Tag: United

  • How Volodymyr Zelenskyy United His Country — With Comedy

    How Volodymyr Zelenskyy United His Country — With Comedy

    [ad_1]

    politico zelensky horz2

    When Ukraine became independent in 1991 amid the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was a country in search of a national idea. This wasn’t straightforward: The ancestors of Ukraine’s citizens played different roles in a national history that included both great achievements and bloodshed. People searched for something beyond a belief in their constitution that could bring them together across differences in politics and life experience.

    Ukrainians have long struggled with forces that threatened to divide their society. Under Soviet rule, Moscow’s policies of Russification in Ukraine had contributed to a situation that made independent Ukraine seem divided along the Dnipro River, with Ukrainian speakers on one side and Russian speakers on the other. Today, the fact that many Ukrainians still speak Russian in everyday life is in many ways a legacy of those Soviet-era policies — including the death by starvation of millions of Ukrainians because of grain confiscation, and the summary executions of hundreds of Ukrainian artists, writers and intellectuals — not an expression of brotherhood with Russia, no matter what the Kremlin might say.

    But Ukraine has never been such a binary place. Ukrainians have a long multicultural history that includes not only ethnic Ukrainians but also people who identify as Jewish (including Zelenskyy), Bulgarian, Crimean Tatar, Hungarian, Greek, Korean, Polish, Romani, Romanian, Russian and others, whose languages are still spoken in Ukraine today. In his 2020 presidential New Year’s greeting, Zelenskyy acknowledged the nature of Ukraine’s diversity by speaking not only in Ukrainian, but also in Hungarian, Crimean Tatar and Russian.

    In 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine’s Donbas region under a thinly veiled pretext of supporting Russian-speaking separatists, Ukrainians largely united against these violations of their country’s territory. At that time, Zelenskyy’s comedy troupe voiced in metaphor Ukrainians’ frustration at Russia’s incessant lies and refusal to let them go and their pain at the tepid response of the international community, singing of “European ‘brothers’ who traded us for gas.”

    During those years, the stress of the Russian occupation of Crimea and Donbas threatened Ukrainians’ unity. Some noticed an opportunity to win national elections if parts of the Russified east were no longer part of Ukraine, murmuring in private about being ready to “let the Donbas go.” But even then, still working as a comedian, Zelenskyy was not ready to abandon his compatriots in Russia-occupied areas. In their comedy skits, Zelenskyy and his troupe amplified their longstanding criticisms of Russian chauvinism, turning the tables to pantomime and mock Russians’ longstanding ethnic slurs, lies about Ukrainians and attitudes about Crimea.

    At that time, Zelenskyy and his comedy troupe performed mainly in the Russian language, reaching Ukrainians who used Russian in daily life and came from regions where people sometimes felt alienated from politics in the capital, and who previously had sometimes struggled to see themselves as sharing common experiences and identities with their compatriots who spoke the state language at home and in daily life. By making Ukrainians from different regions feel seen and valued, Zelenskyy invited them into a patriotism that held up love of Ukraine as a central value but did not insist on a particular ethnic or private linguistic identity. He and his troupe showed how Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who did not think of themselves as nationalists, could identify as Ukrainian patriots.

    As a comedian, Zelenskyy and his troupe used an approach to thinking about Ukraine’s past that differed from the us-versus-them thinking that long dominated some public discussion about politics in Ukraine. Performing songs that reminded Ukrainians of shared experiences, he and his troupe not only validated local identities, but admitted mistakes and imperfections, acknowledged disagreement, and fostered a generous, inclusive idea of what it meant to be Ukrainian.

    [ad_2]
    #Volodymyr #Zelenskyy #United #Country #Comedy
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Erik ten Hag angry as Manchester United denied ‘clear penalty’

    Erik ten Hag angry as Manchester United denied ‘clear penalty’

    [ad_1]

    Erik ten Hag insisted that Manchester United should have scored more goals after a 2-2 draw in their Europa League play off first leg against Barcelona at the Camp Nou.

