Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s “Stop the Steal” Texts - Several experts say that Thomas’s husband, the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, must recuse himself from any case related to the 2020 election. - link
The Day Foreign Journalists Felt Forced to Leave Moscow - After a meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry, dozens of outlets moved their reporters out of the country. - link
The Biden Official Who Pierced Putin’s “Sanction-Proof” Economy - In the run-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Daleep Singh, a national-security adviser, searched for areas where “our strengths intersect with Russian vulnerability.” - link
Sunday Reading: Grammy Nominees, Past and Present - From the archive: pieces about Dolly Parton, Gladys Knight, Lil Nas X, and other Grammy-nominated musicians and songwriters. - link
How Much Do Things Really Cost? - True Price, a Dutch nonprofit, aims to help us grasp the real costs of consumption. - link
</figure>They might help but they probably won’t be enough.
In recent weeks, progressives have issued a dire warning for Democrats. If President Joe Biden doesn’t try to get more done via executive action, they argue, voters won’t turn out because they’ll feel like the party hasn’t delivered for them.
“If the president does pursue and start to govern decisively using executive action and other tools at his disposal, I think we’re in the game,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez (D-NY) told New York magazine in an interview this week. “But if we decide to just kind of sit back for the rest of the year and not change people’s lives — yeah, I do think we’re in trouble.”
In March, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) unveiled a slate of 55 executive actions they’ve recommended Biden take, including canceling student debt, changing rules around overtime pay so more workers are eligible for it, and reducing prescription drug prices.
When it comes to mobilization, progressives are correct. Democrats need to do more to energize their base after the party failed to pass the expansive social spending legislation and voting rights protections they promised to advance in 2020.
Given their narrow majority in the Senate and the impasse they’ve faced there, it’s possible executive action might be the only route Democrats now have for certain policy changes.
Whether executive action will be enough to stem their overall midterm losses, though, is unclear.
Typically, there’s significant pushback against the president’s party in the midterms, a dynamic that’s likely to be compounded this year by Biden’s poor approval ratings. Historic trends have also indicated that passing new policy has marginal effects on midterm elections — and can even spur backlash. Instead, factors such as the economy, inflation, and the state of the pandemic are likely to play a much bigger role in how voters assess the party in power.
“It’s possible this could have some influence on vote choices in the midterms, but the impact will be at the margin,” says Brown University political scientist Eric Patashnik. “The president’s party nearly always suffers losses in the midterms, and Biden’s executive actions aren’t likely to change that.”
That’s not to say that executive actions aren’t worth pursuing or that they won’t have any impact. It’s just that any electoral benefits they produce will likely be outweighed by other headwinds Democrats already have to contend with.
Executive action on major issues could well help mobilize a certain segment of Democratic voters.
“I think young people aren’t excited to go to the polls to vote on broken promises,” says Sunrise Movement spokesperson John Paul Mejia. “Right now, young people are yearning for a party to believe in.”
In the last year, Democrats have struggled to advance some of their biggest priorities. Although they were able to pass robust stimulus via the American Rescue Plan, as well as landmark investments in roads, bridges, and water pipes via the bipartisan infrastructure bill, they haven’t been able to approve key climate policies or voting rights legislation due to divides within the party.
Voters’ disappointment has been evident in polling. Since last September, Biden’s approval rating has seen declines among Democrats overall, and among key party constituencies including Black voters and young voters.
Executive actions could help rally many of the Democratic voters who’ve become disillusioned with the party’s leadership, though experts note that they’ll have to make sure these efforts don’t turn swing voters away.
“Executive actions that relate to the economy historically have the potential to boost participation of the president’s base,” says the Brookings Institution’s Nicole Willcoxon.
Thus far, Biden has met with the CPC to discuss the list of executive actions they’ve proposed, though the White House has yet to announce how many it might potentially consider.
While executive actions could energize some Democrats, they likely aren’t enough to neutralize other challenges they face.
Usually, the president’s party experiences backlash during the midterm elections. In eight of the last 10 midterm elections, the president’s party lost House seats, and in six of them, it lost Senate seats, too. Backlash to the president’s party seems to drown out most benefits that policy — including those by executive action — can provide.
Also, because the opposition party tends to be more fired up about taking back congressional seats or putting a check on the executive office, its voters are usually more activated during the midterms.
“What happens in a midterm is the people who are motivated to participate are people who are suffering losses, not gains,” says Michigan State University political scientist Matt Grossmann. “The opposition party is more excited, and that definitely does matter.”
As the Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein has pointed out, recent midterm losses have taken place even after the passage of ambitious bills like the Affordable Care Act and groundbreaking gun control legislation:
Bill Clinton lost 54 House seats in 1994 after passing a sweeping budget bill, a substantial crime bill, and the most significant gun-control legislation Congress has ever approved. The losses were even greater in 2010 after Barack Obama passed his stimulus plan, expansive financial-reform legislation, and, above all, the Affordable Care Act, extending health insurance to more of the uninsured than any other federal initiative had since Medicare and Medicaid. Despite, or perhaps because of, all that, Democrats lost 63 House seats in 2010, the biggest midterm loss for either party in more than 70 years.
Part of those losses may stem from the fact that it takes time for people to feel the effects of a policy. While the Affordable Care Act, for example, wasn’t initially politically helpful to Democrats, it became much more so after the legislation developed a constituency over time.
Executive actions that could have the most impact on the midterm elections are ones, like stimulus checks, that have benefits that can be immediately felt, says Grossmann. Even then, however, he believes their benefits are likely small.
Several of the actions CPC has proposed would fall into the immediately felt category.
“There’s a lot here that’s really tangible and immediate,” says CPC spokesperson Mia Jacobs. “If the president cancels student debt tomorrow, if he increases the overtime threshold, and uses march-in rights to lower the price of prescription drugs, these are things that will make life easier right now and that is what it’s about.”
Taking these actions seems unlikely to alter the broader trajectory of the midterms themselves. They would, however, show that Biden is delivering on key campaign promises, and could galvanize disappointed members of the Democratic base, something that could come in handy in tight races. Executive action advocates argue, too, that even if they don’t ultimately help much, it’s a strategy worth trying to demonstrate the value of having Democrats in power.
“Progressives think it’s really important to be caught trying, and to make the case for why Democratic governance is meaningful,” says Jacobs.
State propaganda and online discourse offer a glimpse into how Beijing sees Russia’s Ukraine war.
The close of the 2022 Beijing Olympics, on February 20, was a key moment in trying to decipher Russia’s Ukraine invasion plans. Russian President Vladimir Putin would wait until after the Games, the theory went, so as not to distract from the Olympics and to avoid jeopardizing any support Moscow would need from Beijing.
Putin did wait, finally launching an invasion on February 24. But China has not gone all-in on Putin’s Ukraine war, despite Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin declaring there were “no limits” to their friendship.
Instead, the Chinese government has tried to toe a careful line. It has not condemned Russia’s invasion. But though China has criticized Western sanctions on Russia, it has not really moved to help Russia evade them, and it looks like it’s trying to avoid running afoul of the penalties. At the same time, what it says and does outwardly may be a lot different from what’s happening behind the scenes.
Maria Repnikova, an assistant professor in global communications at Georgia State University, said the relationship between Moscow and Beijing is a bit more symbolic than practical. “On the level of rhetoric and symbolism and shared visions of the world, there seems to be some congruence,” she said.
But for now, China is mostly trying to hover around the sidelines of these geopolitical tensions. Repnikova, who studies communications and comparisons between Russia and China, said that China’s delicate position is reflected in its state media, where Ukraine is not dominating news coverage, as least not as much as domestic issues.
What does exist in state-run media and on social media tends to show sympathy for the Russian position — as in Russia, the invasion is not really referred to as a war — and an antipathy for the United States and the West, who are largely blamed for the conflict.
“The pro-Russian [sentiment] is often veiled as this larger critique of the West — so it’s hard to tell how much of it is pro-Russia, how much of it is actually anti-US, or if it’s fused together,” she said. One thing is clear: Between the 2014 Crimea annexation, and this war in 2022, “there’s more anti-American sentiments than in the past.”
Still, Repnikova emphasized that it is really hard to get a complete picture of views in China. There are dissenting voices and alternative perspectives within China, but they often have difficulty sustaining that conversation, especially online, because of censorship.
“There’s a temptation to say everybody in China thinks this or they’re all subjects of propaganda,” Repnikova said. “But there are two caveats there: One is that, yes, there are alternative voices, but it’s just they have a hard time surviving. And the other caveat is that there is organic, bottom-up nationalism in China that’s not necessarily just dictated by the state.”
Both the official state line and what exists online offer a glimpse into Beijing’s careful positioning in the past few weeks — and what it might do as the war continues.
The conversation with Repnikova, edited and condensed for clarity, is below.
As best we can tell, how does China view the war in Ukraine?
Well, it’s hard to know exactly how because they’re not very transparent about the inner sentiments of the [Chinese Communist Party (CCP)]. In terms of how it’s been projecting its policies and perspectives, it seems that it’s seeing its own role as staying on the sidelines and constantly reassuring external publics that they are pro-peace, and they want to bring forward dialogue.
But overall, they haven’t been that actively involved so far — at least from what we’re seeing publicly, in terms of bringing this war to an end, or pressuring Russia to stop its invasion.
Whether [the Chinese government] sees the Ukraine war as positive or negative, I think overall, it’s probably more on the negative side because it is an overall disturbance to the global economic flows and China’s own imports of grain, wheat from Ukraine — and from Russia, arguably, as well. It’s also keyed in on potential repercussions for itself, if it ends up somehow bypassing Western sanctions and engaging with Russia in some way that’s seen as saving Russia or enhancing its economic activities, despite sanctions.
So I think overall, it’s seen as another external crisis to deal with for the CCP while dealing with a Covid outbreak within China, and with a big party congress coming up in September, so there’s a lot happening domestically. I think [the war in Ukraine] is seen as a pretty significant crisis to manage externally, but also vis-a-vis the domestic public.
This may be a question that’s tough to answer, but is there a sense that the Chinese government is surprised at how the West responded to Russia’s invasion, especially when it comes to unity on sanctions?
Again, it’s hard to know if they’re surprised because there’s no way to prove that. But overall, I think they’re concerned with that response because it showcases the extent of the possibility of unity and shared advocacy and restrictions, the actual practical measures taken against Russia.
From what I’ve seen, in some of the discussions in Chinese state media and popular sentiments, there is some discussion of “How does China prevent that from happening?” or “How to create more buffer policies or put systems in place so we’re less dependent on the West, or less prone to potentially facing a similar kind of attack or similar type of isolation.” Overall, there’s a sense of a cautionary tale and as kind of a learning experience.
You mentioned state-run media. Is there an overarching theme or themes as to how it is covering the conflict in Ukraine?
First of all, the war hasn’t been that widely covered in Chinese state media for domestic publics. CGTN, a television station aimed at external, global audiences, has covered it quite extensively. But in domestic media, you often see the stories being buried in the midst of other stories about domestic affairs. If you open People’s Daily, the newspaper that is the main mouthpiece [of the CCP], you mostly see Xi Jinping’s policy speeches, all kinds of other topics. But Ukraine is at the bottom somewhere. It’s less covered, or kind of obfuscated in some ways in other stories. That’s one theme.
The other theme is that we see very cautious rhetoric, but no direct blaming of Russia. Not calling it an invasion. I don’t think war is even being invoked, mostly “military operation.” We see quite a bit of language or rhetoric about the war bordering on Russian rhetoric, so a bit of that kind of infiltration or infusion of Russian statements and sources. That’s another thing that I’ve observed.
The other big theme on social media, but also some state media, and the theme that comes up from Chinese diplomats, is this blaming of NATO and the US for the war. So instead of saying, “Well, how does conflict come about, Ukraine or Russia? Who started and why?” It’s “Well, this was almost inevitable because of how much NATO has militarized the region. And the US, of course, being the key member of NATO, has basically provoked this war.”
So a lot of anti-Western, anti-US sentiments or explanations for the war, as opposed to blaming, let’s say, Russia, or even Ukraine. That’s another thing that has stayed pretty fixed in different statements and coverage and media.
Are you seeing those sentiments reflected more organically on social media? I know the internet is tightly controlled, but what do we know about how the public is responding to the Ukraine war?
It was a hot topic for a while. In the last few days, it’s shifted because of the airplane crash and other topics started to take precedence. But the very powerful sentiment is that of nationalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Western sentiment — and quite a lot of pro-Russian sentiments. But as I argued in the Atlantic, the pro-Russian [sentiment] is often veiled as this larger critique of the West — so it’s hard to tell how much of it is pro-Russia, how much of it is actually anti-US, or if it’s fused together.
We do see some questioning voices. It’s not completely controlled. We see some fact-checkers emerging that are checking how stories are reported in some Chinese state-run media and questioning their sources, or questioning the angles they are taking. There are subtle efforts to push back. Some academics signed petitions to express solidarity with Ukraine. We’ve seen also some voices of Chinese nationals in Ukraine reporting on things from there, or expressing their sentiments, which are very different from state media. Some alternative information sources or framings are present, but many have been censored.
Is there anything unusual that jumps out at you about the discourse around Ukraine?
Well, the distinction between the 2014 Crimea annexation, and this war in 2022, is that there’s more anti-American sentiments than in the past, when it wasn’t quite as clearly anti-American. That’s a shift that maybe reflects the state of US-China relations, but also more internal domestic pride in what China has accomplished, how it has managed Covid; there are many other factors and events. So that’s a bit of a shift.
It also depends on how sensitive is the story, and I think this story is somewhat sensitive, in part because how Russia is covered has been a longstanding, sensitive issue. State media, from my research, I’ve seen they’re not really allowed to critique or comment on Russia in a critical way, like reporting on protest movements in Russia or movements that attempt to derail or weaken Putin. You don’t really see those stories coming out in Chinese media.
You mentioned that Chinese media’s coverage of Russia is a longstanding, sensitive issue. I’m sure there’s a lot of history there, but could you elaborate a little bit on what you meant by that?
Russia-China relations, at least officially, from the high-level politics perspective, have been getting closer over decades now. We’re seeing more and more closer ideological pronouncements. The last meeting between Xi and Putin was on February 4, where they signed this declaration and expressed the sentiment of unlimited friendship. To me, a lot of it is more symbolic than practical, in terms of really supporting each other in multiple dimensions. But at the very least, on the level of rhetoric and symbolism and shared visions of the world, there seems to be some congruence.
But Russia has been a sensitive topic to discuss because if you start unraveling what’s happening in Russia, in a way, you’re questioning what’s happening in China, too. You start reporting about protest movements in Russia, another major authoritarian state that seems to be aligned with China when it comes to the world order, like bringing down the hegemony of the US and multipolarity — anything that showcases the weaknesses of the [Russian] regime, or that there’s people challenging it, that is always a dangerous story because it might signal that it’s possible to challenge a major non-democratic state.
That makes sense — covering Russia might hold up a mirror to CCP. But it also makes it seem that this talk of a so-called renewed “Iron Curtain” — with China and Russia aligned against the West — hasn’t really penetrated. It seems as if China wants to be careful in its approach to Russia, but it doesn’t seem as if the Chinese government is welcoming or hastening that global dichotomy.
The dichotomy is interesting, but it’s more complicated than that. The “Iron Curtain” simplifies what’s going on with China. China is trying to maintain access to Western and global markets — that’s why it’s abiding by the sanctions so far and actually inquiring about them in more detail to make sure it doesn’t break them.
Its biggest relationship is still with the US. That’s the biggest rival, the biggest, in some ways, inspiration in some facets of government, it’s the biggest nation that it is reckoning with when it comes to its future. In that sense, that idea that China is just going to completely align with Russia and shut itself off from the world, and that’s it — that’s not quite what we’re seeing. I think we’re seeing an attempt to maneuver both of these sides.
What about Russia? Have you looked at how Russian state media or online discussions view China amid the Ukraine war?
I looked at this a little bit in the first couple of weeks of the war, just looking at what Russia media was saying about China. Initially, there was a lot of quite positive statements about [how] China’s standing with us. “We’re not isolated, we’re not alone, we have this major, major country on our side.”
But then there were also other discussions later on, when we start seeing actual policies. For example, a Russian official reported that China will not provide aircraft parts to Russia. That was taken quite negatively: “China’s being pressured by the US,” or “China is not supporting us,” or “China’s not going to provide us really essential materials.” So it’s not very clear discussion of that, there’s a bit of a mixed sentiment.
One of the things that hangs over China’s approach to the war in Ukraine is this question of Taiwan. There have been a lot of takes in comparing Taiwan and Ukraine, and trying to game out what Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means for Taipei. I know the Chinese government believes Taiwan to be an “internal” matter and so not analogous, but I’m wondering if those comparisons cropped up in Chinese media or online?
It’s a bit tricky to understand to what extent this Ukraine crisis is going to lead China in one direction or another vis-a-vis Taiwan.
On one hand, on social media, we did see a lot of Taiwan and Ukraine comparisons, like comparing the activities or actions of Russia to what China should be doing, that Taiwan is just like Ukraine, a kind of rebellious pro-Western part of the family that’s trying to get away. A lot of family metaphors and very similar language. That hyper-nationalism and the sense of comparison was there.
But then a lot of those messages got censored. Then we also saw some official statements verifying that Taiwan is not Ukraine, and Taiwan already belongs to China. So if China decides to unify, it’s not the same thing. They’re trying to differentiate themselves, maybe signaling to a domestic audience, “This is not the right rhetoric here, we’re not going to compare Ukraine and Taiwan.” It might also be something so as not to escalate further relations with the West. Right now, the US is distracted with Russia, and that’s good for China. So it’s hard to tell how much they’re thinking about this comparatively within the CCP because, at least officially, they’re suggesting that it’s a very different scenario.
As we’ve discussed, China is trying to navigate this carefully, and is, in a lot of ways, reacting in real time. But it’s standing largely on the sidelines, and I wonder if there is a sense of a missed opportunity for China — that maybe they should be taking a bolder role, maybe potentially being a broker in any peace deal?
So far, I don’t think we’ve seen any signs of that bolder role. Maybe if something more drastic happens. It’s already very horrific, but if it escalates more, or if it expands geographically toward NATO, maybe China will take a different role. But I don’t even know if it will take a different role in that case, honestly; I think it might still condemn what it sees as worth condemning, and then still call for peace, but not necessarily be the one directly advocating.
It’s also the issue that there’s suspicion vis-a-vis China, too. From the Western perspective, would they allow China to be the key mediator? Would they just say, “Yeah, sure, you go ahead, you’re going to be the key player here” or would they want to have oversight over that process? And, if so, how does China look? It’s been promoting this anti-Western, anti-American kind of narrative, and then saying, “Oh, yeah, we’re going to mediate, and work with the West and just abide by whatever they decide.” So it’s a very difficult position.
In some ways, it seems that staying on the outskirts may be a little bit easier, especially because other countries have taken that role, like Israel and Turkey. But it could be a potential win for China, if they did succeed in gauging more agreement and getting something to move forward. But I’m not sure they see that as a worthwhile pursuit, for now.
The Red Cross mounted a second attempt after failing to bring a bus convoy to the city on Friday.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is attempting another evacuation of the southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, after similar efforts failed earlier in the week. The strategic port city has become a humanitarian disaster in the past five weeks of fighting, with dwindling food and medical supplies, no electricity, heat, or clean water, and no safe humanitarian corridor for civilians to flee.
“The ICRC team departed Zaporizhzhia this morning,” an ICRC spokesperson told Vox via email on Saturday. “They are spending the night en route to Mariupol and are yet to reach the city.” The spokesperson did not elaborate on the conditions that caused Friday’s evacuation attempt to fail.
The ICRC’s role in the evacuation effort was to accompany humanitarian convoys from Mariupol to Zaporizhzhia, indicating that the vehicles are civilian and not military targets; Friday’s mission was to escort about 54 buses of evacuees, as well as civilians in private vehicles. However, the terms of the ceasefire were unclear as of Thursday, and some buses in the convoy came under fire as they approached the city of Berdyansk on Thursday afternoon, according to Tetiana Ignatenkova, a spokesperson for the Donetsk regional administration.
Some Mariupol residents managed to leave via private car, escaping to the Zaporizhzhia region, according to Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister Irina Veryschuk, and presidential aide Kyrylo Tymoshenko reported that around 3,000 fled the city Friday, according to the New York Times. Humanitarian routes have been established from seven areas, including Mariupol, for Saturday’s evacuation attempts, according to Veryschuk.
Ukrainian officials report that 5,000 of Mariupol’s civilians have been killed thus far in the conflict, according to Reuters, and the Washington Post reports that 100,000 people are still trapped in the besieged city. Large-scale evacuation attempts both on Friday and earlier in March were unsuccessful because a safe exit route couldn’t be established; an ICRC team of three vehicles and nine personnel coming from Zaporizhzhia, about 125 miles from Mariupol, to facilitate the evacuation had to turn back due to “impossible” conditions, according to a statement. The statement didn’t go into detail about the conditions, saying only that in order for the humanitarian mission to succeed, “it is critical that the parties respect the agreements and provide the necessary conditions and security guarantees.”
<img alt="Humanitarian convoy of 42 buses from Mariupol to Zaporizhzhia" src="https://cdn.vox-Even using so- called “green” or humanitarian corridors puts evacuees at risk; although these are supposed to be safe routes, “there have been times when tanks have shot at civilian vehicles trying to leave,” Oleksandr Lysenko, the mayor of the Ukrainian city of Sumy, said in a panel discussion with journalists in March. His claims aren’t isolated; a number of similar incidents have been reported, including the death of a family from Russian shelling as they were attempting to flee the city of Irpin.
Ukraine and the Kremlin had agreed to a humanitarian ceasefire Thursday, but US officials noted that Russian airstrikes continued in the capital of Kyiv and in Mariupol in the 24 hours leading up to the ceasefire, according to the Washington Post. During that period, civilians were to be able to leave safely, and aid groups to deliver critical humanitarian aid to Mariupol, which has been surrounded by Russian troops and cut off from supplies for weeks.
Conditions in Mariupol make it difficult for civilians to get out — or for aid to get in
In spite of prolonged, intense Russian shelling and bombardment that have devastated Mariupol, Ukrainian forces have battled for control of the city even as Russian troops surrounded it. Meanwhile, efforts to negotiate a durable ceasefire so civilians can evacuate the besieged city have repeatedly failed, and despite Russia’s slow retreat from Kyiv and other areas in the north, Mariupol remains an active conflict zone. It looks to stay that way for the foreseeable future, according to Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych. “We need to rid ourselves of illusions: We stand before difficult fights in the south, Mariupol, for the east of Ukraine,” he said in a nationally televised address on Saturday, indicating that those left in Mariupol will continue to suffer, particularly if Saturday’s evacuation attempt is unsuccessful.
Conditions in Mariupol had already deteriorated significantly by mid-March; infrastructure providing potable water had been destroyed and aid workers from Mèdecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) reported that residents were looking for sources of groundwater to drink — after boiling it over a wood fire, as heat and electricity had been cut off, too.
Harrowing account from a @MSF staffer in Mariupol, where power, heat + internet cut. Says no drinking water or medicine.
— Samuel Oakford (@samueloakford) March 12, 2022
“People who were killed and injured and they’re just lying on the ground and neighbors just digging the hole in the ground and putting their bodies inside.” pic.twitter.com/2E2DxBzG3X
Serhiy Orlov, the deputy mayor of Mariupol, noted in March that the city was already running critically low on medical supplies like insulin, as well as food, fuel, and warm clothing. “Let me make it clear … we have total destruction of the city of Mariupol,” he said at the time.
The vulnerable infrastructure of cities like Mariupol means that damage to one part of it — say, a water pipe — can affect thousands of people’s access to clean drinking water, heat, or electricity. However, targeting that kind of civilian infrastructure is a feature of Russia’s urban warfare, Rita Konaev, the associate director of analysis at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, explained to Vox in March.
“The Russian approach to urban warfare very much emphasizes priming and prepping the ground for any sort of ground operation with this destruction from the air. It’s to break morale, it’s to cause significant damage to the infrastructure of cities, it’s to cause high levels of displacement from the cities,” she said.
Statements from both the ICRC and the United Nations on Thursday underscored the dire circumstances in Mariupol, and the critical and immediate need to get humanitarian supplies to its people. “We and our partners have still not been able to reach areas where people are in desperate need of support, including Mariupol, Kherson and Chernihiv, despite extensive efforts and ongoing engagement with the parties to the conflict,” UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told reporters Thursday. The ICRC expressed similar urgency in its statement: ”It’s desperately important that this operation takes place. The lives of tens of thousands of people in Mariupol depend on it.”
Russia won’t give up on Mariupol easily
Though peace talks between Russia and Ukraine resumed on Friday, there’s little indication that Russia will withdraw from Mariupol, a city it sees as critical for its control of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions — parts of which Russia recognized as independent breakaway republics just before invading Ukraine.
Now that the Russian military appears unable to capture Kyiv, it seems the Kremlin is turning its attention back to the southeast — specifically Mariupol. Russian control of the city would connect Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as cut off the rest of Ukraine from the Sea of Azov, which could cause serious, ongoing economic difficulty for Ukraine as Mariupol and other port cities are export hubs for grain.
Ukrainian troops have refused to surrender Mariupol, tying up Russian troops in a difficult urban battle that prevents them from reinforcing Russian units elsewhere; were Russia to capture the city, it would free up those forces for other campaigns.
But capturing Mariupol, which has put up such fierce resistance despite weeks of near-constant bombardment, would also provide a morale boost for Russian troops and the public in what has otherwise been a severely disappointing campaign.
“Putin wants to get the city regardless of the casualties and damage,” Orlov said. “The city is being brought back to the medieval times by the Russians. People can cook only by fire, and mothers and newborn children are not getting food. This is a genocide against Ukrainians.”
Junior Women's hockey World Cup: India stun Germany 2-1 to seal quarterfinal berth - India scored through two penalty corner conversions by Lalremsiami (2nd minute) and Mumtaz Khan (25th) to emerge winners
Full Of Grace and Blazing Bay impress -
IPL 2022 | SRH vs LSG: Lucknow relies on batting prowess to come good against Hyderabad - LSG did not have the best start to their debut season, losing by five wickets against fellow IPL debutants Gujarat Titan
Women’s World Cup 2022 | I am 32 and I have seen it all, says “grateful” Alyssa Healy - The Australian wicketkeeper-batter was named player of the final for her 170 as well as player of the tournament
Australia beat England by 71 runs to win women’s cricket world cup - England were bowled out for 285 after being set 357 for victory at Hagley Oval
Madurai Reader’s Mail -
Court martial proceedings against Army captain begin in Amshipura fake encounter case -
Dindigul Reader’s Mail -
Tirunelveli Reader’s Mail -
T.N. constitutes advisory council to develop a federal fiscal model - It will have experts on legislation involving revenue and taxation
Ukraine war: Bucha street littered with burned-out tanks and corpses - A BBC team witnesses utter devastation in the town of Bucha, after Russian soldiers pulled out.
Ukraine war: Family’s bid to reach safety ends in tragedy - The father of 31-year-old Maksim Iovenko describes how his son and family ended up on a deadly stretch of highway outside Kyiv.
War in Ukraine: Koko’s phone is your phone as she makes her way out - British-Zimbabwean student Korrine Sky documented her escape from Ukraine on her mobile phone.
Serbia’s President Vucic performs balancing act as he seeks re-election - Aleksandar Vucic is hoping for election victory, but Serbia’s opposition complains of media blockade.
The handshake in space that brought hope to the world - What happened when US astronauts met USSR cosmonauts in space
Russia inches closer to its splinternet dream - New impetus for sovereign Internet after backlash from Russia’s war on Ukraine. - link
The weekend’s best deals: Xbox Series X/S in stock, Samsung microSD cards, and more - Dealmaster also has Anker chargers, recommended gaming monitors, and 8BitDo gamepads. - link
Russia asked NASA to end sanctions to save the ISS, but the West didn’t blink - “Sustaining safe and successful ISS operations remains a priority for the United States.” - link
The punch that changed Mortal Kombat history - A punch-filled excerpt from upcoming history book Long Live Mortal Kombat. - link
A fresh take on why Octavian won the war against Antony and Cleopatra - Ars chats with historian Barry Strauss about his book, The War that Made the Roman Empire. - link
He is very excited, as all his life he has longed to meet the Prophet Mohammed.
Having arrived at the Gates of Heaven, he meets a man with a beard.
“Are you Mohammed?” he asks.
“No, my son. I am Peter. Mohammed is higher up.” And he points to a ladder that rises into the clouds.
Delighted that Mohammed should be higher than Peter, he climbs the ladder in great strides, climbs through the clouds, coming to a room where he meets another bearded man.
He asks again, “Are you Mohammed?”
“No, I am Moses. Mohammed is higher still.”
Exhausted, but with a heart full of joy he continues to climb the ladder and, yet again, he discovers an even larger room where he meets another man with a beard.
Full of hope, he asks again, “Are you Mohammed?”
“No, I am Jesus… You will find Mohammed higher up.”
Mohammed higher than Jesus!
The poor man can hardly contain his delight and climbs and climbs, ever higher.
Once again he reaches a larger room where he meets a man with a beard and repeats his question:
“Are you Mohammed?” he gasps as he is, by now, totally out of breath from all his climbing.
“No my son…..I am God. But you look exhausted. Would you like a coffee?”
“Yes, please!” said the man.
God looks behind him, claps his hands and calls out:
“Hey Mohammed, two coffees!”
Two Canadians die and end up in Hell. Satan decides to pay them a visit, so he walks into their room and sees them talking and laughing. Confused, he asks them why they’re happy.
They tell him, “Well, we’re so sick of the cold where we’re from, and this place is nice and toasty.”
Satan, annoyed, storms away and goes to Hell’s boiler room, where he turns up the temperature.
He goes back to the Canadians’ room, along the way being begged by all sorts of people to put the heating back down. He enters the room to see the Canadians having a barbecue. Furiously, he asks them what they’re doing.
“Well, we can’t pass up this wonderful weather without getting out the barbecue!”
Satan realizes he’s been doing the wrong thing. He goes to the boiler room and turns it down until it’s at a colder temperature than ever seen on earth.
He knows he’s won now, so he goes back to the Canadians’ room, only to see them jumping up and down in excitement. He shouts at them in fury, “WHY ARE YOU STILL HAPPY?!?!?!”
They look at him and shout at the same time, “Hell froze over! That means the Leafs won!”
submitted by /u/onlyherefor90days
[link] [comments]
A guy is browsing in a pet shop and sees a parrot sitting on a little perch. It doesn’t have any feet or legs. The guy says aloud, “Jeesh. I wonder what happened to this Parrot?”
The parrot says, “I was born this way. I’m a defective parrot.”
“Holy shit,” the guy replies. “You actually understood and answered me!”
“I got every word,” says the parrot.” I happen to be a highly intelligent, thoroughly educated bird."
“Oh yeah?”, the guy asks, “Then answer this – how do you hang onto your perch without any feet?”
“Well,” the parrot says, “this is very embarrassing but since you asked, I wrap my willie around this wooden bar like a little hook. You can’t see it because of my feathers.”
“Wow” says the guy, “you really can understand and speak English, can’t you!?”
“Actually, I speak both Spanish and English and I can converse with reasonable competence on almost any topic: politics, religion, sports, physics, philosophy. I’m especially good at ornithology. You really ought to buy me. I’d be a great companion.”
The guy looks at the $200 price tag.” Sorry, but I just can’t afford that."
“Pssssssst” says the parrot, “I’m defective, so the truth is, nobody wants me cause I don’t have any feet. You can probably get me for $20, just make the guy an offer!”
The guy offers $20 and walks out with the parrot. Weeks go by. The parrot is sensational. He has a great sense of humour, he’s interesting, he’s a great pal, he understands everything, he sympathizes, and he’s insightful.
The guy is delighted. One day the guy comes home from work and the parrot goes “Psssssssssssst” and motions him over with one wing. “I don’t know if I should tell you this or not, but it’s about your wife and the postman.”
“What are you talking about?” asks the guy.
“When the postman delivered today, your wife greeted him at the door in a sheer black nightie and kissed him passionately.”
“WHAT???” the guy asks incredulously. “THEN what happened?”
“Well, then the postman came into the house and lifted up her nightie and began petting her all over” reported the parrot.
“My God!” he exclaims. “Then what?”
“Then he lifted up the nightie, got down on his knees and began to lick her all over, starting with her breasts and slowly going down…”
“WELL???” demands the frantic guy, “THEN WHAT HAPPENED?”
“Damned if I know. I got a hard-on and fell off my perch.”
submitted by /u/YZXFILE
[link] [comments]
Eventually they would find me attractive
submitted by /u/BarneysBalls
[link] [comments]
Girl replies: “I can guess how many pulls to turn a ceiling fan off on the first try!”
She points up and says: “3 pulls”
Professor X stands up and pulls 3 times. After the third pull the fan turns off.
Professor X: “Yeah that’s cool and all, but not really a super power…”
Girl: “Yeah I was just kidding, I can heal paraplegics”
Professor X, still standing: “Oh my god”
submitted by /u/ThatOnePogger
[link] [comments]