Tag Archives: Elections Canada

Roundup: First list of major projects incoming

Posted on by

Today is the day where the first tranche of major projects to be tackled by the Major Projects Office gets announced, and surprising nobody who has paid the slightest bit of attention, there are no pipeline projects on that list. And the reason is because there are no proposals on the table—you can’t approve a project that doesn’t exist, but that hasn’t stopped Pierre Poilievre or Danielle Smith from making hay about it. Instead, what will be on the list is not too surprising—phase two of LNG Canada, the new nuclear project at Darlington, expanding the Port of Montreal, a copper mine project in Saskatchewan, and expanding the Red Chris mine in BC, with a further list of potential projects for the second tranche. The Indigenous Advisory Council for the Major Projects Office was also announced yesterday, for what that’s worth.

Carney did address the media at the opening of the caucus retreat yesterday, and while he spoke about the dire economic situation (in a way that defies it being taken seriously), and talked about diversifying trade with Europe and Asia, and the launch of Build Canada Homes next week, there was one thing that did bother me in particular. Carney said that they were shifting from a question of if we want to build projects to a question of how, which I think is a gross misreading of the situation. It wasn’t really a question of if before—most any project proposal that was submitted for review was serious, but the question of how was predominant all along. The thing is that the “how” changed dramatically over time because the old ways of doing things were no longer acceptable, whether that was in regards to environmental standards, or ignoring the wishes of local First Nations, or making a bunch of promises to those First Nations and then screwing them out of the revenues and jobs that were promised to get their support. Yes, there is lip-service being paid to Indigenous consultation or UNDRIP principles, but Carney has yet to demonstrate that he actually understands what this all means (as he gave himself a giant Henry VIII clause to exempt himself from any of it, he doesn’t want to deal with), so you can understand why there is trepidation about what this is supposed to all mean. And if he doesn’t understand that “how” was always the question, then that’s also a very big problem in how he conceives of things going forward.

Meanwhile, Carney said that there needs to be heightened pressure applied to Russia after the drone attack on Poland (and it sounds like there will be a NATO Article 4 meeting in the near future about it), not that I would expect the Americans to be serious about it. Carney also said that there needs to be a “focused approach” to the temporary foreign workers programme, after former immigration Marc Miller called out Pierre Poilievre for stoking anti-immigration sentiments (because that’s what he’s doing for engagement).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-10T13:25:07.322Z

Ukraine Dispatch

All of the talk yesterday was about how Poland found 14 Russian drones in its territory in the aftermath of the overnight attack, and western leaders rushing to condemn Russia for the attack. President Zelenskyy said that Ukraine and Europe need to work together to create an effect air defence shield.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s omitted immigration changes

Posted on by

The Conservatives are full-on throwing everything they can at the wall to see what sticks, and yesterday it was the moral panic over immigration figures. Pierre Poilievre put out a press release decrying that permits issued had blown past the proposed caps, and that the system is “facing collapse,” which I’m pretty sure is bullshit, before promising to propose “fixes” in the fall, which you can already be assured will mostly be comprised of dog-whistles. (And remember, the problem is less with immigration numbers than it is with premiers who are not doing their jobs with regards to building housing of properly funding healthcare).

Enter Jason Kenney, who went on an extended rant about how he “fixed” the system when he was minister, and how Trudeau and company broke it, but this is also revisionist history. He talks about the sweeping reforms he brought in in 2010, and how everyone praised it, but he omitted that he blunted most of those reforms before they could be implemented. You see, in 2010, it was a hung parliament and the Conservatives couldn’t push through draconian immigration legislation, so they needed to work with the opposition (most notably Olivia Chow as the NDP’s immigration critic), and they passed a bill that had plenty of safeguards in place. In 2011, there was an election where they got a majority, and before the 2010 bill could be fully implemented (because the coming-into-force provisions were going to take as long as a year), Kenney rammed through a new bill that curtailed most of those safeguards, and used tales of international migration cartels, and human smuggling rings that would bring people into the country to collect social assistance, which those cartels would then collect, and so on. Yes, there were problems with high rates of claims from certain countries, but like most things, Kenney was less than honest and building his scaremongering case, while also doing the thing where he played economic migrants against asylum seekers, and made “good immigrants versus bad asylum claimants” arguments to justify his legislation.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1960088637925961993