    The Dutchman also complained that Barcelona had escaped a gamechanging clear red card and a penalty after Jules Koundé bundled over Marcus Rashford near the edge of the area at 2-1 to the visitors, suggesting that the atmosphere might have influenced the referee, Maurizio Mariani.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    “It was 2-1, a clear foul on Marcus Rashford and a penalty,” Ten Hag said. “If it’s in the box or just outside the box, it’s definitely a red card. I asked the referee: why? He said it was outside the box and it was no foul. The referee and the linesman were in a good position and if not there is the VAR. It’s not good. It’s a really bad decision. Maybe they were impressed by the pressure that Barcelona made but they can’t be at the highest level.”

    Barcelona also had a penalty appeal when the ball appeared to hit Fred on the arm, with coach Xavi Hernández confronting the referee at full time. “It’s a penalty the size of a cathedral; how are you going to feel?” Xavi said. “I don’t know what they have to do to blow a penalty for handball. They looked at it as well and said no. It seems incredible to me, incredible.”

    When that was put to Ten Hag and it was suggested that the two decisions evened each other out, he replied: “You can’t see it this way. The Rashford one is at 2-1 and the momentum of the game is totally different. I didn’t see the handball, so maybe it can be a mistake. Maybe it can be two mistakes. But you can’t equalise the two because of the moment in the game, in the whole round. That was an important decision where he was wrong.

    “In a game when you create five or seven chances you have to finish more,” the United coach added. “We should have on this game. We need to be more clinical, finish our chances. In such a game we created many chances and there is a disappointment that we did not finish them.”

    [ad_2]
    #Erik #ten #Hag #angry #Manchester #United #denied #clear #penalty
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Nicola Sturgeon is going. Does that mean the United Kingdom will survive? | Martin Kettle

    Nicola Sturgeon is going. Does that mean the United Kingdom will survive? | Martin Kettle

    [ad_1]

    The political vultures have been circling Nicola Sturgeon for several weeks now. But her resignation as first minister and leader of the SNP still comes as a lightning bolt from a not especially threatening Scottish political sky. It is certain to trigger the biggest convulsion in Scottish politics since the independence referendum of 2014, and its implications will be felt across the electoral and constitutional politics of the whole UK too.

    Sturgeon’s resignation statement at Bute House today showed why she will be such a formidable act to follow, and also why it is time for her to go. She had much to say, about Scotland, independence, Covid and political life, which was as eloquently done as ever. But her speech, perhaps like her leadership, went on too long. Even as she spoke, you could sense that the political world was cruelly turning to consider the post-Sturgeon era.

    It has been a commonplace among those who track Scottish politics that Sturgeon has been in what one columnist called her late imperial phase for many months. She had begun to lose her touch – and hence her hold – especially when compared with her mother-of-the-nation mastery during Covid. Even within the ranks of her Scottish National party, the most self-disciplined and tongue-holding political force in these islands outside Sinn Féin, criticisms and disagreements were being voiced.

    Nicola Sturgeon resigns as first minister of Scotland – video

    Sturgeon’s departure emerges from a constellation of proximate causes. Her handling of Scotland’s new gender recognition laws – unpopular with the majority of Scots – has been uncharacteristically heavy footed. Her strategy on independence – still the central divide in Scottish politics – has been heading into a constitutional cul-de-sac. Her domestic record as first minister has come under unusually intense and scathing challenge. Her performances in the Holyrood parliament and in her recent press conferences have been second rate, especially from a political leader who was once such an accomplished public performer.

    In the end, though, she is surely also going for the reason that she tried to put at the centre of her resignation speech. She has been SNP leader and first minister for eight years now, since succeeding Alex Salmond. She was Salmond’s deputy for nearly eight years before that. There is no ideal number of years for a leader to serve, but Sturgeon’s 16 years – like those of Angela Merkel – are surely too much. As Jacinda Ardern put it, she simply doesn’t have enough left in the tank.

    Sturgeon’s departure triggers a leadership contest between contenders who possess only a fraction of her name and brand recognition. The contest will not be like 2014, when Sturgeon was the self-evident SNP leader in waiting. Sturgeon is said to believe that Kate Forbes, the Scottish finance secretary, possesses, as Napoleon once put it, a marshal’s baton in her knapsack.

    Forbes is talented but she is also relatively untested. She also comes from a much less liberal progressive background than either Sturgeon or Salmond. Her views on abortion and gender recognition are not Sturgeon’s. It would be ironic if these views equipped Forbes to reach across the political divide in the way that Sturgeon said today she herself could no longer do.

    In the short run, Sturgeon’s successor must navigate what will now be a much less predictable SNP special conference next month on independence strategy. Sturgeon made a point of saying in her resignation speech that her departure would free the SNP to choose its path. But this will not be easy or necessarily successful. The SNP stands or falls on independence.

    In the medium term, Sturgeon’s departure robs the SNP of its greatest individual electoral asset. It would be outrageous to claim that the SNP has been a one-woman band, any more than it was a one-man band under Salmond. But the SNP always put Sturgeon front and centre of all its electoral campaigns, and without her there will not be the same allure and confidence. For that reason, today was a very good day for Scottish Labour and for Keir Starmer, who will see their general election chances boosted.

    In the long run, though, the big question posed by Sturgeon’s resignation is whether this is the watershed moment for the independence cause that unionists quietly crave and nationalists, if they are frank, still fear. Does her departure mean, and reflect the fact, that the nationalist tide has passed its high point? Is the United Kingdom a little more secure tonight with Sturgeon’s going than it was when she was in the ascendancy? Many will think that the answer is yes. But many have been wrong about this very subject before.

    [ad_2]
    #Nicola #Sturgeon #United #Kingdom #survive #Martin #Kettle
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Emir of Qatar enters race to buy Manchester United

    Emir of Qatar enters race to buy Manchester United

    [ad_1]

    London: The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, is interested in buying Premier League giants Manchester United, according to a media report.

    He values the club below the Glazer family’s 6 billion pound price and there is recognition UEFA may have to agree to a regulation change as the country’s ruler already owns French club Paris Saint-Germain (PSG), The Guardian reported

    The emir purchased PSG in 2011 through Qatar Sports Investment. Current UEFA rules do not allow clubs with the same owners to face each other in one of its competitions, so a Qatar-owned United and Qatar-owned PSG would not be allowed to compete in a Champions League tie should such a fixture arise, The Guardian reported.

    While the purchase of United is being explored, it is understood those driving the Qatar interest are conscious of the UEFA rules and a solution is being sought. This could include trying to persuade UEFA to consider the possibility of adjusting or changing its regulations.

    The Glazer family put United up for sale in November last year, announcing it is “commencing a process to explore strategic alternatives”, potentially bringing an end to its 17-year ownership of the club.

    The Raine Group, which oversaw the sale of Chelsea, has been appointed as the exclusive financial advisor, and it believed 6 billion pound is wanted for the 20-time champions of England. However, the emir believes 4.5 billion pound is a more realistic price, The Guardian reported.

    Sir Jim Ratcliffe, a billionaire regarded as being one of Britain’s richest people, confirmed his company, Ineos, was in the running to buy United last month. Radcliffe, 70, was born in Failsworth in Greater Manchester, and is a lifelong United supporter.

    [ad_2]
    #Emir #Qatar #enters #race #buy #Manchester #United

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Timeline: A Chinese spy balloon’s 7-day trip across the United States

    Timeline: A Chinese spy balloon’s 7-day trip across the United States

    [ad_1]

    china us balloon 09258

    Here’s a day-to-day timeline of events leading up to the dramatic shootdown over the water off the East Coast on Saturday. The following is based on interviews with three senior U.S. officials, all of whom asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the situation.

    Saturday, Jan. 28:

    The balloon is first detected over U.S. airspace high over Alaska, north of the Aleutian Islands. The military’s North American Aerospace Defense Command closely tracks the balloon, assessing it poses no threat or intelligence risk.

    Monday, Jan. 30:

    NORAD tracks the balloon as it travels into Canadian airspace. Officials determine it is used for spying, as it carries surveillance equipment including a collection pod and solar panels located on the metal truss suspended below the balloon. Based on its small motors and propellers, officials also assess it can be actively maneuvered to fly over specific locations.

    The balloon is part of a Chinese fleet developed for spying, which over the past few years have been spotted over countries across five continents, including Asia and Europe. Balloons were observed over the United States three times in the Trump administration, and once before at the beginning of the Biden administration. What makes this new encounter different was the long duration over the continent.

