conflict
‘What’s The Problem?’: Zelenskyy Says NATO Needs To ‘Shoot Down’ Russian Missiles In Ukraine’s Airspace

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By JAKE SMITH
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday in an interview with The New York Times that member states of the NATO alliance need to step up their involvement in Kyiv’s ongoing war against Russia.
NATO, a transatlantic defense alliance comprised of European Union (EU) nations and the United States, has provided military aid to Ukraine’s ongoing fight against Russia but has thus far refrained from getting directly involved in the conflict. Zelenskyy bemoaned during his interview on Tuesday NATO’s resistance to providing more direct support in the conflict and said the alliance needs to start shooting down Russian missiles flying inside Ukrainian airspace.
Zelenskyy claimed that NATO wouldn’t be at risk of getting into a combat scenario with Russia, because any alliance involvement would be purely defensive, according to the Times.
“What’s the problem? Why can’t we shoot them down? Is it defense? Yes. Is it an attack on Russia? No. Are you shooting down Russian planes and killing Russian pilots? No. So what’s the issue with involving NATO countries in the war? There is no such issue,” Zelenskyy told the Times on Tuesday. “Shoot down what’s in the sky over Ukraine. And give us the weapons to use against Russian forces on the borders.”
🇺🇦 Zelenskyy: Ukraine's energy grid could have been saved from Russian strikes if the West had provided enough Patriot air defense systems in time.
Despite requests, Ukraine has only received 3-5 Patriots, while the US has 480, Greece 48, and Germany 30 (Kiel Institute). pic.twitter.com/W6DwdHWnO5
— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) May 20, 2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed that he does not wish for conflict with NATO but is ready for it, should the alliance choose to intervene directly in the war.
“Everything is possible in the modern world,” Putin told reporters in March, when asked about the possibility of a conflict between NATO and Russia. “It is clear to everyone, that this will be one step away from a full-scale World War Three. I think hardly anyone is interested in this.”
Moscow has gone as far as to raise the specter of nuclear war if NATO members choose to send troops into Ukraine to fight on Kyiv’s behalf, a possibility previously raised by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Zelenskyy also urged NATO Tuesday to send more military aid to bolster Ukraine’s defense against Russian advances. Russia has gained ground in recent months in key locations along the northeastern theater of the war, including the city of Avdiivka and regions near Donetsk and Kharkiv.
“Can we get seven?” Zelenskyy said, referring to Patriot air defense systems, telling the Times that Ukraine needed more than that number but would make do with what was available to protect key regions. He suggested an agreement might be reached during the NATO summit in July.
“Do you think it is too much for the NATO anniversary summit in Washington? For a country that is fighting for freedom and democracy around the world today?” Zelenskyy told the Times.
The U.S. recently approved a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine, including $14 billion for the direct purchase of weapons and munitions and $23 billion for replenishing the U.S.’ weapons stockpile, which can be transferred to foreign allies through the presidential drawdown authority.
Defense experts and former U.S. officials previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that even with additional aid, Ukraine may not be any closer to achieving victory. Ukraine has suffered heavy manpower and armament losses as Russia’s military has resurged to full capacity.
“I think there’s not enough money available, either in this bill or in a much larger one, to help Ukraine achieve their goals of retaking all their territory or even go on offense in a sustained way,” Benjamin Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities, previously told the DCNF. “So in a sense, moving forward is beyond their grasp, even if we give them a lot more weapons.”
conflict
Obama Dropped Over 26K Bombs Without Congressional Approval

@miss_stacey_ Biden, Clinton, Obama & Harris on Iran #biden #clinton #obama #harris #trump #iran #nuclear
Iran has been the target for decades. Biden, Harris, and Clinton—all the Democrats have said that they would attack Iran if given the opportunity. It appears that Donald Trump is attempting to mitigate a potentially irresolvable situation. As he bluntly told reporters: We basically — we have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f‑‑‑ they’re doing.”
A portion of the nation believes Trump acted like a dictator by attacking Iran without Congressional approval. I explained how former President Barack Obama decimated the War Powers Resolution Act when he decided Libya was overdue for a regime change. The War Powers Act, or War Powers Resolution of 1973, grants the POTUS the ability to send American troops into battle if Congress receives a 48-hour notice. The stipulation here is that troops cannot remain in battle for over 60 days unless Congress authorizes a declaration of war. Congress could also remove US forces at any time by passing a resolution.
Libya is one of seven nations that Obama bombed without Congressional approval, yet no one remembers him as a wartime president, as the United States was not technically at war. Over 26,000 bombs were deployed across 7 nations under his command in 2016 alone. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Pakistan were attacked without a single vote. Donald Trump’s recent orders saw 36 bombs deployed in Iran.
The majority of those bombings happened in Syria, Libya, and Iraq under the premise of targeting extremist groups like ISIS. Drone strikes were carried out across Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan as the Obama Administration accused those nations of hosting al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Coincidentally, USAID was also providing funding to those groups.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was initially implemented to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obama broadened his interpretation of the AUMF and incorporated newly formed militant groups that were allegedly expanding across the entire Middle East. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism believes there were up to 1,100 civilian casualties in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Thousands of civilians died in Syria and Iraq but the death toll was never calculated. At least 100 innocent people died in the 2016 attacks in Afghanistan alone.
The government will always augment the law for their personal agenda. The War Powers Resolution was ignored and the AUMF was altered. Congress was, however, successful in preventing Obama from putting US troops on the ground and fighting a full-scale war. In 2013, Obama sought congressional approval for military action in Syria but was denied. Obama again attempted to deploy troops in 2015 but was denied. Congress has to redraft the AUMF to specifically prevent Obama from deploying troops in the Middle East. “The authorization… does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.” Obama attempted to redraft the AUMF on his own by insisting he would prohibit “enduring offensive ground combat operations” or long-term deployment of troops. He was met with bipartisan disapproval as both sides believed he was attempting to drag the United States into another unnecessary war.
The United States should not be involved in any of these battles, but here we are. Those living in fear that Donald Trump is a dictator fail to recognize that past leadership had every intention of sending American men and women into battle unilaterally without a single vote cast.
conflict
The Oil Price Spike That Didn’t Happen