The other thing that Kenney is blatantly ignoring is that the world is not the same world as it was in 2010, and the migration situation is vastly different than it was back then. So yes, the current government is facing different challenges, but I wouldn’t expect Kenney to be honest about well, pretty much anything, because that’s who Jason Kenney is.

effinbirds.com/post/7790141…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-24T20:02:02.229Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has been stepping up drone attacks on Russian oil refineries and fuel terminals, squeezing their war economy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More proof the carbon levy didn’t raise food prices

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre is at it again, railing about food price inflation, but lo, he can no longer blame it on the carbon levy because that was never actually the problem or the cause of food price inflation, but he certainly vilified it, and Mark Carney capitulated and allowed Poilievre’s vilification to work. Poilievre is now blaming government spending on food price inflation, which is hilariously wrong, but Carney has also capitulated to that as well and is ushering in a new wave of austerity, because why actually explain things when you can just surrender to the bullshit?

Meanwhile, here’s Andrew Leach walking you through why it wasn’t the carbon levy and never was the carbon levy.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians broke through the front lines near Dobropillia, but were quickly contained (but it’s a poor narrative for the upcoming Trump-Putin talks). Ukraine has also been regaining territory in Sumy region. President Zelenskyy says that Russia wants the remaining 30 percent of Donetsk region for a ceasefire, which they won’t give him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lowering expectations even further

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney spent the morning with the premiers in Muskoka as part of their meeting, and proceeded to lower expectations even further than they already are. The message of the day was that he’s only going to take the “best deal” in negotiations with the US, and that matters more than the August 1st deadline, which is already beyond the “deadline” that was agreed to in Kananaskis, and so long as talks are ongoing, retaliation measures continue to also be pushed back so that American bullying can continue unabated. But the kind of deal he wants isn’t going to be available, because this is Trump, and we’re just not going to get a deal that “preserves, reinforces and stabilises” the trade relationship, because Trump does not want that, nor do we want to keep tying ourselves to a failing autocratic regime whose economy is increasingly defined by the chaos of its leader.

We also learned that he stayed at Doug Ford’s cottage the night before, and that they stayed up talking past midnight, and Ford just gushed like a schoolgirl about Carney’s business background, and said that he would hand the keys of a business over to the prime minister (and said “business” about fifty more times), all of which was a little bit unseemly. We know that Ford continues to fancy himself a “businessman” because he inherited part of his father’s label business, but this constant fawning over anyone with a business background is a little bit unbecoming, particularly if you pay any bit of attention to what happens.

Meanwhile, Ford also signed an MOU with Danielle Smith and Scott Moe about building pipelines to Ontario and James Bay (which is never going to happen because it’s too shallow for tanker traffic), amidst the usual nonsense about federal environmental laws that they are trying to be rid of. There are no proponents for these pipelines, because there is no economic case for them. And if Carney is true to his word and says there’s no PONIs without Indigenous buy-in or consent, well, the pipeline Smith wants to the northwest coast of BC won’t happen because the First Nations in the area do not want one. Nevertheless, I think Andrew Leach is right in that they’re stacking up a wish list they’ll never meet in order to keep blaming the federal government, because that’s what they do best.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine lost one of their French Mirage fighters due to equipment failure, but the pilot was able to safely eject. There were protests in Kyiv because president Zelenskyy signed a law that rolled back the independence of two anti-corruption bodies and placed them under executive control, which was seen largely as his first major unforced error, and give ammunition to Putin supporters.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1947576960110014850

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta’s censorship plan goes ahead

Posted on by

The Alberta government released their policy on “explicit materials” in school libraries yesterday, and it went badly, in part because it was confusing about what they considered acceptable “non-explicit sexual materials,” and pretty much every media outlet got it wrong, while my Xtra colleague Mel Woods was out there correcting everyone for several hours until they could update their stories. The government even had to put out a clarification.

Alberta's new school library standards are here, and include a total ban on "explicit sexual content" from school libraries in the province Notably, "religious texts" are excluded — and when asked during the briefing today to give examples, only the Bible was brought up as an obvious exception.

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T18:35:11.927Z

I understand that the confusion is between "non-explicit sexual content" and what the government is defining as "not considered sexual" — they are two separate things

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T20:01:59.483Z

All of the media outlets reporting that books with puberty/kissing/hugging are banned in Alberta for Grade 9 and under … that's not true!!

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T20:33:27.209Z

All of this being said, what got me was that they got a token trans person to insist that this particular censorship (and let’s be clear that it’s what this is) has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ people but is just about sexually explicit materials, and they even said something to the effect of “At that age, we need guidance and not sexual materials.” And I immediately started swearing at the TV, because this is where it always starts. This is a page directly out of the playbook of autocrats like Viktor Orbán, who use LGBTQ+ scapegoating to further their ends. Hell, we have a history in this country where wannabe censors at Canada Customs (as it was then known) for seizing innocuous queer materials bound for the Little Sisters bookstore in Vancouver and claiming it was “obscene” (and there’s a Supreme Court decision on this).

For them to say "This is not about LGBTQ+ material, it's about sexually explicit material" as if Little Sisters didn't happen in this country or Viktor Orbán's anti-LGBTQ+ laws that target innocuous books aren't happening RIGHT NOW is absolutely enraging.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-10T18:46:28.143Z

Of course, this is about LGBTQ+ people and materials. Three of the four books that started this moral panic on the part of the Alberta government were queer or trans. They were weaponised by Christian nationalists to achieve this very result. And they will keep complaining that any queer materials are “sexually explicit” by their very nature until the government capitulates. It’s also why the proposed age verification legislation that is making yet another attempt federally is 100 percent guaranteed to be used to attack queer and trans materials. Pretending otherwise means you are either mendacious or an idiot, or possibly both.

Ukraine Dispatch

Here is a look at how the residents of Kyiv are dealing with the increasing waves of attacks in recent weeks. A rebuilding conference took place in Italy, committing over ten billion Euros to the effort. Meanwhile, the UK signed a deal to supply air defence missiles to Ukraine, while the UK and France also agreed that Paris would be the headquarters of the “coalition of the willing” for Ukraine.

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: “Forcing” nothing but a press release

Posted on by

As the parliamentary cycle starts to wind down now that MPs have gone home for the summer (minus the couple who will take part in the royal assent ceremony that usually ends the Senate sitting in June), I did want to take a moment to appreciate David Reevely’s particular annoyance at the way MPs constantly use the term “forced” when describing using ordinary parliamentary procedure to get their own way.

In this particular example, where the Speaker agreed to split the vote on Bill C-5 (and no, he did not split the bill, as some have suggested—and mea culpa that I was not sufficiently clear on that in my last post), the most that the NDP accomplished here was symbolism. Yes, they could show that they voted to support one part of the bill and not the other, but the bill in its entirely goes through regardless. But again, they didn’t really “force” anything. The Speaker granted their request without a vote. This language is endemic, and the Conservatives like to use it, particularly in committee, when they would team up with the Bloc and NDP to send the committee off on some chase for new clips to harvest, but even there, simple math in a minority parliament is hardly “forcing,” because that’s pretty much a function of a hung parliament. The opposition gets to gang up on the government as a matter of course.

I get that they like to use the language to flex their political muscles, and the NDP in particular right now are desperate to show that they’re still relevant now that they have lost official party status, but maybe have some self-respect? If all you’re accomplishing is providing yourselves with new opportunities to create content for your social media rather than doing something tangible and substantive, then maybe that’s a problem that you should be looking into, especially if it’s in the process of trying to prove that you’re still relevant to the political landscape. (And also, maybe why you lost official party status). And I get that their claims that they “forced” the government to do a bunch of things during COVID earned them the praise of their existing fan-base, but they didn’t force anything then either—they pushed on an open door, and patted themselves on the back for it. (Seriously, the Liberals weren’t going to wind down those pandemic supports early, and if the NDP thinks they were the deciding factor, they have spent too long drinking their own bathwater). But no, you didn’t force anything, and stop pretending that’s what you did.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians attacked Kyiv overnight, killing at least five and damaged the entrance to a metro station used as a bomb shelter. Russians claim to have captured the village of Zaporizhzhya in the Donetsk region. Ukrainian forces say that they are fighting 10,000 Russian soldiers inside of Russia’s Kursk region, which is preventing Russia from sending more forces into the Donetsk region. President Zelenskyy says that during the recent POW and body swaps with Russia, that Russia turned over at least twenty bodies of their own citizens (complete with passports) because they are so disorganised.

Good reads:

  • Mark Carney arrived in Brussels for both an EU and a NATO summit back-to-back. He also called for calm and diplomacy in the situation with Iran.
  • Ambassador Kirsten Hillman says that there is progress on trade talks with the US, and she sees a path forward.
  • A recent report shows that CSE inappropriately shared information on Canadians to international partners without a ministerial authorization.
  • Those promised pay raises for the military may not be an across-the-board increase, but a combination of different bonuses (because of course).
  • Here is a look at the retention crisis within the Canadian Forces.
  • Some Indigenous youth are preparing for a summer of protest over the different federal and provincial fast-track legislation.
  • The Eagle Mine in Yukon, which suffered a catastrophic contaminant release, is going up for sale.
  • Former Cabinet minister John McCallum passed away at age 75.
  • David Eby says he’s not opposed to a pipeline in northern BC, but he is opposed to one being publicly funded, especially as TMX still has plenty of capacity.
  • Kevin Carmichael reminds us that climate change is an existential economic threat and that it needs to be tackled, as MAGA politics has spooked efforts to combat it.
  • Anne Applebaum reflects on Trump’s complete lack of strategy, whether it’s with Iran, the Middle East, or anywhere.
  • Susan Delacourt and Matt Gurney debate what Poilievre has been up to since he dropped out of the spotlight, and the security of his future as leader.
  • My weekend column points out that the solution to parties hijacking their own nominations is not to demand that Elections Canada take the process over.

Odds and ends:

*laughs, cries*

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-22T21:23:58.539Z

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

QP: Counter-tariff concern-trolling

Posted on by

The PM was away in Saskatoon, meeting with the premiers, while things got underway back in Ottawa. Even though Andrew Scheer was present, he didn’t lead off Question Period, and instead left that up to Kyle Seeback, and he worried that the prime minister ran on a platform of “elbows-up,” and promised to get $20 billion in retaliatory tariffs, but most of the counter-tariffs were “secretly” cancelled (not true), before he raised the prospect of higher steel and aluminium tariffs, and demanded to know how much the counter-tariffs would generate. François-Philippe Champagne promised to fight the unjust tariffs, and that they would build the Canada of tomorrow. Seeback complained that the Liberals don’t answer questions, and accused the prime minister of lying to steel workers. Mélanie Joly responded that she was in contact with industry leaders, and that they were in “solution mode” by promising to use Canadian steel and aluminium in major projects. Raquel Dancho took over and she too concern trolled about the dollar-for-dollar tariffs and demanded to know how much had been collected. Joly congratulated Dancho for being named her critic and said that no executive order has been signed yet. Dancho said that she could assume the figure was zero, and tried again while adding in the “punishing carbon tax” as a drain on business. Champagne insisted that they were defending workers and Canadian industry. Richard Martel took over in French to again demand to know how much in counter-tariffs have been collected, and Joly spoke about meeting with aluminium industry and union leaders over the weekend. Martel took some gratuitous swipes at Carney and said he talks out of both sides of his mouth, and Champagne insisted that they did not capitulate, and that they were standing up for industry and workers.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she claimed that the first ministers’ meeting was about forcing a “dirty oil pipeline” through Quebec. Joly pointed out the size of the Liberals’ Quebec caucus, and trotted out the lines about the standing up for industry workers. Normandin raised Carney’s meeting with oil and gas executives, and accused him of putting them first. Joly said that the job of the prime minister is to meet with everyone, and that right now they were focused on building, including high-speed rail. Mario Simard took over and repeated the same accusation, and Joly said that job creation was in the national interest. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The King and the Speech from the Throne

Posted on by

The King delivered the Speech from the Throne yesterday, and it went about as well as expected. His French was strong, and the introduction that he wrote himself (or that his office wrote) included language about reconciliation, Canadian identity, and the parts of the country that he takes with him. The bulk of the speech was pretty predictable Mark Carney points, but it was weird hearing the King read out how much the tax cut is expected to save families. (Here are five key messages, the focus on joining ReArm Europe, and some deeper analysis).

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lq5yh6k44k2u

The responses to the speech were, frankly, rote and predictable. Pierre Poilievre complained that it didn’t spell out implementation, which no Speech does, and then demanded a whole bunch of non sequitur legislation be repealed, because he said so. The Bloc, naturally, claimed that Carney wants to centralize power and ignore Quebec’s interests. And Don Davies of the NDP said there wasn’t anything about workers in there, and called the King “foreign.” Does every opposition party in this country have to be so gods damned lazy? Is it really so difficult to actually come up with a new answer about something (while also not making up absolute bullshit, holus-bolus?)