    Tuesday, Jan. 31:

    The balloon re-enters U.S. airspace over northern Idaho. The Defense Department alerts President Joe Biden, who asks for military options to shoot it down.

    The Pentagon begins working to keep the balloon from collecting sensitive information from sites on the ground. This was “straightforward,” a senior administration official said, “because we could track the exact path of the balloon and ensure no activities or sensitive unencrypted comms would be conducted in its vicinity.”

    Wednesday, Feb. 1:

    Pentagon officials are alarmed as the balloon makes its way over Montana, which is home to Malmstrom Air Force Base, one of three sites that operate and maintain the nation’s silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin convenes military and civilian leaders, including U.S. Northern Command Chief Gen. Glen VanHerck and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley, to discuss the situation.

    All flights at Billings Logan International Airport are grounded for about two hours as authorities weigh what to do. The military scrambles F-22 fighter jets in case a decision was made to shoot it down.

    Ultimately, Milley and VanHerck recommend against targeting the balloon over land due to the risk to civilians from the falling debris. Defense officials estimate debris from the balloon, which is the size of three buses, could fall in at least a seven-mile radius.

    The president directs the Pentagon to come up with options to shoot down the balloon as soon as it is safe to do so over U.S. territorial waters, and in a way that allows them to recover the payload. He also directs the military and intelligence community to monitor the balloon to gain insight into its capabilities. NASA begins analyzing and assessing the possible debris field, based on the trajectory of the balloon, the weather and airship’s estimated payload.

    Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman meet with Chinese embassy officials.

    Thursday, Feb. 2:

    The Pentagon issues a statement that a high-altitude Chinese surveillance balloon has entered U.S. airspace. Lawmakers call for briefings and begin criticizing Biden for not shooting it down. Reports emerge of a second balloon observed flying over Central and South America.

    The military continues to work on options to bring down the balloon safely. National security adviser Jake Sullivan updates the president regularly.

    Blinken decides to postpone his planned trip to China, and senior leadership across the administration agree.

    Friday, Feb. 3

    The Chinese Foreign Ministry releases a statement acknowledging the balloon is Chinese but claims it’s a civilian airship used to collect weather data. China says it entered U.S. airspace accidentally and expresses regret. But U.S. officials push back, saying the balloon is clearly used for surveillance and the breach is a clear violation of U.S. sovereignty.

    Biden is briefed on Friday night on the plan to shoot down the balloon on Saturday over Wilmington, North Carolina, including what aircraft will be used to take it down and what naval vessels to recover it, as well as the initial intelligence analysis of its capabilities. Biden approves the plan.

    Throughout the night, the National Security Council and the Pentagon work to ensure all measures are in place for the plan to succeed.

    Saturday, Feb. 4:

    In the morning, Biden speaks with Austin and Sullivan multiple times about the mission. Later, Biden pledges “we’re going to take care of it” when asked about the balloon during a stop in Syracuse, New York. He flashes a thumbs up to reporters when asked if the military was going to shoot it down, as he boards Air Force One at Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in New York.

    The FAA temporarily grounds flights at airports in Wilmington and in Myrtle Beach and Charleston, South Carolina. This allows the military aircraft — an F-22 stealth fighter from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, F-15s from Barnes Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts and tanker aircraft from multiple locations — to get into position.

    At 2:39 pm, the F-22 flying at 58,000 feet shoots a single AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile that takes down the balloon, which is flying at an altitude of 60,000 to 65,000 feet. The military begins efforts to recover the balloon, which fell six nautical miles off the coast in an estimated 47 feet of water. The amphibious ship USS Carter Hall, destroyer USS Oscar Austin and cruiser Philippine Sea are in the area to aid with recovery. Navy divers are in position to descend to the site if needed.

    Once the balloon is recovered, the intelligence community will begin efforts to further analyze the balloon.

    “It’s actually provided us a number of days to analyze this balloon [and] learn a lot about what this balloon was doing, how it was doing, why the PRC might be using balloons like this,” said a senior DoD official. “We have learned technical things about this balloon and its surveillance capabilities. And I suspect if we are successful in recovering aspects of the debris, we will learn even more.”

