Tag Archives: Russia

Roundup: Sandboxing powers?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the weekend, Althia Raj published a column that points to a power the government is trying to give itself in the budget that lets ministers exempt certain people and companies from non-criminal laws, and the fact that this felt like it was being snuck into the budget implementation bill when it wasn’t in the main budget document. Jennifer Robson, inspired by Raj’s column, delves into the Budget Implementation Act to see the sections in question for herself, and makes some pretty trenchant observations about the fact that the powers in here are giving ministers a pretty hefty amount of leeway without necessarily a lot of transparency, because they have the option of simply not publishing or reporting which laws they’re suspending for whom, and that we need to worry about the injuries to democratic norms.

So, what is up with these particular powers? Well, it turns out that this is very likely some long-promised action on creating “regulatory sandboxes,” and the means to implement them.

The 2024 budget talked about working up a plan for "regulatory sandboxes"—temporary exemptions from restrictions to allow experiments with new things, especially products, that existing regulations didn't anticipate. It's in a few places, like this:

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:55:47.297Z

They'd consulted publicly on it before. This is generally a pretty dull type of government consultation, but it was done. www.canada.ca/en/governmen…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:58:04.805Z

Having announced plans to legislate on it in 2024, the Trudeau government did not follow through, in either of the two "budget bills" that stemmed from the budget.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:59:51.381Z

But the regulatory-sandbox idea returned in the 2025 budget. Not at length, but it's in the roundup of legislative changes that implementing the 2025 budget requires. (Some people start with the deficit numbers when first picking a new budget up; I start with the legislative changes.)

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:03:09.547Z

My point is that you have to be careful with premises like, "I didn't know about it, so they've been hiding it and being sneaky."Tech businesses have been calling for regulatory sandboxes for *years,* there've been public consultations, and it was promised in two successive budgets.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:06:02.132Z

The idea's history goes back much farther than 2024, to be clear. Here's a Logic story from 2018, the first year we existed, noting a promise on regulatory sandboxes in the 2018 fall economic statement: thelogic.co/news/special…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:10:57.100Z

So, this could very well be what that is referring to. This being said, I do see the concerns of Robson when it comes to some of the transparency around these measures, because these powers give ministers all kinds of leeway not to report on their suspension of laws for this “sandboxing,” and you have to remember that Carney already gave himself broad Henry VIII powers under his Build Canada Act legislation, which is ripe for abuse, particularly in a parliament that has largely lost its ability to do necessary oversight. I think the government needs to be extremely careful here, because this could easily blow up in their faces.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-06T15:08:02.695Z

Ukraine Dispatch

At least seven people have been injured in a drone strike in Sumy region. Russia claims to have taken two more villages in the Kharkiv and Donetsk regions. Here is a look at Ukraine’s naval drone operations, and the growing number of women in combat roles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta uses Notwithstanding Clause against teachers

Posted on by

The Alberta legislature sat until about 2 AM on Tuesday morning to pass their bill to end the teacher’s strike with the invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause, with time allocation limiting debate at each stage of the bill to a mere hour apiece, which makes this an affront to both parliamentary democracy, and the very notion of rights in the province given that Danielle Smith has decided there is little to fear from her tramping over them. Oh, and while the legislature was sitting until 2 AM, Smith herself was in an airport lounge on her way to Saudi Arabia.

There are too many disingenuous arguments made to justify invoking the Clause for me to rebut here, but suffice to say, merely saying that the Clause is part of the constitution therefore that justifies its use is horseshit, or that the Supreme Court of Canada invented a right to strike, therefore the Clause is justified to pushback against judicial activism is also motivated reasoning. Even more than that, Smith’s government is claiming they can’t meet the teachers’ demands because they’re too expensive is also risible—they’re the richest province in the country, but they made the choice to double down on resource royalties (whose value has been plunging) in order to cut taxes once again. This is self-inflicted, ideological, and one has to wonder when Albertans are going to wake up that their government is quite literally undermining the entire public sector in the province quite deliberately.

https://bsky.app/profile/lindsaytedds.bsky.social/post/3m4azh342fk27

Populations on whom Canadian governments have used or threatened to use the notwithstanding clause, allowing them to override Charter rights: – trans and nonbinary kids- religious minorities – homeless people – teachersedmontonjournal.com/news/politic…

— Anna Mehler Paperny (@mehlerpaperny.bsky.social) 2025-10-28T00:33:22.757Z

We’ll see what the next steps are in terms of responses, given that the teachers’ union has decided against work-to-rule, but for the moment, say goodbye to extra-curricular activities as teachers exempt themselves from them. There is talk of mass protest from other labour unions in the province, and a general strike is always a possibility. But can I just take a moment to say that those of you who are bringing out the “No Queens” stuff already to please just not. We live in a constitutional monarchy and we have a Queen, and aping American protests is lazy and gauche. Find a different slogan.

Guys. Come on.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-10-28T12:56:29.934Z

effinbirds.com/post/7810977…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-28T21:22:02.896Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that he won’t cede land in any future peace talks, just in case you were wondering.

https://twitter.com/KI_Insight/status/1983180684031349128

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weird fixation on east coast LNG

Posted on by

There was another report about Europeans looking for Canadian LNG, this time in The Logic in a conversation with the German ambassador. What it did not really mention was the actual business case—only that the “long timelines” involved was a reason why former prime minister Justin Trudeau said that there wasn’t a business case for it. The thrust of the piece is that demand maybe longer than just short-term because even rapid electrification will still require some gas, however there is a boatload of context about this that journalists who have this weird fetish for LNG never actually touch on.

First of all, this discussion is only about east coast LNG, not west coast, where the conditions are different, and where there a whole bunch of potential projects that are fully permitted, and have all of their approvals in place, but aren’t moving ahead because the market isn’t showing demand (and by demand, we mean signing long-term contracts to buy the product). While this was also the case on the east coast, it’s complicated by the lack of ready supply of natural gas to liquify. Neither Quebec nor New Brunswick are about to start fracking for the sake of domestic supply, and the costs to bring a pipeline from western Canada to New Brunswick for export purposes is a lot to consider when we think about what is “long term.” That means supply is likely to becoming from the US, and that in turn will drive up local prices because they’re competing with the theoretical export terminal. To add to that, the “long term” we need to keep in mind is that these kinds of plants need to be operating for a good forty years or so to get their money’s worth. Is anyone in Europe thinking about the infrastructure necessary on that kind of time scale? Unlikely, and unlikely at that time scale for the kinds of prices that Canada would be offering, which are higher than they could get elsewhere.

What do they mean by "long-term"? Because these kinds of projects need a 40-year lifespan or so to actually get their money's worth, by which time we'll be well past net-zero goals.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T13:37:04.762Z

This is why these stories never actually make sense, because those journalists never actually talk to an energy economist about it, or if they do, it goes right out the other ear while they maintain this weird fixation on LNG. I’m not quite sure what it’s in service of—have they simply absorbed the propaganda of the oil and gas industry, who say dumb and wrong things like how our fossil fuels are the “cleanest” (they absolutely are not), or worse, that it will displace coal (the final emissions profile is not that much lower than coal, and as David Cochrane is the only journalist to push back on this talking point, there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t just use Canadian LNG in addition to coal rather than displacing it)? Or is this some kind of sad attempt at playing gotcha with Trudeau and the business case line? Because certain journalists are relentless in badgering and hectoring European leaders about this, and it’s just weird, and just completely ignorant of the facts on the ground.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack on Chernihiv meant power cuts for 70,000 people. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says that members can target Russian planes that enter their airspace as necessary. And president Zelenskyy says he is ready to leave office once the war is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No First Ladies in Canada, so stop asking

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I’m going to sigh and rub the bridge of my nose, and maybe massage my temples a few times of this particular doozy of a piece in The Walrus about Mark Carney’s wife, Diana Fox Carney. The subhed refers to her as the “unofficial First Lady,” but in the story itself, it just refers to her as a “First Lady” along with other spouses of heads of state or heads of government interchangeably, and I just can’t you guys.

Guys. Stop it.Canada's "First Lady" is Queen Camilla. Stop trying to import Americanisms, even if you try and couch them in "unofficial" status.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-15T11:44:05.416Z

First of all, it matters that we’re a constitutional monarchy and not a presidential republic. That means that our “First Lady,” if we were to have one, would be Queen Camilla. If you were discounting the Canadian monarch, the next candidate would be the spouse of the Governor General (who once upon a time was called the “Chatelaine/Chatelain of Rideau Hall” as an unofficial title). Yes, this matters, in particular because the difference between a head of state and a head of government matters a great deal, particularly when it comes to the kind of role they play within government, and just because the American system fuses the two together, that’s pretty much unique in the world, and is a far cry from how our Westminster system operates. And right at nearly the very bottom of the piece, she writes:

In this way, being a first lady in Canada is fundamentally different from being one in the US, where the position, while unofficial, comes with an office and staff. In Canada, the prime minister’s spouse has no formal role or institutional support, and technically isn’t even the partner of a head of state. As a result, the title “first lady” doesn’t really apply in the same way.

No kidding! In fact, it undermines the whole gods damned point of your story. You just tried to compare apples and hedgehogs, tried to mash two fundamentally different concepts together, and then was like “Oh well, maybe she’ll get more active at some point!” No! We don’t elect spouses, and they don’t have a role for a reason. If she wants to have a role, she should seek a seat. (This especially goes for Poilievre’s wife, by the way). But trying to jam the spouse of a prime minister into the “First Lady” box is both fundamentally wrong, and a sign of really lazy conceptualizing of how our system of government works. The Walrus should absolutely know better.

Speaking of terrible reporting, the Globe and Mail put out a story yesterday that had the headline that “Liberal staffers strategized over $1-billion loan for Chinese ferries while Freeland dismissed federal connection,” which sounds like they were maybe somehow involved in the loan or procurement while claiming otherwise. But no. The story was about how comms staffers in ministers’ offices were trying to spin the story. That’s it. I saw lots of reactions on social media from people who read the headline and assumed that something hinky was going on that should be looked into by parliamentarians, but no. It’s about comms staffers spinning. Can we just not? This was not a story, and it especially was not a story about some kind of cover-up.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-14T20:02:07.093Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched a massive attack against Zaporizhzhia, killing at least one and injuring at least seven so far. International monitors say that cluster munitions have resulted in over 1200 civilian casualties since the Russian invasion began in 2022.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with “building things” nostalgia

Posted on by

In all of the announcements that prime minister Mark Carney made this week, particularly around the Major Projects Office and the first tranche of projects that he was championing, there was something he said that bothers me. “We used to build big things in this country and we used to build them quickly,” he said, which is something that we hear a lot, particularly from conservatives. “We built a cross-country railroad in seven years!” But nobody wants to mention how that railroad, or any of those big projects got built, and what changed, because nostalgia is a seductive liar.

What changed, of course, is that we realized we can’t just devastate the environment, and that we can’t just keep displacing Indigenous peoples on their own lands, or that we can’t treat imported labour like slaves, or with working conditions that ensured that a great many of them died along the way. (Yes, I know there are problems with temporary foreign workers and modern-day slavery, but that is a separate discussion). And what is particularly concerning is that while Carney is not acknowledging what changed is that he gave himself a giant Henry VIII clause in his major projects legislation that lets him ignore environmental legislation, or whatever he finds inconvenient, in order to get these big things built fast. Does nobody see a problem here? Really?

Meanwhile, Poilievre mocks the “speeds not seen in generations” talks, and the unspoken part of his “government get out of the way” line is that it ultimately means environmental degradation, ignoring Indigenous rights, labour rights, you name it, because those are the things that are inconvenient. So, in a way, Carney and Poilievre are ultimately aligning on these particular things, and we shouldn’t be shrugging this off. Things changed for a reason. Going back to the 19thcentury is not a sustainable way forward, no matter how dire the economic situation we find ourselves in.

Ukraine Dispatch

Three people were killed in an incursion in the Sumy region, but that incursion has been pushed back. Ukrainian drones hit Russia’s key oil terminal in Primorsk. NATO announced plans to further shore up defences on their eastern flank after the incursion into Polish airspace. And Prince Harry made a surprise visit to Kyiv in support of wounded soldiers.

Continue reading →

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: Presiding officers (more or less) assemble

Posted on by

Over the past couple of days, Speaker Scarpaleggia hosted his counterparts from most of the other G7 countries (Japan’s had to bow out because of a prior obligation), with the addition of the president of the European Parliament and the chairman of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, in a fairly long-standing tradition that rotates hosting. There wasn’t much coverage on the meeting, and apparently the location was kept secret until journalists were bussed to the location out at Meech Lake, but there was but a single story on the CP wire about it.