Every bill he lists he has lied about what it actually does. Every. Single. Bill.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-27T17:30:33.538Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3lq67lfvxic2k

Meanwhile, whether by coincidence or by design, shortly after the Kiing and Queen departed Canada, Trump declared that the price tag for Canada to join the so-called “Golden Dome” is $61 billion, but free if they become the 51st state. You know, after the new US ambassador to Canada said that the “51st state” talk was over and that we need to “move on.” Yeah, that was really going to happen.

Old enough to remember this from the new U.S. ambassador to Canada:“From my standpoint, from the president’s standpoint, 51st state’s not coming backs.”(Ten days ago.)www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/w…

— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) 2025-05-27T21:50:20.627Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-05-27T14:08:17.858Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The number of Russian drones attacking Ukraine fell to about 60 overnight Tuesday, but there were still several injuries.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delay to delivery?

Posted on by

The new natural resource minister, Tim Hodgson, gave a speech in Calgary yesterday and everyone in the energy sector was all hot and bothered because he insisted that they were moving to a culture of delivery instead of delay. And you’ll have to forgive my cynicism, but that seems to completely ignore what the actual issues of delay have been, and if you say “Liberal regulation!” you’re going to get a smack. The premise of saying they need “one project, one review” ignores that that’s been the case for ages now—there are no duplicative reviews, because federal and provincial reviews look at different things, and on projects where they had shared jurisdiction, they set up a joint review panel so that it was *gasp!* one review. Anyone who says they were mired in duplication is frankly not being that honest.

The real issue has been proper consultation, which is what leads projects to wind up in litigation, particularly from Indigenous groups. Harper’s attempt to reform assessments to “streamline” them meant that most of those projects wound up in litigation because, well, they ignored their obligations. In some cases, like Northern Gateway, the Conservatives ignored the process that they put into place for meaningful consultation, and well, the project died on the vine as a result. And with BC and Ontario both pushing legislation to “streamline” projects which basically means bulldozing over environmental and Indigenous obligations, well, that’s all going to wind up in litigation too. This was the whole point of the Impact Assessment Act that Jason Kenney in particularly successfully villainized—it was to ensure proper consultation up-front, at the design phase of a project, so that the rest of the process would go faster because you did the hard work at the beginning. But it became the subject of lies and disinformation, and yes, the federal government’s attempt to exert jurisdiction over certain projects because the polluting effects cross borders didn’t convince the Supreme Court of Canada, but that didn’t render the entire statute or the issues of up-front consultation obsolete or moot, and nobody seems to want to explain that part.

One more thing about Hodgson’s speech was the he singled out Pathways Alliance as a project he wants to see move forward. I’m really hoping that this means he’s telling them to put up or shut up, because we know that they basically went dark because their claims about building a massive carbon capture and storage hub were overblown and they were about to face legal consequences for greenwashing thanks to new powers for the Competition Bureau. And frankly, the whole point of the emissions cap was to tell the energy sector to put up or shut up—that they have been boasting about how they’re going to reduce their emissions, so when the government basically told them to prove it, suddenly they started crying about how this as a “production cap” and it was unfair to them. Girl, please. You insisted you could do this, so prove it.

Meanwhile, we’ve had our first glimpse into Mark Carney’s PMO, and while he’s insistent on punctuality, business attire, and UK spellings (hooray!), and decision paralysis is not setting in (so far), he’s also starting to micromanage all kinds of things that he shouldn’t be, which sounds an awful lot like a Harper trait. Part of the problem so far is a lack of a proper chief of staff, and that ministers haven’t staffed up yet either, and yet he wants to operate at a breakneck pace. But there are other warning signs—because he doesn’t understand politics, he really hasn’t given thought to how to navigate a minority House of Commons, to say nothing of the Senate (ahem), and not knowing how to deal with Parliament could lead to a situation where the Conservatives can team up with the Bloc and the NDP yet again to start frustrating anything passing once again—and for all of their talk about working together and getting things done, don’t think for a second that they’re actually not more interested in scoring points and embarrassing the Liberals. Trudeau lost the ability to manage these things, in part because of disinterest, and we’ll see if Carney doesn’t make the same mistake.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a massive missile and drone attack against Kyiv overnight, which has injured at least eight people (Photos). Ukraine and Russia exchanged 390 prisoners each on Friday, marking one of the largest swaps since the war began.

Continue reading →