Reword it a little specifically , you know, a separate party of the military, it seems to me that this is a little wrong, in principle, i would say that i would never entrust power now in the country to people who at all did not participate in the defense of the state, that is, me it seems that we have to revise a little our certain attitudes to what citizenship is, what is the opportunity to work in the authorities, somehow adjust it in such a way that. It is clear that only a person can make a career in the authorities, who directly participated in the defense of the country, if a person did not do this during the war, for any reason, he simply cannot hold a political position, but in principle, it seems to me, it should be like this. Thank you, ulya, oleksiy, i also do not understand the political power of the military, because the military. Different, they have different views on how ukraine should develop, if we are a democratic country, this is quite natural, the only thing that
Power transmission systems in the kharkiv, zaporizhzhia, lviv, and kyiv regions, that is, virtually throughout ukraine. Later, it became known about the destruction of the trypil thermal power plant, which in the kyiv region, one of the largest in ukraine, a supplier of electricity in kyivsk, cherkassk, and zhytomyr regions, centerenergo, which belongs to tets, announced that the russians had destroyed 100 of their capacity. But the greatest damage to the Energy System. Russia has hurt ukraine before. On march 22 , it carried out the largest attack of the entire war, as stated by the minister of energy herman galushchenko, the impact of those attacks on the Energy System was very significant. The most difficult situation with electricity supply, according to the minister, is in kharkiv and kharkiv region, where blackout schedules are implemented, kharkiv2 the largest city in ukraine at some point was completely left without electricity. Its supply was restored with interruptions, but a
Good evening, everyone. I would like to welcome all of you to tonights on the record cfr meeting. I am jim lindsay, Senior Vice President and director of studies here at the council. It is my great honor and pleasure to introduce tonights guest of honor, elliot abrams. Now, i think it is safe to say that elliott is the epitome of the scholarpractitionerblogger [laughter] that we love here at the council on foreign relations. Elliotts formal title is senior for middle east studies. Now, that only begins to explore his great range and depth on foreign policy. And let me deal with sort of the practitioner part of it. Elliott, over the course of his distinguished career, has served in a variety of government positions. Im just going to name three of them, because i think theyve relevant for our discussion tonight. He was assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs as well as assistant secretary of state for interamerican affairs, both during the Reagan Administra
Weapons, apparently. Our Nic Robertson is working sources here. He has actually been to that plant years ago. He is going to join news a moment. Jim sciutto is working the pentagon. Well talk to all of them ahead. The News Headlines also today, president obama called a key moment for iraq, a moment when he says the fate of this country hangs in the balance. One last chance for the Political Leadership here to get its act together and somehow keep this country together. The president made it plain what is tearing iraq apart at its core is political. Thats the longterm problem he believes, and it has to be the longterm solution. But because the immediate problem is military, sunni forces rampaging while the iraqi army cuts and runs in many cases in the north, mr. Obama today offered military help and American Military personnel, not he says to fight, but to advise the iraqi military. Shortly after laying out the plan, he got a reminder, as if any commander in chief needs one, of the cons
That doesnt seem to be in the offering any time soon. He clarified our strategy. It seems to be a disconnect between what secretary tillerson and the white house is saying on one hand and which is a little bit rabid to say the least and what the Defense Department is talking about. And it appears that the Defense Department is going to hold sway. In fact, we dont have a strategy that doesnt include isis. Were going after isis, thats the mission. This thing about bombing the airport and the cratering the runway. That was a side show. That happened. We did that in response to the use of chemical weapons and the suggestion is if they use chemical weapons were going to do it again and maybe something more. Our strategy is the same. Were only going after isis and isis were focusing on. Another thing was interesting when you compare and contrast what mattis was talking about and what tillerson was talking about with respect to the russians complicity in the whole chemical weapons episode, ma