Russian President Vladimir Putin represents a continuing major threat to the entire democratic world, but most notably to Ukraine and Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.
Putin personifies virtually everything democrats across the world repudiate, including cronyism, kleptocracy, violence, exclusiveness and deceit.
A list of his admirers — former US president Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Brazilian President Jair Bolsonario, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko — reinforces this perception.
The return to bases in Russia after weeks of so-called “defensive exercises” near Ukraine’s border by more than 100,000 Russian soldiers was welcomed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The real reason for the stand-down was no doubt something else, perhaps the likelihood that construction of the almost completed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany would be terminated if an invasion occurred.
NATO, history’s most successful defensive alliance of 30 independent countries, has called a summit for the middle of next month, where Ukraine should be admitted as the 31st member, mostly because of its well-known principle that an attack on one member is deemed an attack on all.
Conflict in eastern Ukraine broke out in 2014, after Moscow’s seizure of Crimea.
Russian-backed troops captured large areas of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, and declared them “peoples’ republics.”
The ceasefire in the area was last year repeatedly breached in what Ukraine said were deliberate contraventions.
About 14,000 people have since 2014 perished in the war.
Alexei Navalny, 44, Russia’s best-known democracy and anti-corruption crusader, several months ago struggled for his life in a Novichok poison-induced coma in a Siberian hospital, but Putin refused to utter his name.
Navalny threatens Putin because he stands for a peaceful, democratic Russia, and is principled, selfless, courageous and charismatic, thereby rendering him “one who must not be named” by Putin.
Robert Horvath, an Australian historian, said that Navalny a decade ago first exposed the methods used by corrupt Kremlin officials “to embezzle billions of dollars from state-controlled corporations.”
He later coined the phrase “party of crooks and thieves” to describe Putin’s political party, United Russia, which proved a mayor factor in the collapse of the party’s vote in the 2011 Russian parliamentary elections and mass protests afterwards.
Navalny and his Foundation for the Fight against Corruption have over a decade kept a YouTube spotlight on assets of kleptocrats.
A two-hour video on “Putin’s Palace,” released in January on Navalny’s return from treatment in Germany, was viewed more than 100 million times.
In 2013, Navalny, released from jail to compete in Moscow’s mayoral election, won 27 percent of the vote, despite a smear campaign in the Kremlin-aligned media.
He has used his national network of democracy advocates to promote a sophisticated strategy of “intelligent voting,” encouraging votes for candidates who had the best chance of defeating the ruling party.
The world should recognize Navalny as the embodiment of the possibility of a peaceful, democratic Russia that is a partner, not an adversary, of the West, Horvath said.
Navalny is a living refutation of the argument that Putin’s aggression on the international stage is nothing but a rational defence of Russia’s national interests.
On returning to Moscow in January, Navalny was charged with breaching parole from an embezzlement charge invented by the Kremlin in 2014.
His sentence was two-and-a-half years in a notorious penal colony. There, he soon began a three-week hunger strike.
Four UN rapporteurs said that he is in “grave danger” and must be transported abroad.
Maria Pevchikh, who runs part of his foundation, last month wrote in the Guardian that he is dying when millions of Russians need him alive “to deliver them” from Putin.
“Have you ever watched a person being killed?” she wrote. “You are watching it right now ... as Vladimir Putin and his corrupt regime slowly but steadily murder a prisoner.”
“Sometimes, saving a person means more than saving one life,” she wrote. “Saving Navalny means saving the hope of millions of Russians. The hopes of an entire generation of young people who were born when Putin was in power and already have children of their own. It is our responsibility to give each other a chance of a world without Vladimir Putin. And Navalny, free and healthy, has the best shot in delivering that.”
David Kilgour is a former Canadian lawmaker who served as Canadian secretary of state for Asia-Pacific from 2002 to 2003.
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS