Tag Archives: CRTC

Roundup: A Swedish state visit

Posted on by

The King and Queen of Sweden on a state visit to Canada, for the first time since 2006, bringing with them some top ministers and business officials. It was also the first visit since Sweden joined NATO, and has been noted that Canada was the first country to support that membership, and that Swedish troops are now under Canadian command in Latvia. Prime minister Mark Carney announced that Canada and Sweden have signed a strategic partnership, before there was a state dinner in their honour, hosted by the Chief Justice as Mary Simon is still recovering from her recent hospitalisation.

Of course, one of the things looming over this visit is Sweden trying to convince Canada to buy Gripen fighter jets, given the reconsideration of the F-35 purchase thanks to American unreliability (particularly when their president muses openly about nerfing the planes they sell us, and where they could hold software or necessary upgrades hostage). Mélanie Joly made it known yesterday that Lockheed Martin has not exactly been generous with its industrial benefits for the F-35 programme—as participants in the Joint Strike Fighter programme, Canadian firms are part of the manufacturing process, but that’s fairly limited, and doesn’t include any of the intellectual property concerns. (That participation in parts manufacturing is being labelled by activists as “complicity” in Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, incidentally). SAAB, meanwhile, is dangling the prospect of 10,000 jobs in Canada as part of assembling Gripens, not just for Canada, but also to expand their production capacity for orders from countries like Ukraine. The question is essentially becoming whether we want a mixed fleet, which is more expensive, but may provide better reliability given the state of relations with the US, even though we will likely need some number of F-35s as part of continental defence with the Americans.

Meanwhile, I also learned that the King of Sweden’s great-grandfather was Prince Arthur of Connaught, who served as Governor General in Canada in the 1910s, and lived at Rideau Hall, which meant that it was a bit of a homecoming for said King. The more you know.

From the state dinner pool report: "In his speech, King Carl XVI Gustaf thanked Canada for the warm welcome and said it was a "pleasure" to be back in the country. He said his great grandfather, Prince Arthur of Connaught, was Governor General of Canada in the 1910s, and lived in Rideau Hall."

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T02:42:11.788Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck an apartment building in Kharkiv, injuring at least thirty-two, while drones and missiles have also been hitting civilian targets in Ternopil and Lviv in the western part of the country. President Zelenskyy is off to Türkiye this week try and jumpstart negotiations with Russia (for all the good that will do). Russian intelligence is being blamed for railway sabotage in Poland, on lines that connect to Ukraine and carry vital supplies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a pipeline project

Posted on by

Believing herself clever, Alberta premier Danielle Smith is trying to lay a trap for prime minister Mark Carney, but it’s a really obvious trap and Admiral Ackbar can see it from a mile off. Because she is apparently now a socialist, Smith has decided that the provincial government will take the lead on proposing a pipeline to the northern coast of BC, with the “advice” of three pipeline companies, but none of them will actually be the proponent as this goes to the Major Projects Office. Smith claims that she is trying to get around the “chicken and egg” problem of not having any interested proponents in such a pipeline, and hopes that she can get it off the ground so that a private company will take it over, but remember that it’s not 2014, and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of market demand. (Oh, and she wants to use digital asbestos to help map the route, which is even more hilariously sad).

This is very much a dare to everyone to oppose her. BC premier David Eby has called this out as a stunt because it’s not a real project, with no real proponent, and no buyers lining up for any of the product. The Indigenous rights and title-holders in the area are not interested in the project, and are opposed to a bitumen pipeline going through their territory and off their coast, because this would also require lifting the tanker ban because Smith wants to ship bitumen through it, which is a “persistent” product unlike LNG. Carney has previously said that if the province and First Nations are opposed to the project, it won’t go ahead, but he has also given himself the power to override pretty much any objection, or the tanker ban, or any of it, if he really wants to. But a refusal is largely what Smith is counting on, so that she can once again play the victim, and blame the federal government for a lack of market interest.

In a sense, the province wasting millions of dollars on this for the sake of grievance theatre is not new. Jason Kenney sunk $1.3 billion into the dead Keystone XL project in an attempt to revive American interest in it, even going so far as to proposed to fund its construction if the proponent wouldn’t to try and challenge the Biden veto. This feels like more of the same, where she is sinking money she doesn’t have into a losing prospect in an empty gesture in order to secure her political future by playacting as the great defender of Alberta and its ossifying industry. But there are going to be epic tantrums, and she’s going to try and use the threat of separatism to try and get her way (because she thinks it worked for Quebec and doesn’t understand how much it devastated the economy in that province), and we’ll see if Carney is actually prepared to handle it, because so far, he’s telling a lot of people what they want to hear, and those messages are starting to collide.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is now going the longest it’s been without external power for cooling reactors, increasing concern. This after Russia also attacked the area near Chornobyl, which also briefly cut its external power supply.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Carney’s lack of political judgment

Posted on by

It was announced early in the morning that the Christo-fascist that prime minister Mark Carney invited to address the Cabinet retreat couldn’t make it after all, but don’t worry—they fully planned to continue to engage with him. No, seriously. The mind absolutely boggles, and I can scarcely believe that there wasn’t a revolt in the room from members of Cabinet who absolutely should know better. And then there was François-Philippe Champagne, who insisted that it was important to hear from “different perspectives.” What Christo-fascist perspective is so important to hear about? Removing the rights of women, or LGBTQ+ people? Re-segregating the United States? The destruction of the separation of church and state? Which of these issues, pray tell, did Cabinet most need to hear all about from the guy who wrote the 900-page playbook that Trump’s acolytes are following? Honest to Zeus, does a single person in that Cabinet have any political judgment whatsoever?

The Christo-fascist couldn't attend the Cabinet retreat after all, but don't worry, Carney's office says they will continue to engage with him.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T13:12:41.573Z

And then there are Carney’s defenders online, who insisted over and over again that Carney needs to “know your enemy,” and that it was important to get a sense of their “motivations and goals.” As though the 900-page manifesto doesn’t spell any of that out? And to be perfectly frank, does nobody remember the homily about the Nazi bar? This should not be difficult, but apparently Carney is not only demonstrating a lack of political judgment, but a lack of judgment period, and his defenders will praise him up and down and insist that this is just very clever strategy. It’s not. Stop pretending that making nice with fascists is at all acceptable.

The Carney stans are having another normal one in my replies, justifying consorting with Christo-fascists, I see.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:25:19.693Z

EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE.Stop pretending there is a valid reason to make nice with fascists.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:15:13.455Z

https://bsky.app/profile/alwayslate.bsky.social/post/3lxzwrjhyyc2c

Meanwhile, Carney and several ministers will be making a series of “sector-based” announcements this morning, which could include things like measures to help sectors affected by tariffs, or the EV mandates. At the retreat yesterday, Champagne was using the corporate euphemisms of “adjustments” to the civil service in service of their austerity plans, but what struck me was his language about how they were trying to “rebuild Canada.” Erm, rebuild from what? You were part of the government for the past ten years, and it’s not like there was a smoking crater left in Trudeau’s wake. Champagne believed in that spending, whether through COVID or in implementing new social programmes that were helping with the cost of living. So again, I ask—what exactly are we rebuilding from?

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile strike hit a de-mining operation near Chernihiv, killing two. Ukraine’s top military commander is looking for increased use of interceptor drones. Twenty-six countries have pledged to provide security guarantees if there is a cease-fire (which Putin is not interested in). Here is a look at some of the people who are evacuating ruined cities in the country’s east after holding out in the hopes that the war would end.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Creating a duplicative federal body?

Posted on by

The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs want the federal government to take action on creating a national forest-fire coordination agency, and look at American bodies like FEMA (well, as it used to exist rather than the hollow shell it is now). The problem? That disaster management, which includes wildfires, is squarely within provincial jurisdiction in this country, and if such a body were to be created (and it’s a big if), then provinces would have to agree to sign onto it, and good luck with that—unless maybe you’re willing to shell out a whole lot of money to “compensate” them for it.

The other problem? We already have such a body, called the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, which is a not-for-profit owned and operated by existing firefighting bodies at all levels, which does the very work that these fire chiefs want it to do—coordinating to share resources, mutual aid, information sharing, and so on. If they don’t think this agency is doing enough, then they should say so. But if this is really just a backdoor way of saying the federal government should pay for everything, well, maybe they need to be honest about that.

We have a big problem in this country where provinces have learned that they can get away with short-changing their emergency management systems because they can call on the federal government to deploy the Canadian Armed Forces to do all kinds of said management, and even though the federal government has the option of cost-recovery from those provinces, they don’t, because it would be bad optics to be “nickel-and-diming” the provinces whom they give assistance to. Except of course, the provinces know that’s the case, so they cut their spending further, and the cycle continues because no federal government will stand up and say “We know you cut your funding to get free federal assistance, so we’re going to charge you for the services.” This is why I’m deeply suspicious of any move to create a federal civilian disaster emergency response agency, whether for wildfires, or other natural disasters, because it will give the provinces licence to cut further, and then beg for more federal assistance once they do.

Ukraine Dispatch

That gas interconnector that the Russians attacked in southern Ukraine appears to still be operating. Investigations have found that in spite of sanctions, Russians have been using Siemens technology in their factories, obtained by middlemen in China.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The reality of enduring tariffs

Posted on by

On his way into the Cabinet meeting yesterday, Mark Carney made remarks to the press that it looks like there is little chance that we’ll get any kind of trade deal that doesn’t include some kind of tariffs, and that the commercial landscape has changed globally, so his focus would continue to be on what he can control, which is building a strong Canadian economy. It’s a lot in three sentences, but it does look like he’s coming around to a more honest assessment of where we’re at. Well, at least slightly so—they’re still pursing some form of “trade and security” agreement, which is continues to be a waste of everyone’s time because there is no agreement to be had, as Trump is not a rational actor and won’t live up to any agreement he does sign, if that ever happens. But at least Carney is no longer signalling that the old status quo is just around the corner, so that’s progress.

Pierre Poilievre, meanwhile, is calling this a “unilateral concession,” and seems to be under the impression that he (or anyone else) could somehow secure a better deal with Trump, even though there is no deal to be had. Trump loves tariffs, and won’t be dissuaded, and we have to learn to live with that (because it’s going to be a long while before it sinks in that they are driving up costs for Americans, because a whole lot of them refuse to believe the truth). We need to be wide-eyed about this, and Carney needs to be more upfront as well. There is no deal to be had. They can go through the motions of negotiating but it won’t get us anywhere, and sure, we need to focus on what we can do…but that has to mean more than just putting all of our eggs in the resource extraction basket, which can’t be our only option.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-07-15T21:22:14.842Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones and missiles struck Kharkiv, Kryvyi Rih, and Kyiv, but there was no damage at the latter. It looks like under the latest missive from Trump, NATO members will buy US equipment for Ukraine from the US, but the US won’t spend any of their own money to send weapons to Ukraine even though it’s in their own interests to do so. (Well, it was until the US became an autocratic state).

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s not five percent

Posted on by

Now that the big NATO summit is over, can we please stop saying that the commitment is to five percent defence spending? Because it’s not. It’s 3.5 percent within a decade, but the whole other 1.5 percent is stuffing a whole lot of things to pad the numbers, whether it’s ports, or airports, or critical mineral mines. It’s creative accounting designed to make Trump think everyone is doing more (because he doesn’t understand NATO and tries to treat it like a protection racket), from a summit that was pretty much an exercise in placating him at all costs. (Takeaways more broadly, and for Canada specifically).

I’m much more concerned about Carney’s vague talk that this spending means trade-offs and possible cuts in other areas, but won’t give any examples of what that could look like. I’m especially concerned because of the way he’s talked about things like using AI, which is entirely in the vein of his having bought into the hype, and what that will inevitably mean are job cuts/losses, and a very, very costly mistake by government when it turns out that AI can’t do what they were sold on it doing for them, and it will compound all of those problems. I’m also not convinced about all of those future revenues that he thinks critical minerals are going to bring in, which sounds a little too much like counting chickens before they’ve hatched, and so on.

Bill C-5 in the Senate

Bill C-5 began deliberations in the Senate yesterday, and passed second reading on a pro forma voice vote, and will have study in committee of the whole today. There was a minor bit of disruption as Senator Patrick Brazeau collapsed from an unspecified “medical event” as he was asking questions to Senator Housakos following his speech as opposition leader, but we’re going to see a lot of hand-wringing about whether the Senate will actually amend the bill. There is pressure from the AFN national chief to slow the bill down, but there will be pressure from both the Government Leader and the Conservatives to pass it as quickly as possible, without amendments, and we’ll hear the usual doom arguments about how it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to recall the House of Commons if they did amend it—never mind that the world would not end if the bill didn’t pass until September.

Meanwhile, we see columnists like Tanya Talaga once again calling on the Governor General to deny royal assent to the bill, and I just can’t. This is actual journalistic malpractice. She can’t deny royal assent. It goes against every tenet of Responsible Government, and if she did, it would be a constitutional crisis of absolutely epic proportions. If it passes and you disagree with it, challenge it in the courts. That’s how the system works. But that column should not have been published, and the editors should have either told her to take out the references to the GG going outside of her authority, or the column should have been spiked. There is absolutely no excuse for this.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy had a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the NATO summit (in a more “calibrated” wardrobe), and Trump said he would “consider” more Patriot missiles, but that means absolutely nothing.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1937826703255994570

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forgiveness over permission, C-5 edition

Posted on by

With hours left on the clock before the House of Commons would vote on Bill C-5, per the terms of the Closure motion passed earlier in the week, the Speaker agreed with an NDP motion that yes, the bill was indeed abusive omnibus legislation and agreed to split it into two parts to separate it for the final vote. It was a bit late to do so, because there was no ability to only advance one half and not the other, and it wasn’t going to matter much either considering that the Conservatives were going to vote in favour of it (because they absolutely want this Henry VIII clause on the books if they should form government in the next five years). And so, the first half of the bill, on the federal trade barriers, got near-unanimous support with only Elizabeht May voting against it, and the second half on major projects—and that Henry VIII clause—had the Bloc, the NDP, Elizabeth May and Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith vote against it, not that those numbers made any kind of difference.

After the bill passed, Carney called a press conference in the Foyer, and had every Indigenous MP in the caucus as his backdrop (with a few others dropping in), and he insisted that it simply wasn’t communicated effectively how much Indigenous participation would be required for these projects, and that they would respect UNDRIP, and yes they would hold consultations with rights-holders over the summer to ensure that implementation of this legislation would be done “the right way.” Oh, and he totally swears that he’s not going to put a Henry VIII clause in any other bills—really! But all of those assurances left a sour taste.

It very much seems that Carney has taken the route of asking for forgiveness rather than permission, which is a really strange way to go about building trust with those rights-holders, especially when your MPs refused to let them speak at committee or have any participation in the legislative process. And you will forgive me if I don’t believe that they won’t ever use that Henry VIII clause to bulldoze over UNDRIP obligations on a project, because they gave themselves those powers for a reason. And if they think that they got away with asking for forgiveness rather than permission worked this time, who’s to say they won’t try that again when they do use those powers? Let’s not kid ourselves.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-20T22:56:10.284Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Drone attacks from Russia in the early hours of Thursday hit apartment buildings in Kharkiv and Odesa. There was another POW swap, and again, numbers were not disclosed. President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine is developing interceptor drones to deal with the Russian drones, whose numbers have increased in the past weeks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Historical revisionism of federalism in the past decade

Posted on by

Last week had largely been spent trying to determine what the love-in with the premiers all means, so much so that Danielle Smith is losing her grip on reality as she insists that she’ll convince BC premier David Eby to let another pipeline cross his province (in spite of there being no actual proposals for one), while also claiming that Albertans have the “lowest living standards in the world,” and I just can’t even.

Meanwhile, I’m seeing comments from the pundit class that I’m just finding hard to square with reality. This one quote from the weekend dispatch of The Line is a good example of these pundit narratives that are completely ahistorical.

The Liberals under Justin Trudeau were so fantastically uninterested in working with the provinces, and so relentlessly hostile to basic economic growth, that having a prime minister simply acknowledge (as Carney has) that we are in an economic emergency seems like a massive step forward.

Trudeau did work with the provinces a lot in his first parliament—he had the first face-to-face meeting with them as a group in years after Harper refused to, and they got big things done—the agreement on carbon pricing, enhancing CPP, a suite of health measures that Jane Philpott negotiated with the provinces. None of this was inconsequential, but there was a very different group of premiers in 2015 than there was in 2024. And let’s also be frank—the premiers didn’t want to work together with the federal government anymore. They wanted to gang up on him for more money with no conditions (those health transfers that Philpott negotiated didn’t go toward fixing anything), while the pleading that everyone was making around finding exceptions to the carbon levy was very unproductive (not that Trudeau did any favours in his “pause” on the price for heating oil rather than a better system of rebates in areas where energy poverty was a problem). But seriously, the premiers get away with blaming Trudeau for all of the things that they refused to do that were their responsibility, and somehow he was the problem?

As well, the notion that Trudeau was hostile to basic economic growth is, frankly, unhinged. How many trade deals did he sign or push over the finish line? What was the whole attempt to stand-up a North American EV supply chain? What were the billions spent to keep the entire economy afloat during COVID? If you’re going to cite the capital gains changes as being “hostile,” then congratulations—you’re a gullible numpty who bought the lines of people who engage in tax arbitrage and want that sweet roll to continue. If you think environmental regulation was killing economic growth, just wait until you see what climate change is already doing to the economy and is going to get exponentially worse. Just because Trudeau didn’t bow to the tax-cut-and-deregulate crowd, it doesn’t mean he was hostile to economic growth. Yes, he and his government had problems. A lot of them. But let’s not make up things that are blatantly ahistorical or outright fictional just to help put a shine on Carney.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-07T21:10:14.180Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drone and missile attacks killed four people in Kharkiv on Saturday. Russian forces claim to have crossed into the Dnipropetrovsk region, while a row is now brewing over an agreement to exchange bodies of dead soldiers, which Ukraine says they are not delaying. Meanwhile, a drone attack on a Russian electronics factory has forced them to suspend production.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1931395337958084711

Continue reading →

Roundup: The new ambassador doesn’t get it

Posted on by

The new US ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, has been making the media rounds, and is just one more in a long line of American politicians who just can’t understand why Canadians are so upset with the Americans. (It’s a complete mystery!) Surely, we must be happy that we could have the “lowest tariffs of any country,” instead of, oh, the free trade that allowed for integrated supply chains between both countries. Why wouldn’t we be happy with that? And in a preview for an interview to be aired over the weekend, he says there are easier ways to send messages to Trump than to bring over the King.

*sighs*

Having the King open the next session of Parliament is not only about sending a message to Trump. Yes, that is part of it, and you can bet that it’s actually going to be something he pays more attention to than a phone call because his attention span only lasts as long as the next person who talks to him, so what good is a phone call in that regard? Also? This is as much about domestic reassurance as it is a message to Trump. As Trump has threatened us, we had a bunch of people wrongly believe that the King needed to act unilaterally and say something that might cause a diplomatic incident, and others actually believed that he personally invited Trump on the second state visit when no, that was at the behest of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer. And no, he can’t say anything unilaterally, because that goes against what constitutional monarchy stands for, and why there was the Glorious Revolution in 1688. If anyone is to blame for Charles not speaking up on Canada’s behalf earlier, it was Justin Trudeau’s, because he very much liked to ignore the Crown as much as he possibly could (probably because it pulled the focus away from him).

