WASHINGTON: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has given the smaller nation’s embassy in Washington an unexpected role: recruitment center for Americans who want to join the fight.
Diplomats working out of the embassy, in a townhouse in the Georgetown section of the city, are fielding thousands of offers from volunteers seeking to fight for Ukraine, even as they work on the far more pressing matter of securing weapons to defend against an increasingly brutal Russian onslaught.
“They really feel that this war is unfair, unprovoked,” said Ukraine’s military attaché, Maj. Gen. Borys Kremenetskyi. “They feel that they have to go and help.”
US volunteers represent just a small subset of foreigners seeking to fight for Ukraine, who in turn comprise just a tiny fraction of the international assistance that has flowed into the country. Still, it is a a reflection of the passion, supercharged in an era of social media, that the attack and the mounting civilian casualties have stirred.
“This is not mercenaries who are coming to earn money,” Kremenetskyi said. “This is people of goodwill who are coming to assist Ukraine to fight for freedom.”
The US government discourages Americans from going to fight in Ukraine, which raises legal and national security issues.
Since the Feb. 24 invasion, the embassy in Washington has heard from at least 6,000 people inquiring about volunteering for service, the “vast majority” of them American citizens, said Kremenetskyi, who oversees the screening of potential US recruits.
Half the potential volunteers were quickly rejected and didn’t even make it to the Zoom interview, the general said. They lacked the required military experience, had a criminal background or weren’t suitable for other reasons such as age, including a 16-year-old boy and a 73-year-old man.
Some who expressed interest were rejected because the embassy said it couldn’t do adequate vetting. The general didn’t disclose the methods used to screen people.
Kremenetskyi, who spoke to The Associated Press just after returning from the Pentagon for discussions on the military hardware his country needs for its defense, said he appreciates the support from both the US government and the public.
“Russians can be stopped only with hard fists and weapons,” he said.
So far, about 100 US citizens have made the cut. They include veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with combat experience, including some helicopter pilots, the attaché said.
They must make their own way to Poland, where they are to cross at a specified point, with their own protective gear but without a weapon, which they will get after they arrive. They will be required to sign a contract to serve, without pay, in the International Legion for the Territorial Defense of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government says about 20,000 foreigners from various nations have already joined.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj, a former Liberal lawmaker in Canada who is helping to facilitate recruitment there, said about 1,000 Canadians have applied to fight for Ukraine, the vast majority of whom don’t have any ties to the country.
“The volunteers, a very large proportion are ex-military, these are people that made that tough decision that they would enter the military to stand up for the values that we subscribe to,” Wrzesnewskyj said. “And when they see what is happening in Ukraine they can’t stand aside.”
It’s not clear how many US citizens seeking to fight have actually reached Ukraine, a journey the State Department has urged people not to make.
“We’ve been very clear for some time, of course, in calling on Americans who may have been resident in Ukraine to leave, and making clear to Americans who may be thinking of traveling there not to go,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters recently.
US citizens aren’t required to register overseas. The State Department says it’s not certain how many have entered Ukraine since the Russian invasion.
Under some circumstances, Americans could face criminal penalties, or even risk losing their citizenship, by taking part in an overseas conflict, according to a senior federal law enforcement official.
But the legal issues are only one of many concerns for US authorities, who worry about what could happen if an American is killed or captured or is recruited while over there to work for a foreign intelligence service upon their return home, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security matters.
The official and independent security experts say some of the potential foreign fighters may be white supremacists, who are believed to be fighting on both sides of the conflict. They could become more radicalized and gain military training in Ukraine, thereby posing an increased danger when they return home.
“These are men who want adventure, a sense of significance and are harking back to World War II rhetoric,” said Anne Speckhard, who has extensively studied foreigners who fought in Syria and elsewhere as director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism.
Ukraine may be getting around some of the potential legal issues by only facilitating the overseas recruitment, and directing volunteers to sign their contracts, and receive a weapon, once they arrive in the country. Also, by assigning them to the territorial defense forces, and not front-line units, it reduces the chance of direct combat with Russians, though it’s by no means eliminated.
The general acknowledges the possibility that any foreigners who are captured could be used for propaganda purposes. But he didn’t dwell on the issue, focusing instead on the need for his country to defend itself against Russia.
“We are fighting for our existence,” he said. “We are fighting for our families, for our land. And we are not going to give up.”
US citizens seek to join foreign fighters in Ukraine
https://arab.news/8px7k
US citizens seek to join foreign fighters in Ukraine
- The US government discourages Americans from going to fight in Ukraine
- Half the potential volunteers were quickly rejected and didn’t even make it to the Zoom interview
Britain boosts aid for victims of Sudan conflict at conference
- British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the war had been going on for far too long “and yet much of the world continues to look away”
LONDON: Britain said on Tuesday it would provide 120 million pounds ($158 million) more in aid to people in Sudan, which it said faces the worst humanitarian crisis on record, as it hosted a conference marking the two-year anniversary of the conflict.
The war in Sudan erupted in April 2023, sparked by a power struggle between the army and Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, shattering hopes for a transition to civilian rule.
The conflict has since displaced millions and devastated regions like Darfur, where the RSF is now fighting to maintain its stronghold amid army advances in Khartoum.
Rather than mediating directly in the conflict, Britain said Tuesday’s conference in London would be a chance to improve the coherence of the international response to the crisis, although Sudan criticized the fact its government was not invited for the talks.
British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the war had been going on for far too long “and yet much of the world continues to look away.”
“We need to act now to stop the crisis from becoming an all-out catastrophe, ensuring aid gets to those who need it the most,” he said in a statement, adding that the combatants had shown “an appalling disregard” for Sudanese civilians.
Britain is co-hosting the London conference with the African Union, the European Union, France and Germany. Egypt, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates are among the other attendees.
Sudan’s foreign minister has written to Lammy to complain, saying Sudan should have been invited, while criticizing the presence of the UAE and Kenya.
Sudan has accused the UAE of arming RSF, a charge the UAE denies but UN experts and US lawmakers have found credible. Sudan has also recalled its envoy to Kenya after it hosted talks between the RSF and its allies to form a parallel government.
Bankole Adeoye, African Union commissioner for political affairs, peace and security, said “achieving peace in Sudan depends on valuing every voice and everyone playing a role in building a prosperous Sudan.”
AID CUT
Britain said 30 million people desperately needed aid and 12 million people were displaced, with famine spreading through Sudan. Lammy announced a separate 113-million-pound aid package in November, and in January he visited Sudan’s border with Chad.
However Britain’s support for victims of the conflict comes as the government has slashed its foreign aid budget to pay for increased defense spending.
Although Prime Minister Keir Starmer vowed to continue aid to civilians in Sudan, one of three priorities along with Gaza and Ukraine, his development minister resigned, saying Britain’s aid priorities would be impossible to maintain and the cuts would ultimately harm Britain’s reputation abroad.
On Tuesday, lawyers acting for Sudanese victims submitted a 141-page dossier outlining alleged war crimes committed by the RSF to the UK police’s special war crimes unit, with a request to pass the file to the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction over atrocity crimes in Darfur.
By sending the file via the UK police rather than directly to the ICC, the lawyers said they hoped to provide an impetus for the two jurisdictions to work together more closely on accountability for Darfur.
El Salvador’s Bukele says he will not return man the US mistakenly deported
- Case of Maryland resident wrongfully deported dominates visit
WASHINGTON: El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said at the White House on Monday he had no plans to return a man mistakenly deported from the United States, suggesting that doing so would be like smuggling a terrorist into the country.
His remarks came during an Oval Office meeting where multiple officials in President Donald Trump’s administration said they were not required to bring back Salvadoran Kilmar Abrego Garcia, despite a US Supreme Court order saying they must facilitate the Maryland resident’s return.
Abrego Garcia’s case has drawn attention as the Trump administration has deported hundreds of people to El Salvador with help from Bukele, whose country is receiving $6 million to house the migrants in a high-security mega-prison.
The US government has described his deportation as an administrative error. But in court filings and at the White House on Monday, the administration indicated it does not plan to ask for Abrego Garcia back, raising questions about whether it is defying the courts.
Bukele told reporters he did not have the power to return Abrego Garcia to the US
“The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” Bukele said, echoing the Trump administration’s claim that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.
Bukele’s comments came shortly after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the same meeting that the US needed only to “provide a plane” if Bukele wanted to return Abrego Garcia.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have denied the allegation he is a gang member, saying the US has presented no credible evidence.
The US sent Abrego Garcia to El Salvador on March 15. Trump called reporters asking whether the administration would follow the order for his return “sick people.”
“The foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the president of the United States, not by a court,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during the Oval Office meeting.
Mega-prison
Trump said he would send as many people living in the US illegally to El Salvador as possible and help Bukele build new prisons.
The US on Saturday deported 10 more people to El Salvador it alleges are gang members.
The migrants El Salvador accepts from the US are housed in a facility known as the Terrorism Confinement Center. Critics say the prison engages in human rights abuses and that Bukele’s crackdown on gangs has swept up many innocent people without due process.
Bukele told Trump he is accused of imprisoning thousands of people. “I like to say that we actually liberated millions,” he said.
The US president reacted gleefully to Bukele’s comment. “Do you think I can use that?” Trump asked.
The State Department last week lifted its advisory for American travelers to El Salvador to the safest level, crediting Bukele for reducing gang activity and violent crime.
Lawyers and relatives of the migrants held in El Salvador say they are not gang members and had no opportunity to contest the US government assertion that they were.
The Trump administration says it vetted migrants to ensure they belonged to gangs including Tren de Aragua and MS-13, which it labels terrorist organizations.
Last month, after a judge said flights carrying migrants processed under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act should return to the US, Bukele wrote “Oopsie... Too late” on social media alongside footage showing men being hustled off a plane at night.
Tuesday hearing
An immigration judge had previously granted Abrego Garcia protection from being deported to El Salvador, finding that he could face gang violence there. He held a permit to work in the US, where he had lived since 2011.
The US Supreme Court last week upheld a lower court ruling directing the administration to “facilitate and effectuate” his return. But it said the term “effectuate” was unclear and might exceed the authority of the district court judge.
A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday. Legal experts said Judge Paula Xinis may press the Trump administration to determine if it signaled to Bukele that he should refuse to release Abrego Garcia, which could amount to defiance of the court order’s language to “facilitate” his return.
While the Supreme Court in its decision ordered Xinis to clarify her order “with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs,” some legal experts said Trump is likely defying the court by undermining Abrego Garcia’s release.
“All that is total claptrap as applied to a case like this, where the only reason why the foreign country is holding the person is because the US pushed them to do it and made an agreement under which they would do it,” George Mason University constitutional law professor Ilya Somin said.
“It’s very obvious that they could get him released if they wanted to.”
Trump told reporters on Friday that his administration would bring the man back if the Supreme Court directed it to do so.
A Palestinian activist expecting a US citizenship interview is arrested instead by ICE in Vermont
- “The Trump administration detained Mohsen Mahdawi in direct retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of Palestinians and because of his identity as a Palestinian
WASHINGTON: A Palestinian man who led protests against the war in Gaza as a student at Columbia University was arrested Monday at a Vermont immigration office where he expected to be interviewed about finalizing his US citizenship, his attorneys said.
Mohsen Mahdawi, a legal permanent resident who has held a green card since 2015, was detained at the US Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Colchester by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, his lawyers said.
The attorneys said they do not know where he is. They filed a petition in federal court seeking an order barring the government from removing him from the state or country.
“The Trump administration detained Mohsen Mahdawi in direct retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of Palestinians and because of his identity as a Palestinian. His detention is an attempt to silence those who speak out against the atrocities in Gaza. It is also unconstitutional,” attorney Luna Droubi said in an email.
According to the court filing, Mahdawi was born in a refugee camp in the West Bank and moved to the United States in 2014. He recently completed coursework at Columbia and was expected to graduate in May before beginning a master’s degree program there in the fall.
The petition describes him as a committed Buddhist who believes in “non-violence and empathy as a central tenet of his religion.”
As a student, Mahdawi was an outspoken critic of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and organized campus protests until March 2024. He co-founded the Palestinian Student Union at Columbia with Mahmoud Khalil, another Palestinian permanent resident of the US and graduate student who recently was detained by ICE.
Khalil was the first person arrested under President Donald Trump’s promised crackdown on students who joined campus protests against the war in Gaza. On Friday, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Khalil can be deported as a national security risk.
Christopher Helali, a friend of Mahdawi who lives near him in Vermont, was present outside the immigration office when Mahdawi was detained and recorded a video of Mahdawi being led away by authorities. In the video, which Helali released on social media Monday, Mahdawi is shown giving a peace sign with his hands and being led away to a car.
Helali described Mahdawi as a peaceful demonstrator who has worked to foster dialogue about the struggle of Palestinians in his homeland. Helali said he and Mahdawi were aware that Mahdawi could be detained today and that his friend went forward with the appointment anyway.
“And rightfully so, he was nervous for what was going on around him. But he was very much resolute in coming to this interview and coming today because he didn’t do anything wrong and was a law-abiding citizen, or soon-to-be citizen,” Helali said.
Vermont’s congressional delegation issued a statement condemning Mahdawi’s arrest, saying that instead of taking one of the final steps in his citizenship process, he was handcuffed by armed officers with their faces covered.
“This is immoral, inhumane, and illegal. Mr. Mahdawi, a legal resident of the United States, must be afforded due process under the law and immediately released from detention,” said the statement from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Peter Welch and Rep. Becca Balint.
Man charged over Tesla arson as anti-Musk wave sweeps US
- Two Tesla vehicles were badly damaged in the firebomb attack on a showroom in Albuquerque on February 9, and slogans likening Musk and his company to Nazis were sprayed on the walls
LOS ANGELES, United States: A man who allegedly torched two vehicles at a Tesla dealership and painted “Die Elon” on the side of the building has been hit with federal charges, the US Department of Justice said Monday.
The charges are the latest to be levied in connection to attacks on the EV maker, whose boss Elon Musk has become a hate figure for some over his role in slashing government as a top adviser to President Donald Trump.
Two Tesla vehicles were badly damaged in the firebomb attack on a showroom in Albuquerque on February 9, and slogans likening Musk and his company to Nazis were sprayed on the walls.
Jamison Wagner, 40, who lives in the city, in the western state of New Mexico, was also charged over a firebomb attack that hit an office of the state’s Republican Party last month.
If convicted of the two counts of malicious damage or destruction of property by fire or explosives, he could be jailed for up to 20 years on each count, the Department of Justice said.
“Let this be the final lesson to those taking part in this ongoing wave of political violence,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
“We will arrest you, we will prosecute you, and we will not negotiate. Crimes have consequences.”
Federal prosecution carries a stiff penalty compared to local law, where such a crime typically results in a sentence starting from just 18 months’ incarceration and a $5,000 fine. In March, Trump even suggested that people who vandalize Tesla property could be deported to prisons in El Salvador.
Musk, the South Africa-born billionaire chief of Tesla and SpaceX, is leading Trump’s ruthless cost-cutting drive at the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Lauded on the right, he has rapidly become one of the most controversial figures in the country.
Several Tesla dealerships and a number of cars both in the US and around the world have been vandalized, and the company’s stock price has taken a hammering.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg takes the stand in historic antitrust trial
WASHINGTON: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to the witness stand on the first day of a historic antitrust trial to defend his company against allegations it illegally monopolized the social media market.
The trial could force the tech giant to break off Instagram and WhatsApp, startups Meta bought more than a decade ago that have since grown into social media powerhouses.
FTC attorney Daniel Matheson called Zuckerberg as the first witness, as it seeks to prove that Meta acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to preserve its monopoly in the social networking space.
At the hearing, Matheson focused on a communication sent to colleagues that illustrated Zuckerberg’s frustration with a lack of progress on developing a photo-sharing app to compete with Instagram’s.
“The way I read this message is that I’m not happy about how we’re executing on that project,” Zuckerberg said.
Matheson followed up by asking if that was because of Instagram’s rapid growth.
“That does seem to be what I’m highlighting,” Zuckerberg said, adding that he’s always urging his teams to do better.
Later in the day, Zuckerberg appeared frustrated when Matheson asked him about his concerns expressed about how fast Instagram was growing.
“I don’t have the full timeline of Instagram’s development in my head,” Zuckerberg said, when Matheson asked him about his mention of its growth. “You could probably get that better from somebody else.”
Matheson also asked about comments of plans to keep Instagram running, while focusing on Facebook and not investing in Instagram. Zuckerberg said he wouldn’t characterize it as a plan, and he insisted that Instagram wasn’t neglected.
“In practice, we ended up investing a ton in it after we acquired it,” Zuckerberg, who testified most of the afternoon, said.
In opening statements, Matheson said Meta has used its position to generate enormous profits even as consumer satisfaction has dropped. He said Meta was “erecting a moat” to protect its interests by buying the two startups.
Mark Hansen, an attorney for Meta, said the FTC was making a “grab bag” of arguments that were wrong. He said Meta has plenty of competition and has made improvements to the startups it acquired.
“This lawsuit, in summary, is misguided,” Hansen said, adding: “anyway you look at it, consumers have been the big winners.”
The trial will be the first big test of President Donald Trump’s Federal Trade Commission’s ability to challenge Big Tech. The lawsuit was filed against Meta — then called Facebook — in 2020, during Trump’s first term. It claims the company bought Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition and establish an illegal monopoly in the social media market.
Meta, the FTC argues, has maintained a monopoly by pursuing Zuckerberg’s strategy, “expressed in 2008: ‘It is better to buy than compete.’ True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats.”
Facebook also enacted policies designed to make it difficult for smaller rivals to enter the market and “neutralize perceived competitive threats,” the FTC says in its complaint, just as the world shifted its attention to mobile devices from desktop computers.
Facebook bought Instagram — then a scrappy photo-sharing app with no ads and a small cult following — in 2012. The $1 billion cash and stock purchase price was eye-popping at the time, though the deal’s value fell to $750 million after Facebook’s stock price dipped following its initial public offering in May 2012.
Instagram was the first company Facebook bought and kept running as a separate app. Up until then, Facebook was known for smaller “acqui-hires” — a type of popular Silicon Valley deal in which a company purchases a startup as a way to hire its talented workers, then shuts the acquired company down. Two years later, it did it again with the messaging app WhatsApp, which it purchased for $22 billion.
WhatsApp and Instagram helped Facebook move its business from desktop computers to mobile devices, and to remain popular with younger generations as rivals like Snapchat (which it also tried, but failed, to buy) and TikTok emerged. However, the FTC has a narrow definition of Meta’s competitive market, excluding companies like TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s messaging service from being considered rivals to Instagram and WhatsApp.
Meta, meanwhile, says the FTC’s lawsuit “defies reality.”
“The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others. More than 10 years after the FTC reviewed and cleared our acquisitions, the Commission’s action in this case sends the message that no deal is ever truly final. Regulators should be supporting American innovation, rather than seeking to break up a great American company and further advantaging China on critical issues like AI,” the company said in a statement.
In a filing last week, Meta also stressed that the FTC “must prove that Meta has monopoly power in its claimed relevant market now, not at some time in the past.” This, experts say, could also prove challenging since more competitors have emerged in the social media space in the years since the company bought WhatsApp and Instagram.
Meta’s fate will be decided by US District Judge James Boasberg, who late last year denied Meta’s request for a summary judgment and ruled that the case must go to trial.
While the FTC may face an uphill battle in proving its case, the stakes are high for Meta, whose advertising business could be cut in half if it’s forced to spin off Instagram.
Meta isn’t the only technology company in the sights of federal antitrust regulators, Google and Amazon face their own cases. The remedy phase of Google’s case is scheduled to begin on April 21. A federal judge declared the search giant an illegal monopoly last August.
