# data[].attributes.headline
The UK's statement on the ongoing war in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.subject
The UK's statement on the ongoing war in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.body
March 23, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thank you Mr Chair. This statement is delivered under the topic raised by Ukraine and I request that this be accurately reflected in the Journal of the Day.

Mr Chair, it is with great regret that we have reached the appalling milestone that it is now a month since President Putin launched his unprovoked, premeditated and a barbaric attack on Ukraine. Throughout these terrible weeks we have seen the most reprehensible and horrific attacks conducted against Ukraine in which so many innocent people have lost their lives.

We have watched the biggest concentration of forces amassed since the Cold War roll into Ukraine where it has been frustrated by fierce Ukrainian resistance. The Russian invasion has largely stalled on all fronts. Russian forces have made minimal progress on land, sea or air in recent days and they continue to suffer heavy losses. Thousands of troops, hundreds of tanks, attack helicopters, and close air support have so far failed to yield results.

Mr Chair, Russia has unleashed a horrendous amount of violence on the Ukrainian people. Russian naval forces continue to blockade the Ukrainian coast and to launch missile strikes on targets across Ukraine. The blockade of Ukraine's coast is effectively isolating Ukraine from international maritime trade and is contributing to the deteriorating humanitarian situation Russia has created by preventing vital supplies reaching the Ukrainian population. This is exacerbated further with the attacks on Ukrainian ports and port cities, including the atrocious and indiscriminate destruction of Mariupol.

Bogged down and making minimal progress, frustrated Russian military commanders are trying to break the unbreakable - Ukrainian spirit and resolve. They are doing this in the most cowardly way, attacking urban and residential centres indiscriminately from distance using: Multi-launch Rocket Systems, Iskander Ballistic Missiles, artillery, cruise missiles, cluster munitions and thermobaric rockets.

This is not the art of war being conducted by an honourable and professional military of a Great Power. This is indiscriminate destruction. Those carrying out war crimes should know they cannot act with impunity. Indiscriminate attacks against innocent civilians amount to war crimes, for which those who are complicit, must be held accountable. The world is quite literally watching.

Our Russian colleagues have the privileged position to watch uncensored news from around the world reporting the true horrors of President Putin's chosen path of bloodshed and destruction. But again and again, in the face of the overwhelming truth, they continue to peddle the Kremlin's blizzard of lies and disinformation. They have lost all credibility. It is shameful behaviour, disrespectful to this forum, everyone in this room and the diplomatic profession.

Mr Chair, one month in, and President Putin's so-called "Special Military Operation" is certainly not going to plan. We can only imagine how angry he must be. How infuriating it is to be lied to. How devastating the consequences. Russian soldiers are paying a high price for this deceit - they are fighting and dying for a lie.

In contrast, the Ukrainian people are fighting for their homeland. United and defiant. The world is witnessing displays of courage, determination, and resolve that will go down in history.

The United Kingdom, along with many others, repeatedly warned that any Russian military incursion into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake and would come at a severe cost. Last week, we updated this forum on our continued support to Ukraine, our friends, as they fight for the right to choose their own destiny.

This week, I would like to update that the UK Government has now taken the decision to donate Starstreak, a high velocity, man-portable anti air missile to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. With the accompanying training package, this defensive weapon system will allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to better defend their skies from Russian military aircraft.

I would reiterate, all of our support to the democratic sovereign nation of Ukraine is defensive in nature and will help them defend themselves against this Russian war of aggression.

We will make the Russian government pay the price of its actions. The UK stands with the Ukrainian people in their fight for their homeland. We will work with our partners - for however long it takes - to ensure that the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the independence of Ukraine is restored.

Mr Chair, finally, I would again urge our Russian colleagues, to take a moment - to listen to the overwhelming condemnation ( 141 countries at the UNGA) and to listen to the truth. I urge them to consider their position, responsibilities and legacy as diplomats and citizens of Russia and stop their complicit propagation of President Putin's lies to their own people. Their actions and choices today will be ones they have to live with forever.

Thank you. And I ask that this statement be attached to the journal of the day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Russia's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine: UK statement to the OSCE, 23 March 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thank you Mr Chair. This statement is delivered under the topic raised by Ukraine and I request that this be accurately reflected in the Journal of the Day. Mr Chair, it is with great regret that we have reached the appalling milestone that it is now a month since President Putin launched his unprovoked, premeditated and a barbaric attack on Ukraine.

# data[].attributes.headline
Russia's reasoning for the War in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.subject
Russia's reasoning for the War in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
FM #Lavrov: The West does not like a situation where a regime it has nurtured and armed against Russia, a regime it has set on a path of neo-Nazi ideology and practice over the years, has to face responsibility for its crimes. 

🔗https://t.co/OwETIWo2s4

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
FM #Lavrov: The West does not like a situation where a regime it has nurtured and armed against Russia, a regime it has set on a path of neo-Nazi ideology and practice over the years, has to face responsibility for its crimes. 

🔗https://t.co/OwETIWo2s4 https://t.co/yETqq3G5KG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
FM #Lavrov: The West does not like a situation where a regime it has nurtured and armed against Russia, a regime it has set on a path of neo-Nazi ideology and practice over the years, has to face responsibility for its crimes.

🔗https://t.co/OwETIWo2s4 pic.twitter.com/yETqq3G5KG
— MFA Russia 🇷🇺 (@mfa_russia) March 25, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
FM #Lavrov: The West does not like a situation where a regime it has nurtured and armed against Russia, a regime it has set on a path of neo-Nazi ideology and practice over the years, has to face responsibility for its crimes. 

🔗https://t.co/OwETIWo2s4 https://t.co/yETqq3G5KG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
FM #Lavrov: The West does not like a situation where a regime it has nurtured and armed against Russia, a regime it has set on a path of neo-Nazi ideology and practice over the years, has to face responsibility for its crimes. 

🔗https://t.co/OwETIWo2s4 https://t.co/yETqq3G5KG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
FM #Lavrov: The West does not like a situation where a regime it has nurtured and armed against Russia, a regime it has set on a path of neo-Nazi ideology and practice over the years, has to face responsibility for its crimes. 

🔗https://t.co/OwETIWo2s4

# data[].attributes.headline
Ukraine’s government is willing to make big concessions to end the war - The Economist

# data[].attributes.subject
Ukraine’s government is willing to make big concessions to end the war - The Economist

# data[].attributes.body
March 23, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ukraine’s government is willing to make big concessions to end the war _ The Economist

# data[].attributes.headline
Putin lays out his demands in Turkish phone call - BBC News

# data[].attributes.subject
Putin lays out his demands in Turkish phone call - BBC News

# data[].attributes.body
March 17, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Turkey has positioned itself with great care to be the go-between with Russia and Ukraine - and this seems to be paying off.

On Thursday afternoon, President Vladimir Putin rang the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and told him what Russia's precise demands were for a peace deal with Ukraine.

Within half an hour of the ending of the phone call, I interviewed Mr Erdogan's leading adviser and spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin. Mr Kalin was part of the small group of officials who had listened in on the call.

The Russian demands fall into two categories.

The first four demands are, according to Mr Kalin, not too difficult for Ukraine to meet.

Chief among them is an acceptance by Ukraine that it should be neutral and should not apply to join Nato. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has already conceded this.

There are other demands in this category which mostly seem to be face-saving elements for the Russian side.

Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine. And there is something called de-Nazification.

This is deeply offensive to Mr Zelensky, who is himself Jewish and some of whose relatives died in the Holocaust, but the Turkish side believes it will be easy enough for Mr Zelensky to accept. Perhaps it will be enough for Ukraine to condemn all forms of neo-Nazism and promise to clamp down on them.

The second category is where the difficulty will lie, and in his phone call, Mr Putin said that it would need face-to-face negotiations between him and President Zelensky before agreement could be reached on these points. Mr Zelensky has already said he's prepared to meet the Russian president and negotiate with him one-to-one.

Mr Kalin was much less specific about these issues, saying simply that they involved the status of Donbas, in eastern Ukraine, parts of which have already broken away from Ukraine and stressed their Russianness, and the status of Crimea.

Although Mr Kalin didn't go into detail, the assumption is that Russia will demand that the Ukrainian government should give up territory in eastern Ukraine. That will be deeply contentious.

The other assumption is that Russia will demand that Ukraine should formally accept that Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014, does indeed now belong to Russia. If this is the case, it will be a bitter pill for Ukraine to swallow.

Nevertheless, it is a fait accompli, even though Russia has no legal right to own Crimea and actually signed an international treaty, after the fall of Communism but before Vladimir Putin came to power, accepting that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

Still, President Putin's demands are not as harsh as some people feared and they scarcely seem to be worth all the violence, bloodshed and destruction which Russia has visited on Ukraine.

Given his heavy-handed control over the Russian media, it shouldn't be too hard for him and his acolytes to present all this as a major victory.

For Ukraine, though, there are going to be serious anxieties.

If the fine details of any agreement aren't sorted out with immense care, President Putin or his successors could always use them as an excuse to invade Ukraine again.

A peace deal could take a long time to sort out, even if a ceasefire stops the bloodshed in the meantime.

Ukraine has suffered appallingly over the past few weeks, and rebuilding the towns and cities which Russia has damaged and destroyed will take a long time. So will rehousing the millions of refugees who have fled their homes.

What about Vladimir Putin himself? There have been suggestions that he is ill, or possibly even mentally unbalanced. Did Mr Kalin detect anything strange about him in the phone call? Not at all, he said. Mr Putin had apparently been clear and concise in everything he said.

Yet even if he does manage to present an agreement with Ukraine as a glorious victory over neo-Nazism, his position at home must be weakened.

More and more people will realise that he overreached himself badly, and stories of the soldiers who have been killed or captured are already spreading fast.

War in Ukraine: More coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ukraine conflict: Putin lays out his demands in Turkish phone call

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Turkey has positioned itself with great care to be the go-between with Russia and Ukraine - and this seems to be paying off. On Thursday afternoon, President Vladimir Putin rang the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and told him what Russia's precise demands were for a peace deal with Ukraine.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Smaller Bombs That Could Turn Ukraine Into a Nuclear War Zone - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
The Smaller Bombs That Could Turn Ukraine Into a Nuclear War Zone - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
March 21, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Smaller Bombs That Could Turn Ukraine Into a Nuclear War Zone - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.headline
Mariupol: Four reasons the city matters so much to Russia - BBC News

# data[].attributes.subject
Mariupol: Four reasons the city matters so much to Russia - BBC News

# data[].attributes.body
March 21, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mariupol has become the most heavily bombed and damaged city in Ukraine's war with Russia - having suffered the brunt of sustained Russian attacks. It is key to Moscow's military campaign in Ukraine. But why?

There are four main reasons why taking the port city would be such a strategic win for Russia - and a major blow for Ukraine.

Geographically, the city of Mariupol occupies only a tiny area on the map but it now stands obstinately in the way of Russian forces who have burst out of the Crimean peninsula.

They are pushing north-east to try to link up with their comrades and Ukrainian-separatist allies in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

General Sir Richard Barrons - former commander of UK Joint Forces Command - says capturing Mariupol is vital to Russia's war effort.

"When the Russians feel they have successfully concluded that battle, they will have completed a land bridge from Russia to Crimea and they will see this as a major strategic success."

If Mariupol was seized, Russia would also end up with full control of more than 80% of Ukraine's Black Sea coastline - cutting-off its maritime trade and further isolating it from the world.

By holding out against advancing forces for the past three weeks, the defending Ukrainians have managed to preoccupy a large number of Russian troops. But that failure by Russia to secure a rapid capture of the city, has prompted Russian commanders to resort to a 21st Century version of mediaeval siege tactics.

They have pummelled Mariupol with artillery, rockets and missiles - damaging or destroying over 90% of the city. They have also cut off access to electricity, heating, fresh water, food and medical supplies - creating a man-made humanitarian catastrophe which Moscow now blames on Ukraine for refusing to surrender by an 05:00 deadline on Monday. A Ukrainian MP has accused Russia of "trying to starve Mariupol into surrender".

Ukraine has vowed to defend the city down to the last soldier. It may well come to that. Russian troops are slowly pushing into the centre and, in the absence of any kind of workable peace deal, Russia is now likely to intensify its bombardment - drawing little if any distinction between its armed defenders and the beleaguered civilian population which still numbers over 200,000.

If, and when, Russia takes full control of Mariupol this will free up close to 6,000 of its troops - organised into 1,000-strong battalion tactical groups - to then go and reinforce other Russian fronts around Ukraine.

There are a number of possibilities as to where they could be redeployed:

to the north-east to join the battle to encircle and destroy Ukraine's regular armed forces fighting pro-Kremlin separatists in the Donbas region

to the west to push towards Odesa, which would be Ukraine's last remaining major outlet to the Black Sea

to the north-west towards the city of Dnipro

2. Strangling Ukraine's economy

Mariupol has long-been a strategically important port on the Sea of Azov, part of the Black Sea.

With its deep berths, it is the biggest port in the Azov Sea region and home to a major iron and steel works. In normal times, Mariupol is a key export hub for Ukraine's steel, coal and corn going to customers in the Middle East and beyond.

For eight years now, since Moscow's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, the city has been sandwiched uncomfortably between Russian forces on that peninsula and the pro-Kremlin separatists in the breakaway self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Losing Mariupol would be a major blow to what is left of Ukraine's economy.

3. Propaganda opportunity

Mariupol is home to a Ukrainian militia unit called the Azov Brigade, named after the Sea of Azov which links Mariupol to the rest of the Black Sea. The Azov Brigade contains far-right extremists, historically including neo-Nazis.

Although they form only the tiniest fraction of Ukraine's fighting forces, this has been a useful propaganda tool for Moscow, giving it a pretext for telling Russia's population that the young men it has sent to fight in Ukraine are there to rid their neighbour of neo-Nazis.

If Russia manages to capture alive significant numbers of Azov Brigade fighters it is likely they will be paraded on Russian state-controlled media as part of the ongoing information war to discredit Ukraine and its government.

4. Major morale boost

The capture of Mariupol by Russia, if it happens, will be psychologically significant for both sides in this war.

A Russian victory in Mariupol would enable the Kremlin to show its population - through state-controlled media - that Russia was achieving its aims and making progress.

For President Putin, for whom this war appears to be personal, there is a historical significance to all this. He sees Ukraine's Black Sea coastline as belonging to something called Novorossiya (New Russia) - Russian lands that date back to the 18th Century empire.

Putin wants to revive that concept, "rescuing Russians from the tyranny of a pro-western government in Kyiv" as he sees it. Mariupol currently stands in the way of him achieving that aim.

But to Ukrainians, the loss of Mariupol would be a major blow - not just militarily and economically - but also to the minds of the men and women fighting on the ground, defending their country. Mariupol would be the first major city to fall to the Russians after Kherson, a strategically much less important city that was barely defended.

There is another morale aspect here and that is of deterrence.

Mariupol has put up fierce resistance - but look at the cost. The city is decimated, it lies largely in ruins. It will go down in history alongside Grozny and Aleppo, places that Russia eventually bombed and shelled into submission, reducing them to rubble. The message to other Ukrainian cities is stark - if you choose to resist like Mariupol did then you can expect the same fate.

"The Russians couldn't walk into Mariupol," says Gen Sir Richard Barrons, "they couldn't drive in with their tanks, so they've pounded it to rubble. And that's what we should expect to see anywhere else that really matters to them."

War in Ukraine: More coverage

Are you in Ukraine? Is your family? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.

Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:

If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mariupol: Why Mariupol is so important to Russia's plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mariupol has become the most heavily bombed and damaged city in Ukraine's war with Russia - having suffered the brunt of sustained Russian attacks. It is key to Moscow's military campaign in Ukraine. But why? There are four main reasons why taking the port city would be such a strategic win for Russia - and a major blow for Ukraine.

# data[].attributes.headline
These nations won't criticise Russia's invasion and won't support Ukraine. Here's why - ABC News (Australia)

# data[].attributes.subject
These nations won't criticise Russia's invasion and won't support Ukraine. Here's why - ABC News (Australia)

# data[].attributes.body
March 2, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The countries staying silent on Russia’s war with Ukraine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite a swift chorus of condemnation from the West over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there are several nations sitting on the fence and this is why, writes Kathryn Diss.

# data[].attributes.headline
President of Ukraine gives stinging speech to German Bundestag (aka. the German Parliament)

# data[].attributes.subject
President of Ukraine gives stinging speech to German Bundestag (aka. the German Parliament)

# data[].attributes.body
March 17, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his first address to the German parliament, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned that Europe is divided "between freedom and slavery."

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the Bundestag in a video call for the first time on Thursday morning before the German parliament opened.

He told German lawmakers that sanctions imposed on Russia were "not enough to stop this war" after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24.

Zelenskyy had some harsh words for the German government over its economic interests with Russia.

"We saw how many ties your companies still have with Russia. With a state that just uses you and some other countries to finance the war," he said.

"You probably do not all notice yet ... You are like behind the wall again. Not the Berlin Wall. But in the middle of Europe. Between freedom and slavery."

'Mr. Scholz, tear down this wall'

In Zelensky's emotional address, he also appealed directly to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz saying "Dear Mr. Scholz, tear down this wall."

By using the term "wall", the president made a direct historical reference to a speech by US President Ronald Reagan standing next to the Berlin Wall in 1987, DW's Chief International Editor Richard Walker explained.

The former US president famously pleaded with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time, to "tear down this wall."

"This was a theme Zelenskyy had in his speech, that there is a new wall in Europe," Walker said, "suggesting that this was a wall Ukraine was on the wrong side of, that there is this in-group of NATO and there's Ukraine on the outside, vulnerable to these attacks from Russia."

Series of appeals to leaders

The virtual address follows a series of direct appeals Zelenskyy had been making to leaders to drum up support after Russia invaded the country.

After speaking to the Canadian parliament earlier this week, the Ukrainian president also addressed the United States Congress.

In his appeals, he called for tougher economic sanctions on the Kremlin and enablers of the invasion.

"I am grateful to the politicians who are still trying... Trying to break this Wall. Who choose life between Russian money and the deaths of Ukrainian children," Zelenskyy said in the German parliament. "Don't look over your shoulder even after this war."

On Wednesday, day 21 of the war, the council for the besieged city of Mariupol claimed Russia had destroyed the Drama Theatre, which Russia denied.

Germany's stance on Ukraine

In response to Russia's invasion on February 24, the German government had approved supplying weapons to Ukraine. It had so far sent 1,000 anti-tank weapons, 500 surface-to-air missiles and reportedly 2,700 Soviet-era missiles to the eastern European country.

This week Germany also announced it will buy F-35 stealth fighter jets from the US, considered the world's most modern combat aircraft. This comes after Scholz unveiled plans to up its defense budget by €100 billion last month.

The country's actions marks a major shift from its long-standing defense policy of not sending or selling weapons to war zones.

But Germany maintained it opposes NATO getting involved in the Ukraine war, stressing that de-escalation is vital.

Earlier this month, Poland had offered to send its 28 MiG fighter jets to Ukraine using the US Air Base in Ramstein, Germany on the condition NATO would back the move. But both Germany and the US refused to support the proposal.

Olaf Scholz said at the time: "We want to de-escalate the conflict, we want to see an end to this conflict."
Correction: The original version of this article was published during Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speech to the Bundestga and based on the simultaneous translation. It has since been amended to reflect the official translation of the address.
fh/kb (dpa, AFP, epd)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Europe is 'behind a wall again,' Zelenskyy tells Bundestag - DW - 03/17/2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his first address to the German parliament, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned that Europe is divided "between freedom and slavery." Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the Bundestag in a video call for the first time on Thursday morning before the German parliament opened.

# data[].attributes.headline
President Zelenskyy asks the US Congress and President Biden for a 'no-fly zone' over Ukraine. [Content warning below]

# data[].attributes.subject
President Zelenskyy asks the US Congress and President Biden for a 'no-fly zone' over Ukraine. [Content warning below]

# data[].attributes.body
March 16, 2022
⚠️⛔️ WARNING ⛔️⚠️: On minute 12 of the video, the President of Ukraine presents a video of the war in Ukraine that contains very graphic images that are not recommended for children. If you are underage, please only watch those images with parental guidance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's appeal to US Congress: FULL SPEECH

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
'You are not alone': Three EU country leaders meet Zelenskiy in Kyiv

# data[].attributes.headline
Prime Ministers of Poland, Czech Republic and Slovenia travel to Ukraine as a show of support

# data[].attributes.subject
Prime Ministers of Poland, Czech Republic and Slovenia travel to Ukraine as a show of support

# data[].attributes.body
March 15, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'You are not alone': Three EU country leaders meet Zelenskiy in Kyiv

# data[].attributes.headline
The Roots of the Ukraine War: How the Crisis Developed 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Roots of the Ukraine War: How the Crisis Developed 

# data[].attributes.body
New York Times - March 11, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does Russia Want in Ukraine_ A Full Guide. - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.headline
Backgrounder: Why NATO Has Become a Flash Point With Russia in Ukraine - Council on Foreign Relations

# data[].attributes.subject
Backgrounder: Why NATO Has Become a Flash Point With Russia in Ukraine - Council on Foreign Relations

# data[].attributes.body
January 20, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Tensions between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have reached the point of crisis. The government of Russian President Vladimir Putin is threatening a wider military incursion into Ukraine unless the U.S.-led alliance makes several major security concessions, including a commitment to cease expanding eastward.

Russia says that the United States and NATO have continually violated pledges allegedly made in the early 1990s that the alliance would not expand into the former Soviet bloc. Meanwhile, alliance leaders have said they are open to new diplomacy with Russia on arms control and other matters but that they are unwilling to discuss forever shutting NATO's doors to new members.

What is the source of Russia's dispute with NATO?

Russian leaders have long been wary of the eastward expansion of NATO, particularly as the alliance opened its doors to former Warsaw Pact states and ex-Soviet republics in the late 1990s (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and early 2000s (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Their fears grew in the late 2000s as the alliance stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine at an unspecified point in the future.

For the Kremlin, the notion that Ukraine, a pillar of the Soviet Union with strong historic ties to Russia, would join NATO was a red line. "No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia," Putin warned U.S. Undersecretary for Political Affairs William J. Burns, who is now director of the CIA, in the weeks leading up to NATO's 2008 Bucharest Summit.

Although NATO did not announce a formal membership plan for Ukraine and Georgia at the Bucharest Summit, the alliance did affirm "that these countries will become members of NATO," and it extended formal invitations to accessiontalks to Albania and Croatia, which became members in 2009. NATO expanded again in 2017, admitting Montenegro, and in 2020, welcoming North Macedonia.

Did the United States promise the Soviet Union that it would freeze NATO expansion?

Russian officials say that the U.S. government made a pledge to Soviet leaders not to expand the alliance's eastern borders, a commitment they say came during the flurry of diplomacy following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and surrounding the reunification of Germany in 1990. Proponents of this narrative often cite the words that U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker said to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990, that "there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east." They say the United States and NATO have repeatedly betrayed this verbal commitment in the decades since, taking advantage of Russia's tumultuous post-Soviet period and expanding the Western alliance several times, all the way to Russia's doorstep in the case of the Baltic states.

However, many Western analysts and former U.S. officials involved in these discussions dispute what they say is a selective view of history. They point out that, in early 1990, the focus of the diplomacy between the so-called Two Plus Four (East and West Germany plus the United States, France, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom) was the future of Germany and the question of whether the soon-to-be unified country would be part of NATO. (West Germany was already an alliance member, while East Germany was part of the Soviet-aligned Warsaw Pact.) They say that the discussions were not about NATO's long-term plans for eastward expansion, which would have made little sense at that time; the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union still existed, and there was scant indication they would dissolve as quickly as they did, in a matter of months. In a 2014 interview, Gorbachev said as much: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was never discussed. It was not raised in those years."

The diplomacy between U.S. and Soviet leaders during this period focused on Germany and included discussions of various post-unification security options, including the potential for Germany to become part of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for Germany to be nonaligned, and even for the Soviet Union to join NATO. Early in the talks, Soviet leaders insisted that a unified Germany never become part of NATO, though they eventually accepted Germany's right to decide for itself. Similarly, the United States stepped back from Baker's initial language on not expanding "NATO's jurisdiction," which he reportedly used only in the discussion about whether NATO troops would be based in what was then East Germany. In the end, the treaty recognizing German unification that the Two Plus Four powers signed in the summer of 1990 stipulated that only German territorial (non-NATO) forces could be based in East Germany while Soviet forces withdrew. After that, only German forces assigned to NATO could be based there, not foreign NATO forces. The treaty doesn't mention NATO's rights and commitments beyond Germany.

How did NATO feature in diplomacy between U.S. and post-Soviet Russian leaders?

Some experts point to another pivotal moment to help explain the mistrust between Russia and NATO today: the 1993-94 discussions between the Bill Clinton administration and the Russian government led by Boris Yeltsin.

By this point, the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union had collapsed, and the Clinton administration was seeking to craft a new security architecture in Europe that would help foster and fortify the continent's fledging, post-Soviet democracies, including Russia. Some in the Clinton government, as well as Central European countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland, wanted to move quickly and start expanding NATO's membership eastward. However, most Clinton officials reportedly did not, being wary that expansion would rankle Russian leaders at a fragile, transitional moment and detract from other U.S. foreign policy objectives, such as nuclear arms control.

Instead, Clinton chose to develop a new NATO initiative called the Partnership for Peace (PfP), which would be nonexclusive and open to all former Warsaw Pact members, as well as non-European countries. Seeing this non-membership framework as a compromise of sorts, in October 1993, U.S. diplomats proposed it to Yeltsin, who eagerly accepted. (Just days before, Yeltsin, with the Russian military's support, forcefully put down an attempt by parliament to oust him.) NATO launched PfP at its annual summit in January 1994, and more than two dozen countries, including Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine, joined in the following months.

However, Clinton soon began speaking publicly [PDF] about expanding NATO's membership, saying in Prague just days after the launch of PfP that "the question is no longer whether NATO will take on new members but when and how." Yeltsin warned Western leaders at a conference in December of that year that "Europe, even before it has managed to shrug off the legacy of the Cold War, is risking encumbering itself with a cold peace."

Clinton subsequently made efforts to allay Yeltsin's concerns: pushing off enlargement until after the Russian leader was reelected in 1996, inviting Russia to join the Group of Seven, and establishing a formal, non-adversarial forum for Russia-NATO diplomacy. But analysts say that NATO's expansion in the ensuing years would leave deep scars on the Russian psyche. "For many Russians, most importantly Vladimir Putin, the 1990s were a decade of humiliation, as the United States imposed its vision of order on Europe (including in Kosovo in 1999) while the Russians could do nothing but stand by and watch," James Goldgeier, an expert on NATO-Russia relations, wrote for War on the Rocks.

The Russian government, led by Putin, continued to be wary of NATO expansion in the 2000s. Putin expressed doubts that the alliance, which grew its fastest in 2004, would be effective in tackling the security challenges of the day, including international terrorism and the conflict in Afghanistan. Many new members, particularly the Baltic countries, saw NATO membership as a shield against their former Soviet rulers.

In the years that followed, Putin grew increasingly outspoken in his displeasure at NATO's inroads into Eastern Europe, saying at a high-profile speech in Munich in 2007 that "it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust." In the summer following NATO's 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine, Russia invaded the former. Six years later, as Kyiv stepped closer to an economic partnership with another Western bloc, the European Union, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

What is Russia demanding of NATO and the United States today?

Russia has put forth two draft agreements that seek explicit, legally binding security guarantees from the United States and NATO, respectively:

Treaty with the United States. The draft treaty contains eight articles, some of which call for tight restrictions on U.S. and NATO political and military activities.

Article 4 calls for NATO to end its eastward expansion, specifically, deny future membership to ex-Soviet states, such as Ukraine. It would also ban the United States from establishing bases in or cooperating militarily with former Soviet states.

Article 5 would block both signatories from deploying military assets in areas outside their national borders that "could be perceived by the other party as a threat to its national security." Heavy bombers and "surface warships of any type" shall refrain from deploying outside the party's national airspace or territorial waters to areas where they could strike the other's territory.

Article 6 calls for parties to confine their deployments of intermediate- and short-range, ground-launched missiles to their own territories, and only in areas where they could not strike the other's territory.

Article 7 would block the parties from deploying nuclear weapons outside their respective territories and would require related nuclear weapons infrastructure in third-party countries to be dismantled.

Agreement with NATO. The draft agreement has nine articles, including several that call for dramatic military concessions from the transatlantic alliance.

Article 4 would effectively divide NATO's Western and Eastern European membership. It would ban NATO countries that were members of the alliance as of 1997 (a grouping that excludes nearly all eastern members) from deploying military assets to "any of the other states of Europe" in excess of what those members had deployed by 1997. Such deployments could only take place "in exceptional cases" and with Russia's consent.

Article 5 would forbid the parties from stationing intermediate- and short-range, ground-launched missiles in areas that could strike the other parties.

Article 6 would restrict NATO "from any further enlargement," including admitting Ukraine.

Article 7 would ban NATO members from conducting any military activity in Ukraine, as well as in other Eastern European states and those in South Caucasus and Central Asia.

Many Western analysts and officials have said that several of Russia's demands, such the ban on future NATO enlargement, are effectively nonstarters and that the Kremlin has proposed them in bad faith. Some fear Moscow's demands are deliberately excessive, intended to be dismissed by Western powers and serve as a pretext for Russia to escalate its military activity in Ukraine, potentially by a broad invasion.

How are the United States and NATO supporting Ukraine?

The United States and NATO have said they remain committed to restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty. They do not recognize Russia's claims to Crimea, and have encouraged Russia and Ukraine to resolve the conflict in the country's eastern Donbas region via the Minsk agreements [PDF]. Signed in 2014 and 2015 and brokered by France and Germany, these accords call for a cease-fire, a withdrawal of heavy weapons, Ukraine's control over its border with Russia, and local elections and a special political status for certain areas of the region.

Meanwhile, Kyiv has affirmed its goal of eventually gaining NATO membership, and it holds yearly military exercises with the alliance, including the Sea Breeze and Rapid Trident drills. The U.S. military has provided Ukrainian forces with training and equipment, including sniper rifles, grenade launchers, night-vision gear, radars, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and patrol vessels. In 2020, Ukraine became one of just six so-called enhanced opportunity partners, a special status given to NATO's closet allies, such as Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
nato (north atlantic treaty organization)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why NATO Has Become a Flash Point With Russia in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tensions between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have reached the point of crisis. The government of Russian President Vladimir Putin is threatening a wider military incursion into Ukraine unless the U.S.-led alliance makes several major security concessions, including a commitment to cease expanding eastward.

# data[].attributes.headline
If you would like to explore the Russian propaganda campaign, then listen to this podcast.

# data[].attributes.subject
If you would like to explore the Russian propaganda campaign, then listen to this podcast.

# data[].attributes.body
March 14, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Russians and Ukrainians are deeply connected. Millions of Ukrainians have relatives in Russia. Many have lived in the country.

But Moscow has taken steps to shield its people from open information about the war, even as its bombing campaign intensifies.

When Ukrainians try to explain the dire situation to family members in Russia, they are often met with denial, resistance, and a kind of refusal to believe.

Guest: Valerie Hopkins, a correspondent for The New York Times, currently in Ukraine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‎The Daily: How Russians See the War in Ukraine on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Russians and Ukrainians are deeply connected. Millions of Ukrainians have relatives in Russia. Many have lived in the country. But Moscow has taken steps to shield its people from open information about the war, even as its bombing campaign intensifies. When Ukrainians try to explain the dire situ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Ukrainian President holds an interview with ABC News - make sure you hear his message in English at the end!

# data[].attributes.subject
Ukrainian President holds an interview with ABC News - make sure you hear his message in English at the end!

# data[].attributes.body
March 8, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video The Zelenskyy Interview: David Muir Reporting | ABC News Exclusive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Zelenskyy reacts to new conditions from the Kremlin to end the war and talks about the resilience of the Ukrainian people as he delivers a message to the American people in English.

# data[].attributes.headline
The United States bans imports of Russian oil

# data[].attributes.subject
The United States bans imports of Russian oil

# data[].attributes.body
March 8, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the attack on causing the gravest humanitarian crisis on European soil since World War II, the U.S. is taking aim at the heart of the Russian economy: its energy sector. President Biden on Tuesday announced a U.S. ban on Russian oil and gas imports over the country's invasion of Ukraine, a direct hit on Russian President Vladimir Putin's main revenue source as Russian forces continue their battering of Ukrainian cities.

The announcement comes as the worst refugee crisis Europe has ever seen deepens, with more than 2 million people fleeing Ukraine in recent days into neighboring countries, according to the United Nations.

"Today, I am announcing the United States is targeting the main artery of Russia's economy," the president said. "We're banning all imports of Russian oil and gas energy. That means Russian oil will no longer be accepted in U.S. ports, and the American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin's war machine."

Oleg Ustenko, an economic adviser to Ukraine's president, this past weekend penned an op-ed pleading with the world to cut off what he denounced as Russia's "blood oil," which supplies nearly $1 billion a day to Moscow and which he said is financing the war in Ukraine. "Buy nothing from Russia," he wrote.

With U.S. gas prices surging to all-time highs as oil prices soar, here's what the ban on Russian oil imports means for Americans at the pump and elsewhere.

What the U.S. ban looks like

The U.S. is far less dependent on Russian oil than Europe. Last year, about 8% of U.S. oil imports came from Russia, while as of January almost no Russian oil came into the U.S, said Troy Vincent, senior market analyst at DTN, a commodities research firm.

Vincent and other analysts said before the President's announcement Tuesday that the relatively small scale of Russian oil in America made it more likely for the U.S. to move on its own to penalize Russian energy, imposing oil-related sanctions that the European Union, which is much more dependent on Russian oil and gas, could join later.

U.S. sanctions could've taken two forms, Vincent said before the ban was revealed by the White House. The more severe option would be for the U.S. to sanction Russian oil exports - not buying any Russian oil and refusing to engage with any nation that did, much as the U.S. approached sanctions on Iran in recent years.

The softer and more likely option was to impose a U.S. embargo on Russian energy. "We'll say, 'Nobody in the U.S. will touch Russian oil, but leave it to the EU to decide their own fate,'" Vincent said.

Mr. Biden said Tuesday the decision to ban Russian oil and gas, which also applies to Russian coal, was made in close consultation with allies and partners in Europe, but acknowledged that some allies "may not be in a position to join us."

Less oil, pricier gasoline

In the short-term, eliminating Russian oil will drive sky-high gas prices in America even higher, experts predicted.

"We think that a complete ban on Russian energy imports would cause the prices of Brent crude oil and European natural gas to surge to $160 [per barrel]," economists at Capital Economics said in a research report.

That level would obliterate the all-time record of $147 a barrel, reached in the summer of 2008, and drive average gas prices in the U.S. above $5 a gallon, according to energy analysts and economists.

A Quinnipiac poll released Monday found an overwhelming majority of Americans in favor of banning Russian oil, even if it means higher gas prices. However, that attitude could change once motorists find themselves actually paying far more at the pump while inflation eats into other parts of their household budgets.

"We're negative toward Russia until you start to really explain what the costs are to the U.S., and then people start to get a little bit softer," said Clayton Allen, managing director for the United States at the Eurasia Group, a political risk research firm.

"If Biden wants to impose really strict measures, it might be better to do that sooner while public sentiment is on his side," Allen said.

Gas prices, already a political albatross for President Biden, are clearly weighing on the diplomatic decision, and White House officials have underlined their reluctance to take any steps that would drive gas prices even higher.

With sanctions, "U.S. energy prices will have to increase - that may be a short-term increase, but it's something they are obviously concerned about," Allen said. "They haven't spent as much time as I'd have expected trying to domesticate the idea that U.S. consumers may have to bear some of the costs of isolating and punishing Russia."

Wild cards: Iran and Venezuela

To limit the impact of higher prices, the U.S. and international partners are releasing oil from reserves. Historically, each time the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SRP) is opened, gas prices ease for two to three weeks, Allen said.

"If you're concerned about gas being $5, an SRP release won't pull gas back to $3.50, but it will prevent the oil market from seizing up like it did in the 1970s," Allen said.

The Biden administration is also negotiating Iran's reentry into a nuclear control agreement, which would bring Iranian oil back on the world market. Currently, Iran can produce about one-fifth of the oil that would be leave the market in the case of Russia's exit, said DTN's Vincent.

The U.S. is also looking to ease relations with Venezuela, which has been barred from selling oil to the U.S. since the Trump administration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the U.S. ban on Russian oil and gas means for Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the attack on causing the gravest humanitarian crisis on European soil since World War II, the U.S. is taking aim at the heart of the Russian economy: its energy sector. President Biden on Tuesday announced a U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Russia blocks Security Council action on Ukraine - UN News

# data[].attributes.subject
Russia blocks Security Council action on Ukraine - UN News

# data[].attributes.body
February 23, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While 11 of the Council's 15 members voted in favour of the text, China India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained.

A 'no' vote from any one of the five permanent members of the Council stops action on any measure put before it. The body's permanent members are: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The Security Council's latest attempt to end the Ukraine crisis caps a week of activity at the United Nations seeking a diplomatic offramp to Russian military action in the country, including near daily press stakeouts by the Secretary-General, three emergency Council sessions, and one meeting of the 193-member General Assembly, which saw speaker after speaker call for de-escalation.

'Never give up'

Speaking to journalists after this evening's Council meeting, Secretary-General António Guterres, stressed that while the United Nations had today not achieved its primary objective to end war, "we must never give up."

"We must give peace another chance. Soldiers need to return to their barracks. Leaders need to turn to the path of dialogue and peace," he said.

And despite growing operational challenges, he assured that the UN is scaling up the delivery of life-saving support on both sides of the line of contact.

Dedicated UN coordinator

Against the backdrop of multiplying humanitarian needs, dying civilians and at least 100,000 Ukrainians reportedly fleeing their homes - with many crossing into neighbouring countries, underlining the regional nature of this growing crisis - Mr. Guterres announced the appointment of Amin Awad as UN Crisis Coordinator for Ukraine.

A close colleague of Mr. Guterres when he was chief of the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, Mr. Awad will lead the coordination of all UN efforts, including its humanitarian response, on both sides of the contact line.

"All concerned in this conflict must respect international humanitarian law and guarantee the safety and freedom of movement of UN staff and other humanitarians. Especially in a moment like this, it is important to remember that the UN...is tens of thousands of women and men around the world," he said.

Overcoming challenges

The top UN official outlined the work of the Organization, from feeding the hungry, vaccinating children and promoting development to protecting civilians in peacekeeping operations, mediating conflicts and supporting refugees and migrants, all while "standing, delivering, extending a lifeline of hope.'"

He stressed that although the UN Charter has been challenged in the past, it has "stood firm on the side of peace, security, development, justice, international law and human rights".

" Time after time, when the international community has rallied together in solidarity, those values have prevailed. They will prevail, independently of what happened today," the UN chief said.

"We must do everything in our power so that they prevail in Ukraine but they prevail for all humanity," concluded the Secretary-General.

A 'principled stand'

Introducing the draft resolution, which her country had helped craft, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield painted a picture of Russia's invasion of Ukraine that was "so bold, so brazen," that it threatens the international system "as we know it."

"We have a solemn responsibility not to look away," she said stressing that Russia must be held accountable, and its forces immediately, completely and unconditionally withdrawn.

"Today we are taking a principled stand in this Council," Ms. Thomas-Greenfield said. "There is no middle ground," responsible States do not invade their neighbours.

Can't veto accountability

After the text was defeated, Ms. Thomas-Greenfield took the floor again.

"You can veto this resolution, but you cannot veto our voices; You cannot veto the truth; You cannot veto our principles; You cannot veto the Ukrainian people; cannot veto the UN Charter ...and you will not veto accountability," she underscored.

The US Ambassador said that despite the actions of a "reckless, irresponsible" Member State, the United States will continue to stand with Ukraine against Russia's aggression.

'Naked aggression'

UK Ambassador Dame Barbara Woodward described how women and children in Kyiv, pensioners in Odessa and people all over Ukraine are "sheltering from Russia's onslaught."

She stated that the draft resolution sent "a message to the world that the rules we built together must be defended, because otherwise, who will be next."

Moreover, President Vladimir Putin's "massive invasion" of Ukraine to remove the Government is "a naked aggression" that must be condemned, Ms. Woodward added.

After the vote, the UK Ambassador pointed out that Russia was the only Council Member to vote against the draft.

" Make no mistake, Russia is isolated, it has no support for the invasion of Ukraine," she said, noting that history would record what had happened today, and that the United Kingdom "stands firmly in support" of the Ukrainian people and would hold Russia accountable for its actions.

A veto against international law

After voting in favour of the resolution, France's Ambassador, Nicolas de Rivière, said that Russia's "premediated aggression" is killing civilians and destroying infrastructure with goal of rebuilding the Russian empire.

While other members expressed their commitment to international law, Russia vetoed it.

"Russia is alone," he observed, adding that "within the UN and in all bodies, France will continue to mobilize with its partners to support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people."

Abstentions

Indian Ambassador T. S. Tirumurti, who abstained, said that "dialogue is the only path forward," no matter how daunting it might seem, and urged the Council to restore the difficult path forward.

Also abstaining, UAE Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh said that now that the resolution has been vetoed, the United Arab Emirates would continue to seek "inclusive and consultative processes" for a path forward.

Not an outpost

Meanwhile, as the only Permanent Council member to abstain, Chinese Ambassador Zhang Jun warned against actions that might "shut the door" to a negotiated settlement. He reminded that the Ukraine crisis did not occur "overnight" and that the security of one State cannot come at the expense of that of others.

" Ukraine should become a bridge between East and West, not an outpost," he said, adding that that cold war mentalities must be abandoned to build balanced European mechanisms and all parties should return to diplomacy.

'Ukrainian chessboard'

Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya said that he would not respond to those who had accused him of abusing his country's veto power.

He accused the draft's sponsors of "spinning tales" about the true situation in Ukraine, including Western allies' attempts to cover up the fact that they had been flooding the Donbas with weapons.

" You have made Ukraine a pawn in your own game... this resolution is nothing other than yet another brutal, inhumane move on this Ukrainian chessboard," he said.

Indeed, the situation is being exploited by political and media outlets, he said, citing examples of the "height of propaganda", including the misuse of images from Donbas to portray what was being referred to as Russian aggression."

Speaking to the representatives of France, the UK and US, he said that there was no verifiable confirmation about the death of Ukrainian civilians; that photographs of supposed Russian artillery "is fake"; and that reports of attacks on civilian infrastructure were untrue.

Moreover, with its history of aggressions against other countries, the United States was "in no position to moralize."

'A seat in Hell'

Ukraine Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya asserted that he would not dignify the "diabolical script" read by the Russian Ambassador, which was in fact "a rather detailed application for... a seat in Hell."

He recalled that during the Security Council's discussions on the situation in Ukraine earlier in the week, Russia had begun bombing his country and sending forces across the border, including through Belarus.

Therefore, he was not surprised that Russia voted against the text, he said, denouncing the actions of "the Kremlin regime."

Mr. Kyslytsya asked the Council to remember how many times the Russian Ambassador said that his country would not invade or bomb Ukraine. But after what had happened in recent days, "how can we trust you? You have no idea what is in the mind of your President," he declared.

The Ukraine Ambassador also noted that according to the rules of procedure, the Russian Ambassador should not have been presiding over a meeting of which his country was the subject.

Silent moment for peace

The Ukraine Ambassador asked the Council to dedicate a moment of silence "for peace... and to pray for the souls of those that have already been or may be killed", inviting the Russian Ambassador to "pray for salvation."

This was followed by solemn applause throughout the Chamber.

Noting that nothing could justify the bombing of hospitals and kindergartens -considered war crimes under the Rome Statute - he said that Ukraine was collecting evidence to send forward to the International Criminal Court ( ICC).

Sever ties

Finally, Mr. Kyslytsya called on nations to break off diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation, and international organizations to sever ties with that country.

" You should stop wiping your feet" on the words of the Secretary-General and the work of the UN, and "show respect for the principles enshrined in the Charter," he said.

In closing, the Ambassador maintained that while Ukraine remained open to negotiations, it was Russia that had launched an offensive that had sent "thousands of troops" into its territory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Russia blocks Security Council action on Ukraine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Friday that would have demanded that Moscow immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops, a move several Council members said was deplorable, but inevitable. |

# data[].attributes.body
March 2, 2022

# data[].attributes.headline
President Zelenskyy posts video in Kyiv one day after invasion begins

# data[].attributes.subject
President Zelenskyy posts video in Kyiv one day after invasion begins

# data[].attributes.body
February 25, 2022

# data[].attributes.headline
Russian President Putin announces military offensive in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.subject
Russian President Putin announces military offensive in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.body
February 23, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Putin declares military offensive in Ukraine as invasion starts

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S., Russia clash sharply over Ukraine at U.N. meeting

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S., Russia clash sharply over Ukraine at U.N. meeting

# data[].attributes.body
January 31, 2022

# data[].attributes.headline
From spy to president: The rise of Vladimir Putin - Vox

# data[].attributes.subject
From spy to president: The rise of Vladimir Putin - Vox

# data[].attributes.body
March 23, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From spy to president: The rise of Vladimir Putin

# data[].attributes.headline
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, explained in 8 moments - Vox

# data[].attributes.subject
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, explained in 8 moments - Vox

# data[].attributes.body
March 8, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, explained in 8 moments

# data[].attributes.headline
How to make up for the Russian oil embargo : Ease sanctions on Venezuela and re-start oil imports. 

# data[].attributes.subject
How to make up for the Russian oil embargo : Ease sanctions on Venezuela and re-start oil imports. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Talks to Ease Oil Sanctions on Venezuela Get Blowback - WSJ