Oh, and Hoekstra keeps saying that the “51st state” stuff is over, and that Trump isn’t saying it, and they have more important things to worry about. But he said it just two weeks ago, and do you actually think that anything is really over for Trump? He’s incredibly angry with his past self for signing the New NAFTA. And I get that Hoekstra needs to play this particular role, but come on. Demonstrate that you’ve paid the slightest bit of attention to Canada since you were named ambassador, and read the room.

https://bsky.app/profile/effinbirds.com/post/3lps2mm7mmf26

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia is claiming to have taken a settlement between Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka in Donetsk region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duelling tax cut offers

Posted on by

Day two of the campaign, and the first full day of campaigning. Mark Carney began in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, where he played up the Canadiana and the fact that Gander hosted passengers from aircraft stranded on 9/11 (which became the basis for the musical “Come from Away.” This was part of his appeal to Canadian values in the face of Trump and the trade war, before he jetted off to Halifax. (Day one recap here, and more about the fishers protesting his speech.). Carney also released a second, more earnest ad with Mike Myers, who officially endorsed him in it. Carney also added that he hasn’t spoken to Trump yet, but he suspects Trump is waiting until after the election to call.

Pierre Poilievre was still in the Greater Toronto Area, where he had pledged his own, larger income tax cut, and gave a faux assurance that it would be paid for with “cuts to bureaucracy, consultants, and foreign aid.” (Yeah, that’s not going to get you the money for this kind of a tax cut, it will absolutely disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and you can bet that social programmes will be on the chopping block). He also regaled the crowd with a stupid meme tale about telling a child that income tax is a “punishment for doing well,” rather than the entry fee for civilization. Because Poilievre is fundamentally an anti-government conservative (in spite of having spent his entire life in public office). (Day one recap here).

The NDP started off in Montreal, where he promised to set aside even more public land for rent-controlled homes, but didn’t exactly spell out how this would be different than what the federal government is already doing about leasing public lands (nor did he address the fact that a lot of that “government-owned land” are actually contaminated sites). He also took some jabs at a punching bag in an outdoor gym—because he’s spent the last few weeks trying to burnish a tough-guy image—before the bus went down the 401 to Toronto. (Day one recap here). He’ll spend much of the day there today, before heading to Hamilton later afternoon.

Given the two promises around tax cuts, here are some analyses of what it might mean, once we get more details. Economists, however, are pretty sceptical thus far that the maths are going to work out for these cuts.

The lowest federal income-tax bracket is currently 15%.The Liberals have promised to cut it to 14%.The Conservatives have promised to cut it to 12.75%.Here's a chart depicting how much less tax that would mean for you, depending on your income.(Earn more than $177,882? Read the fine print!)

— Robson Fletcher (@robsonfletcher.com) 2025-03-24T19:35:49.136Z

I agree with Emmett. One party is promsing a 1 point cut to the lowest income tax rate; the other 2.25 points. Neither has proposed a credible way to pay for it.We need to see credible plans for big economic challenges and big defence/security threats.Hope that will be coming soon.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-24T19:16:57.508Z

The Leadership Debates Commission announced the dates for the two official “consortium” debates as April 16th and 17thin Montreal, French first, then English, each with a single moderator after the complete gong show of the previous two election cycles. There will not be a TVA “face-à-face” debate this time, as they planned to charge the leaders $75,000 each to “offset costs,” and the Liberals balked, so it won’t go ahead. The other campaigns are trying to say Carney was too afraid of a second French debate, but charging the parties to hold it was a very, very bad precedent, and it’s probably for the best that it wasn’t’ allowed to take hold.

Leaders' debates are planned for April 16th and 17th, with one moderator apiece, and it's not going to be Shachi Kurl (who handed the Bloc the win they were looking for). #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-24T15:08:02.031Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-03-24T13:08:03.483Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian missiles hit a densely-populated part of Sumy, wounding 88 people, while there were further air attacks on Kyiv, wounding one and damaging houses. A Russian cyberattack also hit Ukraine’s state railway service, adding to the chaos of the situation.

Continue reading →