained state land for private use. The case is still pending.

Days earlier, another TV and radio presenter who had been picked up by police after criticizing the government on air appeared in court. Blessed Godsbrain Smart, who works for Media General TV, was initially accused of making "unsavory" comments but prosecutors later changed the charge to one of extortion.

Oheneba Boamah Bennie, a host and commentator for the privately-owned Power FM in Accra, was this month sentenced to two weeks in prison and fined 3,000 Ghana cedis ($468) for contempt of court. The case brought against him centered around a video posted on his Facebook page in 2021. In the video, Bennie alleged that President Nana Akufo-Addo had conspired with judges to influence Ghana's 2020 elections.


The government's performance has been in the spotlight lately, with Ghanaians mobilizing under the hashtag #FixTheCountry

A worsening trend

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) condemned the conviction of Oheneba Boamah Bennie.

"Journalists should not be jailed in connection with their reporting or commentary about public figures, whom one would hope would have a thicker skin when it comes to criticism,” a CPJ statement read.

A few days after Bennie was sentenced, police arrested a prominent social activist and leader of Ghana's FixTheCountry youth pressure group on charges of treason. Oliver Barker-Vormawor had warned on his Facebook page of a coup in the event that Parliament passes a controversial electronic levy bill.

He was arraigned in court on February 14 and remains in detention.

In defending the arrest of the journalists, police argue that they are simply discharging their duties. Lawmaker and former journalist Alhassan Suhuyini says he is worried about the emerging trend.

"Many journalists have suffered one of form of harassment or another at the hands of people claiming to be acting in the name of the state. There was a reason why the criminal libel law was repealed and it is an irony that the current president has over the years taken pride in the role that he played in repealing the criminal libel law,” Suhuyini told reporters in Accra.

Nana-Akufo Addo has been Ghana's leader since January 2017

President Akufo-Addo had pushed for the repeal of the criminal libel and seditious libel laws in Ghana when he was still an activist. The law left prosecutions up to a party aligned attorney-general who served at the pleasure of the president. It was eventually repealed in 2001, giving respite to both the media and the public.

Ghana's 1992 constitution states: "All persons shall have the right to — (a) freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media." The provision was significant, considering the criminalization of speech under past military regimes with journalists and political opponents of the ruling class suffering the most.

.

Ghana's media landscape became vibrant as a result of the 1992 Constitution

A 'resurrection' of criminal libel?

Cvil society groups have detected a shift amid the spate of court cases involving journalists. The Ghana Center for Democratic Development, IMANI Africa and Africa Center for International Law & Accountability outlined theirs in a joint statement.

"The underlisted Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) note with deep concern the apparent resurrection of the discredited criminal libel regime through a series of recent arrests and prosecution of persons for statements made or published in the media," the organizations said.

"We are deeply troubled by the growing use of the prosecutorial and judicial power of the state to punish criminally speech that allegedly falsely injures or damages the reputation of other persons or of an institution of state."

In the 1990s, the organizations added, "the criminal law was used in precisely the way it is now being used: to prosecute and punish journalists and public speakers for allegedly false or defamatory statements against certain family members or associates of the president."

Ruling party lawmaker Alexander Afenyo Markin denied that the state is going after outspoken journalists or trying to curtail free speech. In parliament he said journalists should be cautious in discharging their work in order to avoid such treatments.

"We have a lot of bloggers, the kind of misrepresentation and all that should be of concern to all of us, Let's encourage them to be vibrant, to report, to write the news but to be very objective in the way they do their thing."

Watch video 01:42 Ghana’s undercover journalist

Media urged to tone down rhetoric

Tanko Zakariah, a media ethics lecturer at the Ghana Institute of Journalism in Accra told DW that what should not be ignored is the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech.

"Freedom and independence of the media and freedom of speech is a constitutional guarantee in line with international standards. But clearly in those laws it does say that those freedoms come without some sort of responsibilities. In other words, they are not absolute freedoms, they come with some qualifications." Zakariah explained.

"People have to be responsible when exercising their rights because others have also been given their fundamental human rights."

The three civil society groups that expressed their concerns about curtailed free speech also offered advice to journalists.

"We also urge media practitioners and users to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric that has contaminated our public square and airwaves, desist from knowingly or recklessly making or publishing false statements, and use, to the extent possible, the Right to Information Act and its processes to access information from public authorities."

Watch video 01:41 How to spot fake news

Several of Ghana's political and legal analysts see the situation as one that pertains not only to freedom of speech.

In a recent media discussion, laywer Kofi Bentil said he sees a threat to democracy in a country with a ruling political class that he believes is becoming intolerant.

"There is something I call the downward political spiral. I think that our friends in power should be wary of this phenomenon. You have a situation where somebody makes a post and you understand what he is talking about and you drop on him, you detain him, you start arresting journalists all over the place," he said.

Edited by: Benita van Eyssen

Does this picture tell the real story of corporate Germany?

A picture from the Munich Security Conference commanded global attention, yet it had nothing to do with the Ukraine conflict. For many, the all-male  (WHITE)  "CEO Lunch" photo represents the reality of corporate Germany. 

The now infamous  all-male WHITE 'CEO Lunch' tells its own story

The 2022 Munich Security Conference (MSC) took place at a time of deep geopolitical anxiety. With a Russian invasion of Ukraine feared at any moment, the crisis dominated hearts and minds at the event.

Yet it was a picture taken at a seemingly unrelated and unremarkable sideline event that ended up grabbing headlines.

The event in question was the "CEO Lunch," a gathering of leaders of mostly German companies. This year's lunch was sponsored by the investment bank Goldman Sachs.

Such meetings barely register a ripple, especially at a conference where so many other big issues were on the table. But shortly after a banal-looking picture of the lunch was posted online by journalist Michael Bröcker, who took it himself, it went viral.

The reason? All the people in the picture were men. An added factor was that of the 30 or so visible, all were white, with the vast majority appearing to be middle-aged or older.

"This is reality. This is where power lies. Where some of the most consequential decisions are made," wrote Jennifer Cassidy on Twitter, a lecturer at the University of Oxford.

"This picture is like from another world," said Sawsan Chebli, a politician with Germany's Social Democrats. "But it's not a different world. It is reality in 2022."

A major distraction

For the organizers of the MSC, the picture ended up distracting significantly from other issues of the day. Benedikt Franke, MSC CEO, defended the organization, arguing on Twitter that it was "hardly to blame for the business community."

An MSC spokesperson told DW that 45% of all speakers in the main events this year were women and that "involvement of female participants in the conference has never been as significant as this year."

However, she also acknowledged a major error had been made with regard to the CEO Lunch. "We deeply regret the occurrence," she said.

"We realize that we have fallen far short of our own standards regarding the CEO Lunch. Attending CEOs have traditionally been invited for a lunch format. The MSC has been trying for years to implement at this event as well what we have been very successful in doing in other parts of the program: increasing the percentage of women.

"It is obvious that there is still a lot of work ahead of us — this is above all an incentive for us to do better next time. Of course, the business community must also make its contribution."

No corporate power please, we're women

Among those in the picture were Mathias Döpfner of Axel Springer, Lufthansa's Carsten Spohr, former Siemens boss Joe Kaeser, Airbus Defence CEO Michael Schoellhorn, Commerzbank's Manfred Knof and BMW's Oliver Zipse .

According to an article by Bröcker in the online newspaper The Pioneer, Julie Linn Teigland, an EY manager, was on the guest list but didn't arrive on time for the picture. Bröcker also reports that 10 female managers had "allegedly" been invited but declined to take part. The MSC told DW that as the event was a confidential lunch, it would not provide the names, position or gender of the invited participants.

Wiebke Ankersen, CEO of the AllBright Foundation, is promoting gender equality

 in the world of business

"This picture does reflect the reality of corporate Germany in 2022 only too accurately," Wiebke Ankersen, CEO of the AllBright Foundation, which promotes gender equality in the business world, told DW.  "There is only one female CEO among the leaders of the 40 largest publicly listed companies in the DAX, Belen Garijo at Merck, and she is the first one ever to reach such a position."

Germany: A developing country for gender equality

Even accounting for organizational failings on the part of the MSC, the argument that the picture represents the reality of the German business community at executive level — male-dominated and lacking in demographic diversity — is valid. Just 13% of senior executives in the top 160 publicly listed German companies are female.

"The picture is revealing a reality in the German business world which is not matching the development in other parts of society," says Ankersen. "It is very unlikely that there isn't more than only one single woman who is capable to lead one of the 40 largest companies. The truth is that female talents still don't get picked for those positions like male ones."

Germany had been slow to introduce gender quotas in the business world under Angela Merkel's government although last year, legislation was introduced requiring large listed companies to have at least one woman on their management boards.

Last week, Germany's Family Affairs Minister Anne Spiegel said the country would back an EU proposal which sets a goal for at least 40% of non-executive company board members to be women — 10 years after the bloc first proposed the move.

Ankersen says any progress Germany has made recently has been "on an extremely modest level."

Watch video 26:01 The female economic factor

"In terms of gender equality in the business sector, Germany is still a developing country," she said. "It is lagging behind dramatically compared with the US, the UK or the Scandinavian countries.

However, she believes that the strong public reaction to the CEO Lunch picture shows that people are no longer willing to accept all-male events as the norm in Germany.

"The awareness for the fact that something is wrong when not even a single woman makes it to the table of decision-makers is rising," she said. "Public pressure for change is finally growing in Germany. This is a very strong lever and will accelerate progress."

Edited by: Hardy Graupner

Saudi Arabia: Many activists remain in jail

Family and activists hope that Raif Badawi will be released soon. However, the well-known blogger is not the only activist behind bars for expressing dissenting views.

Even if Raif Badawi will be released, he will not be free to travel to his family in Canada, 

or allowed to speak to international organizations.

If everything goes well, the imprisoned Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi will be released next week after almost a decade in jail.

After years of campaigning for his release, human rights activists and his wife Ensaf Haider are pinning their hopes on a release by early March.

Badawi has spent almost ten years behind bars for publishing a blog called Free Saudi Liberals. He was sentenced to a decade in prison in 2014 for "insulting Islam" because he had discussed the separation of religion and state in Saudi politics on his blog. 

While Badawi is among the most prominent political prisoners in Saudi Arabia, he is by no means the only imprisoned dissident. The country has long been criticized for its human rights situation.

It is unclear how many political prisoners are incarcerated in Saudi prisons. The Saudi government claims the number is zero but human rights activists speak of hundreds. Amnesty International has reported that it suspects there may be around 3,000 political prisoners in Saudi Arabia.

Last summer, several prominent women's rights activists, including Nassima al-Sadah and Samar Badawi, Raif Badawi's sister, were released from prison.

But Human Rights Watch says this is no indication that the situation is improving. "They [the freed activists] remained banned from travel and are serving suspended sentences, allowing the authorities to return them to prison for any perceived criminal activity," the organization wrote in their World Report 2022.

Espionage and torture allegations

Among those released in 2021 was women's rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul. She was part of a group that had demanded that women be allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Hathloul was first arrested in 2018, despite the fact that just three weeks after her incarceration, the ban on female drivers was lifted.  Throughout her time in prison, her family raised allegations of torture.

Even though she was released from prison in 2021, she is neither allowed to leave the country or to speak to journalists or human rights organizations. The Saudi state continues to closely monitor her activities.

After her release, Loujain al-Hathloul discovered that her phone had been hacked by her own government

Sleep deprivation and electric shocks

In 2018, aid worker Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, who was working for the Red Crescent at the time, was arrested. It took three years for him to be sentenced and in April 2021, he was given a 20-year jail sentence.

His offense was making critical comments about human rights issues on an anonymized Twitter account.

Al-Sadhan's sister, Areej, who lives in the United States, told The Washington Post that the Saudi authorities had tortured her brother in detention. This included electric shocks, whippings, sleep deprivation, death threats, verbal humiliation and solitary confinement.

She also said al-Sadhan had been forced to sign documents that were later used as evidence against him in his trial.

Human rights activist Abdulrahman al-Sadhan was sentenced after a critical tweet.

Saudi human rights activist Mohammed al-Otaibi had already served a 14-year sentence when he was sentenced to an additional year in prison in December 2020, and then to another two years in March 2021. 

Altogether he recieved a 17-year jail sentence because he founded the Union for Human Rights in Riyadh in 2013, together with three other activists. The group even officially applied to register with the Saudi authorities.

Imprisonment and lashes

International authors' association PEN ranks the country as one of the three countries in which the most authors are imprisoned. The other two nations are China and Turkey.

One of those in jail in Saudi Arabia is Palestinian-born author Ashraf Fayadh, who has been behind bars since 2013.

He is accused of apostasy, unlawful relations with women as well as writing allegedly secular and blasphemous passages in his book of poetry, Instructions from Within. PEN suggests that the true reason for the arrest could be that Fayadh had filmed and posted a clip that showed members of the religious police in Saudi Arabia whipping a man.

In 2015, Fayadh was sentenced to death. However in 2016, the sentence was commuted to eight years in prison and 800 lashes. In 2020, Saudi Arabia abolished lashing as a punishment. 

Syrian writer Yassin al-Haj Saleh, a fellow at the German branch of PEN, told DW that he considers everything about Fayadh's case "shameful."

The attack on Fayadh's poetry is particularly reprehensible, he said, as Saudi courts were contributing to the impoverishment of an entire culture by accusing the poet of blasphemy.

Al-Haj Saleh said that this was an example of state tyranny and religious fundamentalism. "Saudi Arabia is an example of both together," he told DW.

The Palestinian writer Ashraf Fayadh remains imprisoned for blasphemy and other charges.

Falsely accused of sodomy

Political prisoners also come from out of Saudi Arabia's homosexual and LGBTQ community. Members live in constant fear of being exposed and cases against them are regularly based on alleged violations of public order, religious values or public morality.

Other frequently used charges include sodomy and encouraging or promoting homosexuality.

In 2020, a Saudi court sentenced Yemeni blogger Mohamed al-Bokari to 10 months in prison and a fine equivalent to around €2,400 ($2,720).

Al-Bokari had been guilty of writing a social media post in which he defended LGBTQ rights in Saudi Arabia.

Human rights groups said Saudi security officials held al-Bokari in solitary confinement for weeks, subjecting him to forced anal examinations and physical violence.

Al-Bokari has since been released.

Al-Bokari spent 10 months in prison for demanding equal rights for gay people

Minorities under pressure

Members of the Shiite Muslim minority in Saudi Arabia are also regularly targeted by Saudi authorities for expressing critical opinions.

Numerous prison terms, as well as death sentences, have been imposed on members of the community. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni Muslim majority country. 

Human rights activist Israa al-Ghomgham was arrested in 2015 after documenting anti-government protests in Saudi Arabia's eastern Qatif region, a majority-Shiite area.

The Qatif region in eastern Saudi Arabia has seen several uprisings by

 the Shiite minority in the past decades

Prosecutors sought the death penalty for al-Ghomgham, who would have been the first female Saudi human rights defender to be executed.

According to the Gulf Center for Human Rights, al-Ghomgham was denied access to a lawyer and was also mistreated in custody.

Her death sentence was dropped in 2019 and, in 2021, commuted to an eight-year prison term.

This article was adapted from German by Jennifer Holleis. 

Pakistan-Afghan border still closed two days after deadly clash

ByAFP
PublishedFebruary 26, 2022

Pakistan troops guard a checkpoint at the Afghan border near Chaman, days after three people were killed in fighting between security forces from both sides - Copyright AFP Abdul BASIT

Hundreds of people were stranded Saturday at a key border crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan, days after fighting between security forces left at least three dead.

Border tensions have risen since the Taliban’s return to power last year, with Pakistan alleging militant groups are planning attacks from Afghan soil.

The Taliban deny harbouring Pakistani militants, but are also infuriated by a fence Islamabad is erecting along their 2,700-kilometre (1,600-mile) border, drawn up in colonial times and known as the Durand Line.

Each side blamed the other for Thursday’s fighting at the Chaman-Spin Boldak crossing.

“The border remains closed for passengers as well as trade,” a Pakistani security official told AFP.

“A delegation of tribal notables and religious leaders has been formed to hold talks with the Taliban,” he added.

An AFP reporter saw hundreds of people waiting at Chaman for the border to reopen.

Thousands usually cross every day, including traders, Afghans seeking medical treatment in Pakistan, and people visiting relatives

Lt. Col. Vindman: Trump ‘Absolutely’ at Fault for Russia’s Ukraine Invasion

“It’s because of Trump’s corruption that we have a less capable, less prepared Ukraine,” retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman told VICE News.



LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN APPEARS DURING THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY CONCERNING PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IN WASHINGTON, DC ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019. (PHOTO BY MELINA MARA / THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES)

By Cameron Joseph
26.2.22


The man who played a key role in then-President Donald Trump’s first impeachment says Trump’s attempts to coerce Ukraine for a quid pro quo played a big role in undercutting the country’s ability to fight off a Russian invasion.

Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman served as the director of European affairs on Trump’s National Security Council, and was on the call when Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to “do us a favor” and dig up dirt on now-President Joe Biden.

Trump was impeached by the House in late 2019 for demanding that Ukraine investigate Biden while withholding hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of military aid the embattled country needed to defend itself against Russia. The Trump administration eventually released the aid, but not before a lengthy delay that strained the countries’ relations and clearly emboldened Putin.

Vindman was a key witness in that trial.

Trump and his allies vilified Vindman in response, smearing the 20-year Army veteran with accusations of dual loyalty because he was born in Ukraine (and implicitly because he’s Jewish). Vindman was reassigned from that job in early 2020, likely as punishment for speaking out. He’s now suing.

Vindman told VICE News on Friday that Trump’s decision to withhold the badly needed military aid hurt the country’s ability to defend itself—and emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin. And while Vindman doesn’t let President Biden off the hook, he puts much of the blame for Putin’s invasion squarely on Trump.

“It’s because of Trump’s corruption that we have a less capable, less prepared Ukraine,” Vindman said.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Cameron Joseph: For those of our readers who don’t remember every detail of the first impeachment, can you explain what you heard President Trump ask of President Zelenskyy in July 2019?

Alexander Vindman: I was coordinating a policy of support for Ukraine. It was a new government; the Zelenzskyy government won in a landslide, under a mandate to further integrate with the West. And the entire U.S. government apparatus, recognizing that we had this looming threat of Russia, decided that it was appropriate to invest in the relationship with Ukraine.

This isn't out of thin air either. This was as a result of the national security strategy that Donald Trump himself signed in 2017. Operating under that guidance, I had put together a number of plans to support Ukraine.

Really the only person that was at odds was Donald Trump, and his really tight group of minions.

There were strange inquiries coming down on security assistance, this aid that is now proving to be critically important to Ukrainian armed forces defending themselves—and ultimately a hold on security assistance.

And it culminated in this phone call where the president attempted to extort President Zelenskyy. He demanded an investigation into Joe Biden in exchange for support to Ukraine.

Do you think Trump’s efforts at quid pro quo might have emboldened Vladimir Putin? What impact do you think they had?

There’s no question.

Based on Trump’s temperature toward Ukraine, I think Vladimir Putin believed that in a second Trump term [Putin] could have just waltzed in, NATO potentially would have been destroyed, and Ukraine would have been handed on a silver platter.

But that didn't turn out. Instead, you had the American public reject Trump and Trumpism at least in sufficient numbers [for President Biden] to win the legal, lawful, proper election. And then the former president attempted to launch a coup and drive hyperpartisanship toward extremism and weaken the United States.

To the people who don't necessarily follow it, it could seem far-fetched; they might tie these events to Joe Biden. But look at the timing of when this [Russian military] buildup first started. It started in the spring of 2021, just weeks after the [Jan. 6 Capitol] insurrection. Donald Trump didn’t recede into the history books, he didn’t go into quiet retirement. He continued to perpetuate this big lie and sow discord, and Vladimir Putin saw an opportunity in that.

This is 20 years building. But it was a slow creep until you get to the Trump administration, and there's a big lurch forward. We were almost at a point of no return at that point.

By the time President Biden comes into power, you have all these vulnerabilities and opportunities. From Putin’s perspective, there’s this distracted, enfeebled superpower that's casting its eyes further afield towards long term competition with China and the price to normalize and stabilize the relationship with Russia was a sphere of influence.

There are other things that we could have done differently as this ramped up. Now we find ourselves in a different world, in a world that we haven't actually experienced in decades, in generations.

Do you think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump hadn’t signaled that he didn’t care that much about the country? Would we be here?

Trump is the megaphone, but it’s Tucker Carlson playing on Russian airwaves. It’s Mike Pompeo cheerleading for Putin. It's these folks that suggest that there's a division not just within the American public but within the elites. That firm resolve for the traditional Republican Party about staking out a strong position on national security isn't there. Those are opportunities that these folks presented.

They have blood on their hands because if they weren’t acting against America’s interests in aiding and abetting our most belligerent aggressive enemy then we may not have ended up here.

I think this is about opportunity, the vulnerability that Donald Trump and his henchmen have offered Vladimir Putin.

Trump delayed military aid for Ukraine as he tried to squeeze Zelenskyy. Do you think that had any impact on Ukraine’s preparedness for an invasion?

Absolutely.

He arrested what should have been a very, very robust relationship. The entire U.S. government was behind this idea of a magnified cooperation with Ukraine to help nurture it move forward towards the West. The pillars of that were economic, they were going to be in the energy sector, they were going to be political, to help move them on reforms and anticorruption. They were going to undergird Zelenskyy’s newfound strength to conduct these types of reforms. It was also going to be on security cooperation.

So not only did he arrest all that, but the opportunity cost for the next several years, going all the way through the rest of the Trump administration and kind of a slow ramp up for the Biden administration. We lost that time.

All that time, Ukraine could have been hardening. It could have been preparing, it could have been making itself unpalatable [for invasion]. It’s because of Trump’s corruption that we have a less capable, less prepared Ukraine.

You emigrated from Ukraine when you were a toddler and have worked professionally with folks in the country since then. Who have you talked to since the invasion began? What have you heard from them?

I don’t really have any family to speak of [left in Ukraine]. My family all emigrated; we came as refugees. We had the rest of our family come over in subsequent decades. But I do have friends and colleagues that are over there.

I haven’t spoken to many since the war started. It’s only been 36 hours, it feels like it’s been much longer than that. But it's really quite disturbing. People are very fearful.

I’ve talked to people here that have family members there who are panicked, trying to figure out what to do, how to protect their family.

Do you think that Russia would have invaded Ukraine if Trump had taken a firmer line toward Russia and been more supportive of Ukraine?

Trump had a deep animosity toward Ukraine. We all know now about the conspiracy theories about the CrowdStrike servers, CrowdStrike being a Ukrainian enterprise, Hillary Clinton's emails and the criticism he received for his inane commentary on Ukraine when he was a candidate, and of course Paul Manafort being tripped up. The idea that he was going to be supportive of Ukraine just seems far-fetched to me

Put another way, if Hillary Clinton had won in ‘16 do you think Putin would be in Ukraine right now?

That is a hard thing to say. Maybe not.

We’ve lurched towards confrontation because we weren’t pushing back on Russian aggression. We lurched under Trump. Without that lurch we would still have maybe that opportunity to avert this catastrophe. And it’s not a catastrophe simply for Ukraine, it’s a catastrophe for our Euro-Atlantic alliance and for a rules-based order.

Putin was certainly concerned about Hillary Clinton taking a firmer line with him. Maybe it didn’t have to happen in 2022, but there was eventually going to be a reckoning unless we recognized Russia as belligerent and started to impose costs for its aggression.

Do you think Putin stops at Ukraine? Are you concerned he might turn his attention to the Baltic states or other NATO allies? How do you see this playing out?

There have been other conflicts, but we haven't had this kind of massive military offensive in Europe, which is the bedrock, the core of our vital interests. It's the combined power of the U.S. and NATO together that really keep the world on some sort of peaceful trajectory. President Putin's own rhetoric suggests his wandering eyes will look towards Moldova and Georgia and Finland.

I think NATO allies are a high bar. Their collective defense architecture will hold firm.


What do you think could draw in American or NATO boots on the ground in actual combat?

One of the things that concerns me is the scale of this. We’re seeing just the first 36 hours. We have to remember our involvement in the Balkans [in the 1990s] was very reluctant. And it was the human catastrophe that unfolded that ultimately drew us in. So there might be a clamor from that standpoint. I think it's unlikely but there could be an accident or miscalculation that could draw us in. It could be a cyber attack with spillage over Ukraine's borders into Europe and the U.S. that could draw us in.

There are different potential scenarios that are dangerous here. That’s why we should have done more.

What do you want to see the U.S. do to continue to support Ukraine militarily going forward, and do you expect that this will happen?

It’s military, informational, it’s diplomatic, and it’s economic. It’s a full court press to isolate Russia, a full court press to build consensus around the alliance and around our partners that feel that Russia’s actions have crossed a line. It’s a full court press on China, frankly, to play a constructive role here as a rising superpower.

Open the spigot from the extremely wealthy West. Why are we talking about relatively paltry sums of a billion dollars? Open up the spigot, talk about rebuilding Ukraine.

On the military side there's more to be said there. Right now it’s particularly dangerous. There are a lot of things we could have done two days ago, maybe even with boots on the ground in a humanitarian role, that we can’t do now.

There should be a new partnership formed between NATO and Ukraine built around the notion of supporting them through this existential crisis for them. We should do something like lend-lease, basically provisioning them like we did with Russia, the Soviet Union against the Nazis, with whatever they need in order to conduct this war and defend themselves.

That doesn’t violate the rules of the road we operated under during the Cold War. We never went to blows directly with the Soviet Union but there are multiple instances of Russia supporting our adversaries or us supporting their adversaries. Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam are just the ones that rise to mind. The rules of the road were no direct confrontation but indirectly supporting proxies was totally within bounds.

Once Biden was in office, what if anything could he have done to avoid this? I know you’ve been critical of how he handled this.

Yes, he could have avoided it.

They took certain things off the table. There were certain policy options they didn’t consider due to a misplaced sense of danger. Putin is masterful at preying on hopes and fears. And the saber-rattling about a bilateral confrontation is misplaced. It is a mirage. The Russians do not want a war with us. They don't want a nuclear war. They don't want a conventional war.

We’ve lost our nerve to a certain extent. We were practiced at not blinking at Soviet provocations in the Cold War. And we’ve forgotten. We’re facing an adversary that lives in that world, grew up in that world, uses the tools of that world, and we’re not prepared.

What scares you most going forward?

The possibility of a confrontation with Russia now is negligible. But the probability of us having a significant confrontation down the road is higher unless we hold our ground here.

Russia Issues Ominous Warning to Finland, Sweden Should They Join NATO

Maria Zakharova during her speech on Friday.

 She appeared to issue a warning to Sweden and Finland over the possibility of joining 

NATO.SKY NEWS

BY GERRARD KAONGA 

ON 2/25/22 

Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman has said that Moscow would have to respond if Sweden and Finland intended to join NATO.

Maria Zakharova held a press conference on Friday and reflected on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the intentions of Russia going forward.

A clip of her speech has begun to go viral on social media as she appears to issue a threat aimed at Sweden and Finland, saying it would have "serious military-political repercussions." The video has amassed over 300,000 views.

"Finland and Sweden should not base their security damaging the security of other countries," Zakharova said during the press conference.

Ukraine-Russia Live: Putin Ready to Negotiate As Battle for Kyiv Begins

"Clearly [the] accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO, which is first and foremost a military alliance, would have serious military-political repercussions that would demand a response from our country," she said.

This comes after Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed that the country was receiving support from both nations.

"Discussed with [Finnish President Sauli Niinistö] countering the aggressor. Informed about our defense, insidious shelling of Kyiv," he wrote in a tweet on Friday.



"Grateful to [Finland] for allocating $50 million [in] aid. It's an effective contribution to the anti-war coalition. We keep working. We need to increase sanction and [Ukraine] defense support."


He later tweeted: "Sweden provides military, technical and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. Grateful to [Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson] for her effective support.

"Building an anti-Putin coalition together."

The Twitter pages of the Finnish president and Swedish prime minister condemned Russia after hearing the news of the invasion of Ukraine.



"I strongly condemn the military measures Russia has started in Ukraine," Niinistö wrote in a tweet on Thursday.

"Russia's acts target Ukraine, but at the same time they are an attack on the entire European security order.

"We feel deep compassion towards Ukraine and are seeking ways to increase our support to Ukraine."


On Thursday, Andersson's Twitter page issued a similar statement and highlighted the importance of other European leaders responding robustly.

"Sweden condemns in the strongest terms Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine," it said in a tweet.

"Russia's acts are also an attack on the European security order. It will be met by a united and robust response in solidarity with Ukraine. Russia alone is responsible for human suffering."

Russian President Vladimir Putin has already made an appeal to Ukrainian soldiers, less than 48 hours after invading the country.

During a televised broadcast on Friday, Putin said it would be easier to come to an agreement without a "gang of junkies and neo-Nazis." These insults were aimed at the government in Kyiv, which he claimed had taken the people of Ukraine hostage.

He elaborated on this and insisted that the Ukrainian army should not be allowed to "use your children, your wives and old people as human shields."

Russia threatens 'serious military repercussions' if Finland joins NATO

James Morris
·Freelance news writer, Yahoo UK
Fri, 25 February 2022

Vladimir Putin's Russia today warned of 'serious military and political repercussions' if Finland joins NATO. (AFP via Getty Images)

Russia has warned of "serious military and political repercussions" if Finland joins Nato amid the Ukraine crisis.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said the country's accession to Nato, the military alliance currently made up of 28 European countries plus the US and Canada, could "have detrimental consequences".

Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine this week, Finnish prime minister Sanna Marin said the debate surrounding Finland's membership of NATO "will change".

Asked about this on Friday, Zakharova began with a veiled warning.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned of 'detrimental military consequences' if Finland joins NATO. (Reuters)

In translated remarks at a press conference, she said: "The Finnish government's policy of military non-alliance is an important factor in ensuring security and stability in northern Europe.

"At the same time, we cannot help but note the targeted efforts of Nato and other members of this alliance to involve Finland as well as Sweden [a fellow non-member] in this alliance."

She said "the intensity of practical interaction between Helsinki and Stockholm with Nato" is "nothing new"

Volodymyr Zelensky announces death toll from first day of Russian invasion of Ukraine



She claimed "they have conducted NAato's military exercises - these countries have provided territory for such manoeuvres of this military alliance.

"We have seen this policy over a number of years... and Finland and Sweden should not base their security on damaging security of other countries. Their accession to Nato can have detrimental consequences... and face military and political consequences."

Sanna Marin said the debate surrounding Finland's NATO membership has changed following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. (Getty Images)

A follow-up tweet from the Russian Foreign Ministry read: "Finland’s accession to Nato would have serious military and political repercussions."

Prime minister Marin previously said last month it is "very unlikely" Finland - which borders Russia - would apply for a Nato membership during her current term of office.

Read more: Ukrainian reporter sees footage of destroyed flat on live TV: ‘This building is my home’

"All in all, I believe the Nato discussion will increase in the coming years," she had told Reuters.

On Thursday, Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg said that he "values the close partnership" with Finland and Sweden even if they are not members.

"This is a question of self-determination and the sovereign right to choose your own path and then potentially in the future, also to apply for Nato membership."

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has seen Kyiv hit by air strikes, with fighting closing in on the capital.

Families were forced to hide in bomb shelters and subway stations as troops continued their assault in a bid to seize the city.

Tens of thousands of people have fled Ukraine's major cities to try and escape the fighting, with the UN warning on Friday that millions could be displaced.

Armed forces minister James Heappey told MPs that 194 Ukrainians, including 57 civilians, are confirmed to have died.

BP facing pressure from Government to ditch its controversial stake in Russian energy group Rosneft

By LUKE BARR FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 26 February 2022

BP is facing pressure from the Government to ditch its controversial stake in Russian energy group Rosneft.

The oil major's chief executive Bernard Looney was yesterday summoned to a meeting with Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng amid growing unease about its Russian dealings.

Rosneft – which is backed by the Kremlin – is providing fuel to Russia's troops as they wage war on neighbouring Ukraine.

 

Pressure: BP's chief executive Bernard Looney was summoned to a meeting with Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng (pictured)

A source familiar with the matter said Looney left the meeting 'with no doubt about the strength of the Business Secretary's concern about their commercial interests in Russia'.

Also on the Rosneft board is chairman Gerhard Schroder, the former Chancellor of Germany, and ex-BP boss Bob Dudley. Their positions have attracted fierce criticism while BP has been urged to ditch its stake in Rosneft.

Earlier this month, Looney said BP's strategy to 'avoid the politics' has served the company well around the world. However, he said the firm would comply with any Ukraine-related sanctions.

Rosneft's largest shareholder is state-owned Rosneftegaz, with 40.4 per cent, followed by BP.

VTB Capital, the investment arm of Russia's second-largest bank, has been suspended from the London Stock Exchange. 

The LSE's move followed the imposition of new UK sanctions on Russian firms and individuals following Vladimir Putin's decision to invade Ukraine on Thursday. The suspension means VTB Capital will not be able to trade assets such as stocks and bonds through the LSE. 

However, its parent company, VTB Bank, will still maintain a secondary listing of its shares on the exchange.