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By David Blackmon
What if they gave an oil price spike and nobody came? That is admittedly kind of a lame play on an old saying about parties, but it’s exactly what has happened over the two weeks since June 12, when Israel launched its initial assault on Iran.
At that day’s close of trading, the domestic U.S. WTI price sat at $68.04 per barrel. As of this writing on June 24, the price stands at $64.50. That’s not just the absence of a price spike, it is the opposite of one, a drop of 5% in just two weeks.
So, what happened? Why didn’t crude prices spike significantly? For such a seemingly complex trading market that is impacted daily by a broad variety of factors, the answer here is surprisingly simple, boiling down to just two key factors.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
- Neither Israel nor the United States made an effort to target Iran’s refining or export infrastructures.
- Despite some tepid, sporadic saber rattling by Iranian officials, they mounted no real effort to block the flow of crude tankers through the region’s critical choke point, the Strait of Hormuz.
Hitting Iran’s infrastructure could have taken its substantial crude exports – which the International Energy Agency estimates to be 1.7 million barrels per day – off the global market, a big hit. Shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global crude supplies flow every day, would have been a much bigger hit, one that would have set prices on an upward spiral.
But the oil kept flowing, muting the few comparatively small increases in prices which did come about.
Respected analyst David Ramsden-Wood, writing at his “HotTakeOfTheDay” Substack newsletter, summed it up quite well. “Oil is still structurally bearish. U.S. producers are in PR mode—talking up ‘Drill, baby, drill’ while actually slowing down. Capex is flat to declining. Rig counts are down. Shareholders want returns, not growth. So we’re left with this: Tension in the Middle East, no supply impact, and U.S. production that’s quietly rolling over. Oil shrugged.”
There was a time, as recently as 10 years ago, when crude prices would have no doubt rocketed skywards at the news of both the commencement of Israel’s initial June 12 assault on Iran’s military and political targets and of last Saturday’s U.S. bombing operation. In those days, we could have expected crude prices to go as high as $100 per barrel or even higher. Markets used to really react to the “tension in the Middle East” to which Ramsden-Wood refers, in large part, because they had no real way to parse through all the uncertainties such events might create.
Now it’s different. Things have changed. The rise of machine learning, AI and other technological and communications advancements has played a major role.
In the past, a lack of real-time information during any rise in Middle East tensions left traders in the dark for some period of time – often extended periods – about potential impacts on production in the world’s biggest oil producing region. But that is no longer the case. Traders can now gauge potential impacts almost immediately.
That was especially true throughout this most recent upset, due to President Donald Trump’s transparency about everything that was taking place. You were able to know exactly what the U.S. was planning to do or had done just by regularly pressing the “refresh” button at Trump’s Truth Social feed.
Tim Stewart, President of the D.C.-based U.S. Oil and Gas Association, has a term for this. “The Markets are becoming much better at building the ‘47 Variable’ into their short-term models,” he said in an email. “This is not a Republican Administration – it is a Disrupter Administration and disruption happens both ways, so the old playbooks just don’t apply anymore. Traders are taking into account a President who means what he says, and it is best to plan for it.”
Add to all that the reality that a high percentage of crude trading is now conducted via automated, AI-controlled programs, and few trades are any longer made in the dark.
Thus, the world saw a price spike which, despite being widely predicted by many smart people, didn’t happen, and the reasons why are pretty simple.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/PBS NewsHour)
-
Business1 day ago
Ottawa Funded the China Ferry Deal—Then Pretended to Oppose It
-
COVID-192 days ago
New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility
-
MAiD2 days ago
Canada’s euthanasia regime is not health care, but a death machine for the unwanted
-
Business1 day ago
World Economic Forum Aims to Repair Relations with Schwab
-
Alberta2 days ago
The permanent CO2 storage site at the end of the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line is just getting started
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta’s government is investing $5 million to help launch the world’s first direct air capture centre at Innisfail
-
Business2 days ago
Municipal government per-person spending in Canada hit near record levels
-
Business1 day ago
A new federal bureaucracy will not deliver the affordable housing Canadians need