    Later Saturday, China issues a statement calling the shoot-down a violation of international practice and threatened repercussions. The U.S. government speaks directly with Beijing about the mission. The State Department briefs allies and partners around the world.

    “The balloon never posed a military or physical threat to the American people. However, its intrusion of our airspace for multiple days was an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty,” said the senior DoD official.

    [ad_2]
    #Timeline #Chinese #spy #balloons #7day #trip #United #States
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • What Colombia’s First Black VP Really Wants from the United States

    What Colombia’s First Black VP Really Wants from the United States

    [ad_1]

    overrridelede230112 blesener francia 004

    So, the forebears of my grandmother had to fight to wrest free from slavery; my grandmother had to fight against the development of the dam, which was going to impact their land; my mother had to fight so that the Ovejas River wasn’t re-routed toward the dam; and I had to fight to keep illegal large-scale mining out of the land, so they wouldn’t exploit our resources. Each generation of my community has been in a constant struggle — for survival, for freedom, for the land. I’m not here today as the vice president of Colombia because of something that started three years ago. It’s because of a lifelong fight. My community and my family have fought for all their lives to live in peace, to live within their rights, to live with dignity.

    Rodríguez: Amid all those fights, you decided to go to law school and to become a lawyer, a profession guided by rules and norms. Now, you’re in a position working within the trappings of the state. What is your relationship to activism now that you’re working within the government and not organizing outside of its structure?

    Márquez: I became a lawyer to wield the legal system’s tools. As a community, we didn’t speak the language of the institutions. They would tell us of a “right to petition” and we didn’t know how to access it. They would speak of “administrative review,” which in fact were eviction orders against our community, because the state had given the land away to multinational companies, choosing to protect corporations over communities. So I said, “I’m going to study the law to understand, to fight and to struggle.” And I have fought and struggled to defend my community to the point where my life and those who surround me have been at risk, because we have confronted power.

    I grew frustrated that in spite of my advocacy and my efforts I couldn’t get answers for my community in terms of stopping femicides and preventing the persecution of our social leaders. I felt powerless to see how leaders who fought like me were being killed. I expected that someday, it would be my turn.

    I thought about Martin Luther King’s dream. Even though I’ve read a lot of Malcolm X’s writings, I listened a lot to King’s “I have a dream” speech. [On Aug. 11, 2020,] there was a massacre in Cali, where five children went to a sugarcane plantation to grab some sugarcane — surely to have fun or because they were hungry, or just because that’s part of our culture. (We’re raised to be able to go grab fruit from a neighbor’s farm. It’s something that’s passed down through the generations, and it’s part of our culture as Black people.) But when those children went to practice the same customs that they were used to doing in their communities, they were murdered [by civilians]. I felt a lot of pain and a lot of powerlessness. I have two children, and I worried that they would meet the same fate.

    Amid all that impotence I thought, too, about King’s speech, and I said, “I have a dream that one day our children won’t be murdered for picking sugarcane.” And that’s when I made the decision to run for president. I didn’t give it too much thought. I have to admit, I rejected politics because of everything that I had lived through, because my community has always had to defend itself from the state. Even though they say that we’re all one nation, Black people, Indigenous people and farmworkers have been the most excluded and marginalized. I didn’t want anything to do with the state or politics because the politics I knew didn’t make me feel proud of my people, of my country. It’s a politics based on corruption, based on violence, based on dispossession.

    Taking a risk that I might get trapped in all of that, I decided to participate in the system and change it. I made the decision, then, to run for the presidency. After many political attacks and rampant racism, I ended up as Gustavo Petro’s running mate and we were both elected.

    Politics isn’t easy. It’s hard. It’s not like I have changed much, but we’re planting a seed to grow a politics that’s different from what I have known, from what my parents knew, from what my grandparents knew.

    Rodríguez: Now as a vice president, do you continue facing those racist attacks? Just two days ago, your security team foiled an assassination attempt. How are you processing that, and do you feel like that has to do with your race and gender?

    [ad_2]
    #Colombias #Black #United #States
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )