What a second Trump presidency means for the Middle East and Ukraine
Marc Lamont Hill discusses the impact of a second Trump presidency on US foreign policy and global crises. As the US braces for a transition of power between President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump, both US geopolitical allies and adversaries wonder what direction American foreign policy will take under Trump. With tensions in the Middle East at a boiling point and Israel continuing its genocidal campaign in Gaza, what effect will a Trump administration have on the region? And how will Trump’s handling of the war in Ukraine affect Europe and global stability? This week in UpFront, Marc Lamont Hill talks with former US State Department official Annelle Sheline, professor of international affairs at Harvard Kennedy School Stephen Walt, and political analyst Omar Baddar about the future of American foreign policy under a second Donald Trump term. Adblock test (Why?)
Project Esther: A Trumpian blueprint to crush anticolonial resistance
Donald Trump’s re-election as president of the United States marks a shift in US policy – from the Joe Biden administration’s hypocritical denial of American complicity in Zionist genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity to an unapologetic endorsement of all these actions. Besides bringing Washington’s support for all of Israel’s excesses, crimes and violations out into the open, Trump’s return to the White House will also intensify and make even more overt the persecution of those who dare resist white supremacy and its Zionist incarnation. Under Biden, those who opposed American-funded and -facilitated Zionist genocide, from university students and civil servants to racial justice activists and authors, already faced threats from politicians, police harassment, baseless accusations of anti-Semitism in the media and relentless intimidation from employers, university administrators and far-right-linked Zionist “self-defence” groups. And yet, Trump says Biden has been “weak” in countering “Hamas radicals” and he would do even more to shut down anticolonial resistance as president. On the campaign trail, he called for the deportation of foreign nationals who support Palestinian resistance and, since being elected, has nominated pro-Israel hawks to key intelligence and security posts in his government, signalling he intends to keep his promises on cracking down on anti-Zionist activists. For example, Trump named Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor who once introduced a bill cracking down on criticism of Israel on the grounds of “ensuring the security of God’s chosen people”, as his secretary of homeland security. Another indication that Trump’s second term will be marked by a new crackdown on anticolonial and antiracist resistance came in the form of a strategy to “combat anti-Semitism” titled “Project Esther”, drafted by the prominent Trump-aligned conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation has been open about its intention to transform “Project Esther” into government policy under a second Trump administration. It states within the strategy document itself – which was published on October 7 to mark the first anniversary of the Hamas attacks on Israel – that it hopes “Project Esther” would present “an opportunity for public-private partnership when a willing administration occupies the White House”. Created by the same minds that brought us the authoritarian, Christian nationalist “Project 2025”, “Project Esther” syncretises the story of Queen Esther, the Jewish heroine celebrated during Purim for saving Jews of ancient Persia from extermination at the hands of Vizier Haman, with modern day Zionist narratives of defence and victimhood to depict her as a defender of Jews against activists, academics and progressive members of Congress in the US who oppose racism, apartheid and genocide. The strategy paper, supposedly designed to be “a blueprint to counter anti-Semitism in the United States”, includes several fundamental aspects of fascistic thought and practice as outlined by Umberto Eco, such as syncretic culture, xenophobia, a cult of heroism and anti-intellectualism. Targeted individuals – including numerous Black, Brown and Jewish elected representatives who voiced any criticism of Israel, including Senators Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer – are collectively mischaracterised as members of “Hamas Support Organisations (HSO)”, part of a “Hamas Support Network” and equated with Purim’s villain, Haman. Through this framing, the campaign targets prominent social justice advocates and progressive Democratic Party representatives as enemies of the Jewish people, using the mythology of Queen Esther to justify their persecution and repression. “Project Esther” shamelessly states its aims to eliminate anticolonial perspectives from the US education system, limit the dissemination of related information and restrict advocates’ access to American society, the economy and Congress. It seeks to prosecute alleged legal and criminal violations by “HSO” members, disrupt their communications, restrict demonstrations and rally the Jewish community, allies and the American public against anticolonial resistance movements. With fearmongering rhetoric draped in patriotism and “American values” and the latest Zionist spin on rebranding offensive aggression as “defence”, “Project Esther” institutionalises repression of dissent within a fallacious, fascistic theoretical framework, casting itself as the final bulwark against an imaginary threat of “foreign influence” and valiant protector of citizens from brown-skinned heathen hordes who have supposedly promised to infect white American open society with an anticapitalist agenda. Typically, “Project Esther” ideologues see themselves as heroes, courageously waging a holy war, much to the tune of the Ku Klux Klan’s infamous portrayal in Birth of a Nation. Calling on “the silent majority” to “break its silence and speak” to “recover its voice and convert its words into actions to render impotent an illegitimate, hateful minority that threatens America’s soul” by, among other accusations, “corrupting our education system”, “Project Esther” weaponises xenophobic trends bolstered by the incoming Trump administration to threaten and fracture anticolonial movements that conscientiously oppose Zionism and white supremacy alike. Under the guise of combating hate and appealing to a supposedly terrorised and humiliated underclass, “Project Esther” seeks to frame antiracist opposition to Zionist apartheid and genocide as inherently anti-Semitic. However, this exposes Zionism itself as white supremacy and a modern embodiment of anti-Semitic ideology, much like Haman in the myth of Queen Esther, actively targeting Jewish organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and the Reformed Jewish movement. “Project Esther” criticises what it sees as “complacency” within the American Jewish community, invoking the Zionist-manufactured anti-Semitic ideal of a “new Jew” who rejects traditional beliefs that interpret oppression and hardship as divine punishment for sins. This vision disparages traditional reliance on defence as passive and weak, promoting instead an assertive, offensive approach to resistance. In line with this view, Zionists adopt the anti-Semitic notion that Jews have been responsible for their own suffering, advocating for segregation and land acquisition in a new homeland as the ultimate solution. Notably, fearmongering has long been used by Zionists to encourage Jewish, preferably white, immigration to Israel as a means to restock the Israeli military and combat the Palestinian “demographic threat”. By amplifying the partnership between US white supremacy and Zionist expansionism, “Project Esther” presents a serious threat to anticolonial and justice-oriented intersectional movements across the country, on the one hand, and minorities, including Jews, on the other. “Project Esther”
Germany’s Scholz speaks to Russia’s Putin for first time in two years
The Russian leader said he is open to talks, but intends to keep the territory Moscow seized in Ukraine. The leaders of Russia and Germany have had their first conversation in almost two years as Western countries prepare for the incoming Trump administration that has signalled its intent to end the war in Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz initiated a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, which reportedly lasted about an hour and revolved around different aspects of the Ukraine war. Scholz, who is facing a snap election in February after his government coalition collapsed, urged Putin to negotiate with Ukraine with the aim of achieving a “just and lasting peace” ” government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement. He also expressed German support for Ukraine “for as long as necessary”, condemned Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, and warned that the deployment of thousands of North Korean soldiers on Russian soil to fight off the Ukrainian assault on Kursk would mark an escalation. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz talks to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the phone [Steffen Kugler/BPA/Handout via Reuters] Putin said the current crisis is a direct result of NATO’s aggressive policies in what was described by the Kremlin as “a detailed and frank exchange of opinions”. “Possible agreements must take into account the interests of the Russian Federation in the area of security, proceed from new territorial realities, and most importantly, eliminate the root causes of the conflict,” the Russian leader said. Putin and Scholz also reportedly discussed bilateral relations, with the former saying Moscow remains ready for “mutually beneficial cooperation” including on energy trade if the same view is shared by Berlin. The call comes at a difficult time for Ukraine’s military, with Russian forces advancing in several areas in eastern Ukraine. The re-election of Donald Trump as US president also raises questions over the future of US aid to Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the call opened “Pandora’s box” by undermining efforts to isolate the Russian leader. “Now there may be other conversations, other calls. Just a lot of words. And this is exactly what Putin has long wanted: it is extremely important for him to weaken his isolation,” Zelenskyy said in his evening address. Scholz spoke with Zelenskyy before and after the call with Putin. Reporting from Berlin, Al Jazeera’s Dominic Kane said the call was largely being seen in relation to Trump’s re-election and the upcoming election in Germany. “The suggestion coming from various media outlets is that this is to be viewed through the prism of what’s happening in Washington, DC and the approach from the looming Donald Trump administration,” he said. “Another point is that there’s going to be a general election in Germany, 100 days from today. The war in Ukraine is a growing issue. Many people in this country, particularly in the old east, want an end to the war in Ukraine and specifically an end to Germany financing and arming the Ukrainians.” President-elect Trump has asserted he will end the war in Ukraine but has not given details. Vice President-elect JD Vance has suggested a second Trump administration will be in favour of allowing Russia to keep the Ukrainian land it has seized during the war. The outgoing Biden administration has signalled it will strengthen its support for Ukraine before it leaves the White House in January. The phone call between the Russian and German leaders comes as fighting continues to rage in eastern Ukraine, where Russian forces have been inching forward in recent months. The Russian military also continues to direct air strikes against military and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, hitting a residential building and a boiler plant in Odesa in one of its latest attacks on Friday. Russia denies targeting civilians in Ukraine. Adblock test (Why?)
Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul: What’s behind the celebrity boxing craze?
Mike Tyson, the 58-year-old former heavyweight champion who has recently recovered from a stomach ulcer, is set to face 27-year-old YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul in a boxing match the AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas on Friday. With an eye-watering $40m up for grabs in the fight’s “purse” and no title belts on the line, the showdown, which has been approved by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, has drawn condemnation from the boxing community for being a product of celebrity culture that some see as devaluing the art of this sport. Friday’s match marks the latest in a string of recent unorthodox matchups involving celebrities and former professionals. How did we get to a point when a former professional recovering from ill health will face off against a man 31 years his junior in a boxing ring — and potentially draw millions of viewers around the world? When did the celebrity boxing craze begin? The concept of a celebrity boxing match has been around for decades, but until recently, it had been limited to charity events and short-lived novelty TV shows. The quality and intensity of these matches ranged wildly from an unexpectedly feisty matchup in 2002 between UK comedians Ricky Gervais and Bob Mortimer to a tepid but symbolic bout in 2015 between US Senator Mitt Romney and five-times world heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield. In 2017, the then-UFC lightweight champion, Conor McGregor, broke with convention when he fought boxing champion Floyd Mayweather Jr in a crossover fight that was billed, “The Money Fight”. Mayweather was guaranteed $100m and McGregor $30m for the fight. Non-disclosure agreements meant the final payouts have not been published, but reports from the fighters’ camps afterwards suggest the payouts were much higher than anticipated. That same year, an amateur boxing event in London pitted YouTube influencers against each other with a headline fight between KSI – a 31-year-old British influencer and musician, and Joe Weller, 28, also a British influencer and musician. That started a trend with Jake Paul, who made a name for himself by posting prank videos online, facing off against KSI the following year and then against Mayweather in a 2021 exhibition match. Logan Paul, in the red-white-and-blue shorts, and KSI, in black-and-red shorts, exchange punches during their pro debut fight at Staples Center on November 9, 2019, in Los Angeles, California [Jayne Kamin-Oncea/Getty Images via AFP] Why do celebrities and ex-professionals want to step into the ring? Jake Paul has been clear about his priority – money. “I’m here to make $40m and knock out a legend,” he told a news conference in August. Friday’s match will be exclusively televised by the streaming service Netflix, a move that has hiked up payouts in the realm of blockbuster professional boxing matches. For example, the undisputed heavyweight champion Oleksandr Usyk pocketed about $45m from his last fight against British boxer Tyson Fury in Saudi Arabia in May. It will certainly mark a considerable increase from Paul’s last fight against British boxer Tommy Fury in which, according to reports, Paul took home approximately $3.2m. Duke McKenzie, a former British boxer who has won world titles in three weight classes, told Al Jazeera that, unlike Paul, Tyson’s motivation is likely not just money. “It’s his ego, nothing more, nothing less,” he said adamantly. Tyson could find many other ways to make money, including using his fame to endorse products, indicating that the former boxer is driven by a desire to relive past glories, McKenzie said. The fight had been originally scheduled for July 20, but it was pushed back after Tyson suffered a stomach ulcer flare-up. This condition, coupled with his age, has McKenzie concerned that the former champion is putting his ego before his health, he said. “What we’re looking at is an old, shock-worn warrior who, unfortunately, still wants to relive his past. “I wish he could walk away from the sport with his head held high, but his ego won’t let him.” Razor Ruddock connects with a right to the chin of Mike Tyson during their heavyweight bout at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, Friday, June 29, 1991. Tyson won with a unanimous decision [Reed Saxon/AP Photo] What else is fuelling the craze for celebrity boxing? In 2023, the trend of celebrity fighting reached new levels when Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg and Tesla founder and owner of social media platform X, Elon Musk, appeared to agree to a “cage fight”. Musk took to his own platform to announce that, following conversations with Italy’s prime minister and culture minister, “they have agreed on an epic location”, adding, “everything in camera frame will be ancient Rome”. Mark Zuckerberg, left, and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. ‘Zuck v Musk fight will be live-streamed on X,’ Musk wrote in a post on X on August 6, 2023. ‘All proceeds will go to charity for veterans.’ [File: Manu Fernandez, Stephan Savoia/AP] Although the match never came to fruition, the episode demonstrated how popular the concept had become. “The process of becoming extremely wealthy is a cutthroat kind of competition which unleashes a kind of hyper-masculinity,” Caroline Knowles, a sociologist and Global Professorial Fellow at Queen Mary University of London, told Al Jazeera. She said that the same drive – an intense will to succeed in the business world – lends itself to entering the same high-stakes, competitive world of combat sport. In her book, Serious Money: Walking Plutocratic London, Knowles studied the behaviour of the super-rich in London. She said that during her research, she found that activities most people would have considered hobbies would be taken much more seriously by those in the hyper-competitive world of multimillionaires and billionaires. She recalled speaking with Russian oligarchs who were interested in mountain climbing, always “trying to push the limit” and competing to see who could reach the world’s highest peaks. Knowles added that the hubris of being in a wealthy elite can make someone believe they can do anything, including stepping into an octagon cage or fighting
For embattled Tiktok, Trump offers hope of a reprieve
As United States President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, TikTok could be in line for a reprieve from the very leader who led the charge to ban the embattled video-sharing platform. Under a law signed by US President Joe Biden in April, ByteDance, the Chinese owner of the wildly popular app, was given nine months to divest its stake in the company or face a ban on national security grounds. The deadline for the sale – January 19 – is the day before Trump’s inauguration. On the campaign trail, Trump, who signed an executive order seeking to ban the app during his first term, pledged to “save TikTok” but neither he nor his transition team have disclosed further details about what this might mean for ByteDance. The president-elect potentially has several options, although he would not be able to overturn the law enforcing the ban on his own, according to legal experts. Originally passed in the US House of Representatives as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a shorter version of the ban was tacked onto a Senate bill approving foreign aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. Shortly after it was signed into law, ByteDance initiated a lawsuit arguing that the ban violates the freedom of speech of 170 million American users of the app. “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide,” the company said in the lawsuit. ByteDance did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment. The lawsuit is expected to take years to conclude and is further complicated by the fact that a ban would involve the participation of Google and Apple, which offer TikTok in their app stores, and Oracle, which hosts the app in the US. Anupam Chander, an expert on global tech regulations at Georgetown Law in Washington, DC, said that Trump could ask the US Congress to empower him to negotiate a different arrangement with ByteDance and TikTok that takes security concerns into account. “I think many politicians would prefer that TikTok not go dark in the US in January. After all, some 170 million Americans continue to use the app, even after the government told them it’s a national security threat,” Chander told Al Jazeera. “And yes, even if TikTok stops working for a while because TikTok’s owners won’t sell at a fire sale price, Trump could convince Congress to change the law to bring it back.” David Greene, the civil liberties director of the US-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said Trump could also instruct the US Justice Department to drop or modify its defence in the lawsuit with ByteDance or instruct the US Department of Commerce not to enforce the law. The incoming president could also choose to do nothing and let the ban stand, Greene said. “There’s a fair chance he still doesn’t stick to his offhand comment that ‘I’m going to reverse the TikTok ban’ because he tends to change his mind about these things or he gets talked into changing his mind,” Greene told Al Jazeera. “You may recall he was the one who issued the initial TikTok ban. He did it by executive order [in 2020], which was overturned by the courts, but he was very much of the belief that TikTok posed a national security threat,” he added. The EFF was one of dozens of civil liberties and freedom of speech organisations that opposed a ban on TikTok, arguing that it posed no greater threat than other social media platforms. Critics of the TikTok ban also say that rather than targeting a single social media company, the US needs laws protecting data privacy similar to those passed by the European Union. Much of the concern around TikTok has focused on its Chinese ownership and fears that Beijing could use the app to harvest data on millions of Americans or find a secret back door into their devices. Proponents of a ban also argue that Beijing could use the platform to carry out influence campaigns aimed at subverting US democracy. US-based apps, however, are also capable of harvesting massive amounts of user data, which they can in turn sell to data brokers and then on to intelligence agencies and other buyers. ByteDance attempted to mollify US lawmakers with its $1.5bn “Project Texas” initiative, which created a dedicated US subsidiary to manage American data on US soil with the assistance of US tech company Oracle. Despite the concession, many US officials remain suspicious of the app and its Chinese ownership amid a growing bipartisan consensus that Beijing poses a threat. TikTok has already been banned or otherwise restricted in numerous countries, including Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Somalia, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Restrictions also exist in the US for government employees and at agencies in individual US states. Despite the threat of a US ban, the sale of TikTok had seemed unlikely to many observers from the start because it would mean giving away access to the app’s secret – and some argue, addicting – algorithm. It is also unclear whether Beijing would allow such a sale to go ahead. Adblock test (Why?)
Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 994
As the war enters its 994th day, these are the main developments. Here is the situation on Friday, November 15: Fighting A Russian air attack struck a residential building and power installations in and near Ukraine’s Black Sea port of Odesa, killing one person, injuring eight and knocking out a boiler plant used for heating, Ukrainian officials have said. A small Russian assault group briefly broke through to the outskirts of Ukraine’s northeastern city of Kupiansk for the first time since September 2022, in a sign of mounting pressure on the Ukrainian outpost. Ukraine’s military said its troops were still in full control of the rail hub and their forces had stopped the Russian advance. Russian forces have captured the village of Voznesenka in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, according to Russia’s Ministry of Defence. The Ukrainian military has said it shot down 21 out of 59 Russian attack drones launched overnight on Thursday. A mother and her child are evacuated by the Vostok SOS organisation from Kostiantynivka in the Donetsk region, eastern Ukraine, to safer areas on Thursday [Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu] Russian affairs International affairs Russia is open to negotiations to end the Ukraine war if initiated by United States President-elect Donald Trump, but any talks need to be based on the realities of Russian advances in the conflict, according to Gennady Gatilov, Moscow’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva. Trump has chosen Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who lacks security and intelligence experience and is seen as soft on Russia and Syria, as the US’s new director of national intelligence. The decision has sent shockwaves through the national security establishment given the 43-year-old is seen as sympathetic to Russia in its war on Ukraine. Germany needs to step up its role in defence if the US focuses less on Europe, the country’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has said, adding it did not make sense to present a debt-free Germany that is less capable of defending itself to President Putin. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un guided a test of suicide drones and ordered mass production of the aerial weapon, raising questions as to whether he is receiving technical help from Russia to develop the weapons amid warming military ties with Moscow. The foreign ministers of Poland, France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Ukraine will meet on November 19 in Poland’s capital Warsaw to discuss topics including Trump’s re-election and the war in Ukraine. President Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman discussed developments in the conflict in Ukraine when they spoke this week, the Kremlin has said, declining to provide further details. Adblock test (Why?)
Trump’s US election leaves Ukraine scrambling for EU military assistance
Donald Trump’s US presidential election victory on November 5 has cast a sharp spotlight on what military and financial assistance Ukraine could expect from the European Union. Trump last year pressed United States lawmakers to delay a $61.4bn military aid package to Ukraine, and claimed he would end the Ukraine war “in a day” if he won. Ukraine was also concerned that the delivery of weapons promised under the administration of President Joe Biden be fulfilled before the handover of power on January 20. Pentagon spokesman Pat Ryder said the US had delivered 83 percent of munitions, 67 percent of critical air defences, and 60 percent of firepower capabilities committed to Ukraine under defence packages between April and mid-October. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday that he did not expect the start of Trump’s presidency to change the US position on Ukraine. (Al Jazeera) But Trump has demanded that EU member states which are also NATO members raise defence spending to three percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and threatened to let Russia do “whatever the hell it wants” with them if they refuse, suggesting US backing for NATO, and potentially Ukraine, would be conditional under his presidency. That has raised questions about the extent of European military autonomy and political will to continue supporting Ukraine with or without a supportive administration in Washington. EU external affairs chief Josep Borrell told European Pravda that the bloc would deliver a million artillery shells by the end of the year. Those shells were promised in spring 2023 for delivery last spring. “We almost did it. We have already delivered more than 980 thousand shells, and very soon we will deliver one million shells,” Borrell said. Shells purchased from around the world under a Czech initiative will have provided another half million artillery rounds by year’s end, he said. In addition, Borrell said, EU production capacity had now ramped up to a million shells a year. Rescuers work at the site of an apartment building hit by a Russian missile attack in Kryvyi Rih, in the Dnipropetrovsk region [Danylo Antoniuk/Reuters] The EU has spent 122 billion euros ($129bn) supporting Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Should US aid come to a halt, the EU could hand over to Ukraine $300bn in Russian assets under management in the EU, and calls increased in the past week to do so. The EU has so far agreed to give Ukraine only the profits from those assets, fearing retaliatory effects on the bloc’s currency. Ukraine has received a first instalment of 400 million euros ($425m). At a meeting of EU directors of defence policy in Brussels on Tuesday, Ukrainian Deputy Defence Minister Serhiy Boyev asked the EU to rush a 1.5 billion-euro ($1.6bn) tranche of profits from frozen Russian assets promised this year, for investment in Ukraine’s defence industrial base. (Al Jazeera) There was also renewed pressure on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to break ranks with the cautious US policy not to use Western weapons to strike deep inside Russia, and supply Ukraine with 500km-range (310-mile) Taurus missiles, which could strike Russian airfields. “I think it is right, unchanged, that I have made my contribution to ensuring that there has been no escalation. And I would like to make it clear, that the country that is doing the most in Europe to ensure that Ukraine is not left alone and is supported is also a country that must ensure that an escalation does not occur,” Scholz told the Bundestag or lower house of the German parliament on Wednesday. Striking airfields would deprive Russia of its ability to launch heavy glide bombs, one of its most effective weapons against Ukrainian front lines. A grim situation on the front lines Vladyslav Voloshyn, a spokesman for Ukraine’s southern defences, on Saturday said Russia was intensifying the use of glide bombs in the south. “In October, the Russians used about 500 guided aerial bombs in the southern direction, specifically on Ukrainian positions and on populated areas near the line of combat,” he said. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on Sunday morning that Russia dropped 800 glide bombs across the entire front in the previous week – a rate he first reported in the first week of October – which computes to more than 3,000 glide bombs a month. In addition, Russia typically launches some 1,600 kamikaze drones and 80 missiles into Ukraine each week, Zelenskyy has said. Ukraine’s armed forces said the Russian strategy was also continuing to bomb civilian areas in Kharkiv with glide bombs to demoralise the population. A Ukrainian counter-invasion in the Russian region of Kursk last August had produced a lull in bombardment. “In the last few weeks, the enemy has started using guided aerial bombs again, said Volodymyr Degtyarev, a spokesman for Ukraine’s National Guard. “Mostly in the city, on civilian infrastructure, mainly in the evening or at night, although there are also daytime shellings.” (Al Jazeera) Ukraine’s defenders continued to be under intense pressure throughout the front in the past week, with the Russian hammer falling hardest on Kurakhove and Pokrovsk, front-line towns west of Donetsk city. Ukraine’s General Staff reported 125 combat clashes on Monday, most in the direction of Pokrovsk, with Kurakhove remaining a “difficult situation”. Zelenskyy sent reinforcements to those two directions, but it appeared that by Tuesday Russian troops were advancing along Zaporizkyi Street in northeast Kurakhove. One of Ukraine’s greatest concerns has been Russia’s ability to absorb losses of men and armour in this war. Colonel Vadym Mysnyk, a spokesman for Ukraine’s Siversk group of forces, told a telethon that Russian assaults typically started with armour, followed by waves of infantry at 10-15 minute intervals, a tactic which led to high attrition rates for the Russians. Russian assaults have clearly been bloody, with Russian casualties last week at 9,800, according to Ukraine’s Ground Forces Commander Oleksandr Pavlyuk – confirming the daily rate of about 1,400 casualties observed since June. Yet reinforcements have kept coming, leading Ukraine
Meta fined 798 million euros ($846m) for breaking EU antitrust rules
EU says Meta automatically ties its ad service – Facebook Marketplace – to Facebook, creating an unfair advantage. The European Union has hit technology giant Meta with a fine just shy of 800 million euros for what it called “abusive practices” involving its Facebook Marketplace online classified ads business. The EU’s European Commission issued the fine of 797.72 million euros ($846.13m) on Thursday. It accused Meta, which owns social media platform Facebook, of marketplace practices that give its own ad service an undue advantage over competitors. The advantage stems from Meta automatically tying its ad service – Facebook Marketplace – to Facebook, creating a “substantial distribution advantage”, according to the commission. “All Facebook users automatically have access and get regularly exposed to Facebook Marketplace whether they want it or not,” it said. Additionally, it said Meta imposed unfair conditions on other classified ads service providers who advertised on Facebook and Instagram, enabling it to “use ads-related data generated by other advertisers for the sole benefit of Facebook Marketplace”. Meta contended it did not “use advertisers’ data for this purpose” and has “built systems and controls to ensure that”. “It is disappointing that the Commission has chosen to take regulatory action against a free and innovative service built to meet consumer demand,” said Meta, adding it would comply with the commission’s order to end the offending conduct but also appeal. The fine is the latest in a string of hefty penalties that the commission, which regulates the 27-nation European Union, has imposed against Big Tech companies over their practices in recent years. It ranks among the 10 largest antitrust fines. The penalty takes into account the “duration and gravity of the infringement”, as well as the turnover of Meta and Facebook Marketplace, said the commission. Meta’s total revenue last year stood at around 125 billion euros ($133bn). Meta’s dominant position in the market for personal social networks comes with a special responsibility not to abuse it by restricting competition, according to the EU. Adblock test (Why?)
What does a second Trump presidency mean for Big Tech?
US President-elect Donald Trump is expected to reshape tech industry policy. Donald Trump had promised to curb the influence of Silicon Valley during his first presidency, which began in 2017. His relationship with tech leaders was marked by tension back then. He’s now won the United States presidential election for a second time, and those same executives have rushed to congratulate him on his victory. Big Tech’s wealth and power have exploded since his first term. But the industry has faced a crackdown through antitrust lawsuits under President Joe Biden. Trump’s return to the top job could signal policy changes. Spain’s floods, what’s the cost of climate inaction? Plus, why are big oil companies leaving Nigeria? Adblock test (Why?)
Sri Lanka parliamentary elections 2024: What’s at stake?