These kinds of meetings are important, not only for the sake of parliamentary diplomacy, but also because it allows democratic presiding officers to compare notes on best practices in the age of disinformation and increased security threats, and particularly after several legislatures adopted hybrid formats during the height of the pandemic, and only a few have allowed them to lapse. (Let me be clear—Canada should end the hybrid format and online voting for MPs as well because they’re an affront to some of the basic features of our parliamentary democracy, but the Liberals under Trudeau were very resistant to doing so). This is absolutely beneficial to all concerned, particularly because of the diversity of legislatures represented, and there are similar kinds of meetings among Commonwealth parliaments that align more traditionally on the Westminster model.

The thing that always gets me about this particular meeting every year, however, is the inclusion of the American Speaker. Not because America shouldn’t be included (which is now up for debate given that they are no longer a democracy), but rather because their Speaker is not really a presiding officer in the way our Speaker is, or the chairmen of other legislatures. Instead, the American Speaker is more of a de facto prime minister, who controls the majority party in the legislature, and isn’t really chairing debates in the same way. I find it odd and somewhat incompatible with the purpose of these kinds of meetings, but that’s just more of a curiosity. Of course, as soon as Speaker Mike Johnson returned to Washington, he delivered this steaming pile of horseshit, so spending time with actual democratic presiding officers didn’t rub off on him.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-05T22:56:01.960Z

Programming Note: I’m taking a long weekend from the blog for my birthday, so I’ll see you back here on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces have attacked Russia’s Ryazan oil refinery, part of a series of attacks that are cutting refining capacity and accelerating the stagnation of Russia’s economy. The US says they are ending a military assistance programme that is of particular benefit to Baltic nations, because of course they are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “summit” that achieved nothing

Posted on by

So, that Trump-Putin meeting went about as well as expected. Trump literally rolled out the red carpet for a murderer and war criminal, gave him a military flypast, and then invited him into his limo (even though Putin brought his own), which freaked out every single security expert on social media and television, because they were alone together, and nobody knows if Trump explained to him the security measures in the vehicle, or if anything else was said with no one else around to hear.

The meeting went nowhere, in spite of talk about an “understanding,” and in the press conference after, Putin went first, spoke at length, flattered Trump obsequiously, and Trump rambled at his incoherent best about how they didn’t come to an agreement, and they didn’t take any questions at the end. But they were chummy, and Trump still thinks he’s Putin’s best friend, and the war will continue, as we all knew it would.

I continue to be struck by Putin's confidence in the idea that he can play Trump. His whole remarks stuck to the idea that the only barriers to peace are Ukraine and Europe. Not even a hat tip to what Russia wants or expects from a deal. Just total bullshit and Trump flattery.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2025-08-15T23:29:30.125Z

The fact that they didn't take questions seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that they got nowhere and have nothing to say. At best, Trump is going to be irate that the bombardment of Ukraine continues after today.At worst, Trump is going to be sucked into a vortex of time-wasting summits.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2025-08-15T23:30:37.487Z

The Kremlin just dropped this clip of Putin and Trump getting chummy post-press conference.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2025-08-15T23:41:32.030Z

Just to hammer this in:I don't know of an example in US history of comparable *in-person humiliation* for a US president. And of course for the country. Trump will soon realize how visibly he was "owned." In view of the whole world.

— James Fallows (@jfallows.bsky.social) 2025-08-16T00:17:22.899Z

The meeting was a disaster for everyone except two people. Trump got his photo op and his ego boost. Putin got his photo op, whitewashing of war crimes and no sanctions. No one in Ukraine, Europe or the United States benefited in any way.

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-08-16T04:12:52.329Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ahead of the meeting, Russia attacked Dnipropetrovsk with missiles, killing at least one and wounding at least one other. Ukrainian drones hit the Syzrn oil refinery in Russia’s Samara region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford’s false “mandate” demands

Posted on by

Ontario premier Doug Ford confirmed that yes, he will be calling an early election on Wednesday, and spouted a bunch of bullshit about needing a “strong mandate” to deal with Trump, which is fiction. He went so far as to call for the “largest mandate in Ontario history,” which veers dangerously close into one-party-state delusions. And incredibly, Ford said “So you better pray that we get elected, because I’m going to protect everyone’s job, including the media’s job,” which no he won’t, and then said, “Imagine Bonnie Crombie or Marit Stiles sitting across from President Trump negotiating a deal. It would be an absolute disaster. And God help us if that ever happens.” Premiers do not engage in international negotiations. Ever. That is explicitly outside of their jurisdiction. Ford is not going to negotiate with Trump, even if he thinks that “businessman to businessman” they can work something out.

This is pure distraction. Ford has been planning on an early election for months, and now he has Trump as a fig-leaf of an excuse. He wanted to go to an election before the federal election because he doesn’t want Pierre Poilievre to taint his chances in 2026, when the next election is supposed to be held, and he’s afraid of this nonsense “theory” that Ontarians like to have different parties in power federally and provincially. And by running against Trump, he figures he can distract everyone from his corruption (RCMP investigation ongoing) and absolute mismanagement of the healthcare system to the point of its collapse, his dismantling of the post-secondary education system, and the size of the deficits he’s been running after all of his lamentations about Kathleen Wynne’s record when he has done worse by absolutely every metric. But Trump? Well, that’s a real distraction, and his playacting the “Captain Canada” role has been helping him build that, even though he hasn’t actually filled any federal vacuum in leadership (there is a conscious decision not to react to every Trump utterance), and it’s already had the Baby Spice effect on people’s brains.

Meanwhile, his constant claims that he needs a “mandate” is a fraught political concept that doesn’t actually mean anything in a Westminster system. He has a majority legislature. His opposition parties are largely ineffective or in disarray (and he has invoked the Notwithstanding Clause to neuter third-party groups from campaiging against him). Those opposition leaders said they will support anything he needs to do to counter the effect of any Trump tariffs. His claims that he needs a “mandate” to do this is an import that doesn’t actually mean anything. He was elected to govern for four years—he doesn’t need to call an election every time a crisis comes up to say that he needs a “mandate” to deal with it. Nothing would get done if he did. This is naked self-interest, and it needs to be exposed as such, but the Queen’s Park media won’t, and I suspect that Uncle Doug will sail to another election victory, both because he continues to beguile the population, and the opposition parties continue to be useless. It’s absolutely embarrassing.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched a drone barrage against residential buildings in Kyiv overnight Friday, killing three. Russians claim they are about to overtake the town of Velyka Novosilka in the Donetsk region. Ukraine launched an overnight drone attack against one of Russia’s largest oil refineries in the Ryazan region, causing an explosion and damage. Reuters got access to the drone unit that is launching these long-range attacks into Russia to damage their war capabilities.

Continue reading →

Roundup post: Expediting a dubious legal challenge

Posted on by

On Saturday, the Federal Court ruled that they would hear an expedited case on the legal challenge of the granting of prorogation, citing the “critical” nature of the Trump tariff threats, and that this somehow requires the legislative branch of Parliament to be operating when in fact it does not.

Part of the problem is that the UK Supreme Court did overturn a prorogation when Boris Johnson requested it in the lead-up to Brexit, which led a bunch of bad actors in this country to decide they could use that precedent to challenge its use here, never mind that prorogations function slightly different in the UK (there, it tends to be an annual affair, separating shorter legislative sessions, which is not how it has operated here in many decades). There should be no reason why that precedent should apply in Canada at all, let alone in this particular circumstance, but we are dealing with people grasping at legal straws because they want to be able to run to the courts when they lose at politics, which is a Very Bad Thing for democracy and our entire constitutional order.

"Meaningfully debate."I'm as big of a Parliament nerd as they come, and frankly, there is nothing that six hours spent reading slogan-filled prepared speeches into the record will accomplish when it comes to those potential tariffs.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-01-19T02:01:09.284Z

More to the point, nothing was happening in Parliament before the prorogation because of the filibuster, and everyone was threatening non-confidence when it did resume in January, so an election wouldn’t provide Parliament any ability to “meaningfully debate” the Trump tariffs then either. These arguments are specious, and I trust the judge will throw them out of court once the hearings happen, but unfortunately, these are not normal times, and we could be in for a very bad result if government lawyers can’t argue their case well enough.

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight missile and drone strike killed six, including three in Kyiv. Russia claims to have captured two more settlements between Pokrovsk and Kurakhove. Ukrainian forces claim a pair of attacks on oil depots in Russia’s Kaluga and Tula regions.

Continue reading →