..
Ukraine invasion no longer ‘imminent’ – White House
The US is no longer using the word because it created an unintended message,
says Jen Psaki
The US government is no longer using the word ‘imminent’ in its narrative around the alleged Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters, on Wednesday, explaining that it was sending an unintended message.
“I used it once. I think others have used that once, and we stopped using it because I think it sent a message that we weren't intending to send, which was that we knew that President Putin had made a decision,” Psaki said at a press briefing.
“I would say the vast majority of times I've talked about it, I've said he could invade ‘at any time,’” she added.
Psaki’s remarks come after the US envoy to the UN backtracked from the use of ‘imminent’ in an interview with NPR aired on Tuesday.
“No, I would not say that we are arguing that it’s imminent,” Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the broadcaster.
The official transcript of Psaki’s January 25 briefing says otherwise, however. Asked whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine – which the US media and intelligence agencies have claimed since late October would happen any day now – was still “imminent,” here’s what Psaki had to say.
“When we said it was imminent, it remains imminent,” she told one reporter.
“Well, ‘imminent’ has a pretty intense meaning. Doesn’t it?” she said in answer to the very next question.
“And it’s still the belief that it’s imminent?” was the followup, to which Psaki replied, “Correct.”
Since then, however, Ukrainian media have floated a theory that the whole thing was a big misunderstanding, since there was no exact translation for ‘imminent’ in Ukrainian. The explanation was picked up by Politico, which also claimed that the word was mistranslated as ‘inevitable’ to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
However, Zelensky's native language is Russian, which translates the term – derived from Latin – just fine.
Zelensky, even while he loads up troops in southern Ukraine (bordering Crimea), is demanding that the USA and NATO stop with the hysterics about an imminent invasion. It is driving investment away from Ukraine, which it cannot afford.
Leaked US & NATO replies to Russia: What you need to know
It seems the West has rejected Moscow’s core demands, but proposed steps to ease tensions
© John Thys/AFP
In December, Russia requested that the US and NATO produce definitive written responses to its proposals on assurances addressing security concerns. The letters were sent to Moscow last week. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters at the time that the correspondence should stay confidential. However, the two letters were allegedly leaked in full to Spanish newspaper El Pais and published on Wednesday.
What did the US and NATO propose?
The West has apparently offered general transparency and confidence-building steps. These include utilizing existing military communication channels, setting up a civilian hotline for emergencies, and the reopening of the respective missions in Moscow and Brussels.
NATO specifically writes about exchanging information about military drills with Russia, and measures like earlier notices of snap exercises and sending more observers to monitor them. This could reduce some day-to-day tension and dangerous incidents along East European borders, as both sides have frequently accused each other of provocative maneuvers in the air and at sea. A particularly grim altercation occurred in the Black Sea last year, when Russia said it had to fire warning shots to ward off a British warship from its waters near Crimea.
There can be hurdles as well. For instance, Russian media reported last week that there were still disagreements with the US-led bloc over the size of its mission in Brussels.
What are Russia and the West arguing about?
The main point of contention seems to be the concept of the ‘indivisibility of security’ in Europe.
Russia often points to the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security, which says that each country “has an equal right to security,” and countries “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states.” This formula was affirmed in the OSCE’s declaration at the 2010 summit in Astana (now Nur-Sultan), Kazakhstan. Moscow argues that this means NATO and the US cannot expand their military infrastructure eastward without Russia’s consent.
In the response leaked to El Pais, Washington said it was ready to discuss “our interpretations” of indivisibility of security. This caveat stems from NATO’s insistence that it is a purely defensive alliance that does not pose any threat to Russia, contrary to what Russia itself says.
In a letter to the US and its allies, published on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western countries of ignoring the concept of indivisibility of security altogether in favor of cherry-picking “elements that suit them” from international documents, namely those guaranteeing the freedom of individual states to choose their alliances. He highlighted that the West’s written responses demonstrated “serious differences” in the understanding of the issue.
Speaking on Russian TV last week, Lavrov argued that it was “difficult” to view NATO as a defensive alliance, considering its interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya.
Are we any closer to a breakthrough?
NATO presented a laundry list of demands, including the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, which implies that Moscow must return Crimea to Kiev.
Russia has repeatedly stated that Crimea’s reunification with the country in 2014 is irreversible. It's also constitutionally impossible, under amendments voted on in 2020.
It is highly unlikely that Moscow will remove its peacekeepers from Moldova’s breakaway Transnistria region, where they have been stationed since the early 1990s, until the frozen conflict there is resolved. It is similarly hard to see Russian peacekeepers being removed from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose independence from Georgia was recognized by Russia in 2008.
The US has allegedly written it stands ready to talk about “reciprocal commitments” not to deploy offensive ground-launched missile systems and permanent combat troops in Ukraine, which also implies that Russia must abandon Crimea.
Russia’s demand for NATO to publicly abandon its so-called ‘open-door policy’ of accepting new member states seems equally unrealistic at this point, after the US and NATO reaffirmed the right of any country to seek membership in the bloc.
What’s next?
After a flurry of talks in January, the parties agreed to maintain dialogue and look for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Russia announced that British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss was set to visit the country this month. However, Truss tested positive for Covid on Monday and switched to working remotely.
In a bid to ease tensions, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged the West last week not to spread panic.
The US and the EU are, meanwhile, gearing up for new sanctions if Russia attacks Ukraine. At a UN Security Council meeting on Monday, Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia once again rejected claims that Russia was planning to attack its neighbor.
==========================================================================================
Heating costs double in Europe’s biggest economy
Germany’s household energy costs saw the greatest rise in 2021
The cost of heating and electricity in Germany increased by 107% and 41% respectively over the past year, Der Spiegel reported, citing a spokesperson of the Check24 portal, which compares prices for goods and services in the country.
According to data, the average household in Germany had to pay €1,193 for gas and fuel oil in January 2021, with the cost rising to almost €2,472 last month. The main reason for that was the sharp rise in energy prices, the newspaper said, adding that high wholesale gas prices have affected end-user prices.
The price for 5,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity hit a record high of €2,130 in January 2022. That is 41% higher than in the same month last year, Der Spiegel wrote.
According to the Check24 spokesperson, the dramatic rise was the result of the increased cost of generating electricity from coal and gas power plants, as well as a decline in production of renewable energy and higher domestic demand.
I have to believe that opening Nord Stream II would make a big difference.
Four senior aides to Boris Johnson resign from No 10
Published 4 minutes ago
Four senior aides to Boris Johnson have resigned from Downing Street within hours of each other amid growing pressure on the prime minister.
Director of communications Jack Doyle confirmed his exit shortly after the departure of policy head Munira Mirza.
They were followed by the chief of staff Dan Rosenfield and senior civil servant Martin Reynolds.
The top aides' resignations come as Mr Johnson faces increasing questions over his leadership from within his party.
Mr Doyle told staff that "recent weeks have taken a terrible toll on my family life", but that he had always intended to leave after two years.
A statement from a No 10 spokeswoman said Mr Rosenfield had offered his resignation to the prime minister earlier on Thursday, but would stay on while his successor was found.
And Mr Reynolds - the prime minister's principal private secretary - will do the same, but then return to a role at the Foreign Office.
A number of MPs supportive of the prime minister have been tweeting praise, suggesting Mr Johnson was responsible for making necessary staff changes following a damning report by civil servant Sue Gray into rule-breaking parties in No 10 during the pandemic.
However, Ms Mirza quit over the PM's false claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions, and his refusal to apologise.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak publicly distanced himself from the PM's original comment, saying: "Being honest, I wouldn't have said it."
And asked if Mr Johnson should apologise, he said: "That's for the prime minister to decide."
Labour's deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said: "No amount of reorganising Downing Street can clean up the sleaze that comes straight from the top.
"With [Mr Johnson's] senior advisers and aides quitting, perhaps it is finally time for him to look in the mirror and consider if he might just be the problem."
No comments:
Post a Comment