Sri Lankans will cast ballots in a snap parliamentary election on Thursday, months after electing a Marxist-leaning president in the Indian island nation’s first election since the 2022 economic meltdown and political crisis. The election was called by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who won the September election after blaming the country’s traditional ruling elite for the economic collapse that led to the country defaulting on its loans. Dissanayake’s National People’s Power (NPP) alliance has just three seats in the outgoing parliament, but opinion polls give the bloc an edge over parties that have ruled the island nation since its independence in 1948. Here’s a look at the significance of the elections and how they could affect Dissanayake’s political vision for the country of 22 million. What time does the election start in Sri Lanka? Polls open between 7am (01:30 GMT) and 4pm (10:30 GMT) local time. How do parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka work? An independent body called the Election Commission of Sri Lanka (ECSL) oversees the election. There are 225 seats in the unicameral parliament, and all of them are up for grabs this election. All members are elected for a five-year term. But 29 out of 225 seats are decided indirectly through a national list. Each party or independent group contesting the election submits a list of candidates for the national list. The number of national list candidates for each party is chosen based on the number of votes they win. Retired commissioner-general of elections, MM Mohamed, explained the process to the local publication, EconomyNext, in 2020. According to the publication, the formula applied for the number of national list candidates for a party is: the number of votes won by the party divided by the number of total votes cast, multiplied by 29. A party needs to secure 113 seats to secure a win in the parliament. There are 17 million registered voters out of Sri Lanka’s 22 million population, according to the ECSL. Voting will be conducted at 13,421 polling stations across the country, according to the ECSL. Votes are cast with paper ballots, and voters are required to show valid identification, such as a National Identity Card (NIC), passport, driving licence, senior citizens identity card, government pensioners’ identity card or identity card issued to clergy. Police, army and other public servants who cannot cast their votes in person on election day vote through postal ballots in advance. What’s at stake? Dissanayake, who has been critical of the “old political guard”, has pledged to abolish the country’s executive presidency, a system under which power is largely centralised under the president. The executive presidency, which first came into existence under President JR Jayawardene in 1978, has been widely criticised in the country for years, but no political party, once in power, has scrapped it until now. The system has in recent years been blamed by critics for the country’s economic and political crises. Dissanayake has promised to fight corruption and end austerity measures imposed by his predecessor, Ranil Wickremesinghe, as part of the bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). “At stake is the ability of newly-elected President Dissanayake to pursue the ambitious agenda that won him election in September,” Alan Keenan, a senior consultant on Sri Lanka for the Belgium-based think tank International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera. Dissanayake’s NPP alliance would need a parliamentary majority to pass laws and requires a two-thirds majority to bring constitutional amendments. He played an active role in the 2022 protests against former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s rule. Tens of thousands took to the streets when inflation skyrocketed and a foreign exchange crisis led to fuel and food shortages. Rajapaksa was forced to flee, after which Ranil Wickremesinghe took over as president. He lifted the country out of bankruptcy but at a cost to the common people. Wickremesinghe’s $2.9bn IMF deal led to a rise in the cost of living for Sri Lankans. He was also criticised for protecting the Rajapaksa family – a charge he has denied. “The people have great expectations for ‘system change’, including holding politicians accountable for corruption. But there is also a major debate happening about the economic trajectory,” Devaka Gunawardena, a political economist and research fellow at the Social Scientists’ Association in Sri Lanka, told Al Jazeera. “The question is whether Sri Lanka can get itself out of the debt trap while protecting people’s livelihoods, which have been devastated by the crisis and austerity,” he said. While Dissanayake was critical of the IMF deal and campaigned to restructure the deal, he has since announced – especially after an October meeting with a visiting team from the international lender – to stick to the deal. He has, however, sought “alternative means” to the severe austerity measures introduced by Wickremesinghe, and told the IMF team that his government would aim to provide relief to those Sri Lankans who have been worst affected by increased taxes. “This election is also about whether the NPP can consolidate its electoral gains in order to explore alternatives, such as redistribution and a shift towards local production,” Gunawardena said. Which parties hold seats in the current Sri Lankan parliament? In the current parliament, which was elected in 2020: The right-wing Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), also known as the Sri Lanka People’s Front of the Rajapaksa family, holds a majority with 145 of the 225 seats. The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) of leader Sajith Premadasa holds 54 seats. The Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), the largest Tamil party, has 10 seats. Dissanayake’s NPP has only three seats. Other smaller parties hold the remaining 13 seats. Dissanayake dissolved this parliament on September 24 this year. Which party is expected to win the parliament? Political analysts predict that Dissanayake’s NPP would win a majority, having gained popularity since the presidential election. “The NPP is almost certain to do well – the only question is how well. Most observers – and the limited polls available – suggest they will win a majority,” Keenan, from the