 Welcome to Daily Debrief, your primer on international news brought to you by People's Dispatch. Today we're talking about Ukraine-Russia tensions, US President Biden bringing back Trump-era policies on refugees and Israel bearing a report on violence on Palestinians. We begin with Ukraine and Russia. Tension seems to be mounting in the region with even some talk of war. Ukraine and its western allies are accusing Russia of amassing troops near the borders while the latter has accused NATO of deploying its military infrastructure near the border. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned of a return of the nightmare scenario of a military confrontation. Lavrov and his US counterpart Antony Blinken met on the sidelines of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe summit in Stockholm. We have with us news clicks editor Prabir Purkayashta to discuss more on this issue. Prabir, if you could tell us what has deepened the crisis in this region between Russia and the NATO countries over Ukraine? What has led to the sudden deepening of the crisis? See, as you remember, Ukraine had what is called the Maidan upsurge as the Western media claims it to be, and the Western countries have termed it as, by which a duly elected president of Ukraine was overthrown and a new configuration, shall we say, much more conducive to NATO and its allies came into being. After that, there was also an attack on Russian language, which was one of the major languages in Ukraine. It was recognized as an official language, and also on the Russian ethnic population speaking Russian. The Russian was spoken by a much larger number of people than those who were ethnically identified as Russians or thought themselves as Russians. And as you know, Ukraine was a part of Russia for the Soviet Union. So it was not that it was a separate country for a very long time. So this attack is what led, finally, to separatist movements in the Donbass region. They wanted to be separate from Ukraine to protect, as far they are concerned, their ethnic identity and their language. And of course, after the Crimea being taken over by Russia at one point, that also proved to be a major flashpoint between Ukraine and Russia. And you know, the autonomous movement or the movement for separation from Ukraine in the Donbass region, at one point led to what is called the Minsk two accords, in which France and Germany guaranteed that Donbass would have some autonomy. Ukraine accepted that, and that was the basis of the Minsk Accords, which is what Russia keeps on referring to. But that autonomy was never granted. And it's also true that Ukraine, we have seen successive right-wing forces grow over there. Some of them openly fascist. They have Nazi symbols. And therefore, there has been a talk about reincorporating Donbass into Ukraine and possibility of Ukrainian forces marching into Donbass. Now this is the red line for Russia, because Russia believes that, okay, Ukraine is going over to NATO and to European Union. That's what they are trying to seek membership of. For them, Ukraine joining the NATO is a red line because it's a border state. And with the kind of military tensions between Donbass region and the rest of Ukraine or the government in Ukraine, there is possibilities of war-like scenario. And if war does take place, they would not like Ukraine to be a part of NATO, and it becomes a part of a larger war with NATO. Russia will guarantee Donbass autonomy. That I think is taken for granted. And it is something which the Russian people will also not agree to give up, because Donbass autonomy means that there is an ethnic identity, Russian enclave, which is willing to have some relations with Russia. More importantly, it preserves its identity. Now given that scenario, and of course the importance of Crimea as a base for the semester pool, the only warm water port that Russia has, this is strategically something which Russia thinks is very, very important. The threat of Minsk Accords not being accepted, the threat of Ukraine marching into Donbass with NATO support, and also NATO auxiliaries and also NATO arms, possibly setting up, possibly setting up missile batteries, etc., right in Russian borders, which is what taking back Donbass would mean for Russia. This is something which Russia has said is a red line, and this is something they will not accept. If you look at what Putin has said, he has said very clearly that you are moving missile batteries five minutes, which can hit our strategic targets. So if you do that, then we will have to respond. Of course, he said we respond through hypersonic missiles and other things. But said this is something which is not acceptable to Russia, and you have to recognize what is a no-no from our standpoint. And this is where the Americans have made an open threat that if Russia does not accept that Ukraine has the right over Donbass, it has the right to move batteries where it wants, tacitly saying it has the right to take back Donbass region. If that is there, then the threat they have held out, if Russia does not agree with this, then what I will call the nuclear financial option of throwing them out of the basically the swift transactional system, which really runs the transactions in the world, which we have discussed earlier as well. So the swift system, the financial sanctions they have been talking of, they haven't spelt it out. But the way they have framed it, that this will hurt Russia far more than it is willing to be able to bear, and so on, this seems to be threatening that will throw you out of the swift transaction system by which all transactions with the commercial banks anywhere in the world will become much more difficult for Russian banks and Russian financial institutions as well as companies. And I think that's where it is at the moment. So I would say that we are at a flash point, that we haven't seen for a very long time, between nuclear powers with certain forces in Germany, for example, talking about nuclear first strike, if there is a kinetic strike that Soviet Union, sorry, not Soviet, a kinetic strike if Russia enters Ukraine or attacks Ukraine. So I think we are poised for really very serious threats of possibly going towards war. And if such a war takes place, the possibility of a flash point and a nuclear exchange is not out of the bounds because wars are not predictable. The first world war that took place was not intended by both parties, but nevertheless it ended up in a world war. So I think these are calculations which cannot be calibrated the way they seem to want to do. And I think that's where the big mistake is that we need to talk about peace and how to bring back the Minsk Accords in the center of the discussions with the Union in Ukraine. This region is clearly on a very critical flash point. We'll keep an eye on it. Thank you, Prabir, for talking to us. Our next story is from the United States, where Joe Biden administration has revived a Trump-era policy called Remain in Mexico to deal with refugees. This forces those who seek asylum in the United States to remain in Mexico while their applications are being heard. To know more about why this is a controversial move, we have with us Prashant. Prashant, why is there this widespread condemnation to remain in Mexico policy? Right, so of course the first obvious answer is that it's a Trump-era policy. But the reason it was so condemned even while Trump had implemented it was basically the fact that how refugees were treated in the United States. So we need to understand the larger dynamic. We have thousands of people coming over, trying to come over to the United States every year. We'll get into some of the reasons and causes later. But the fact is that they really go through a lot of struggle and suffering. And when they finally reach the US borders, the applications are being processed. The Trump-era policy basically said that all these people have to go back and remain in very difficult conditions in Mexico till their applications are processed. Now, during that time, one of the key problems was that it would take months for this processing to take place. And during this time, these refugees who had come with very little money, no resources, who were basically on the road, who were basically on the streets all the time. They were prey to all kinds of incidents, gangs, there were instances of sexual abuse, rape, murder. So their lives were extremely vulnerable at this point of time because they were basically just being herded and placed in a region in Mexico, pending the processing of their applications. So Joe Biden basically ran a campaign during his election campaign, saying that he would withdraw this policy. He called it very inhumane. Incidentally, the day he assumed office, he withdrew this policy, right? But then what happens is that a judge, a Trump-era, a Trump-appointee judge basically overturns the Joe Biden administration decision. And therefore, the remaining Mexico policy comes back into force. Now, the key element there was that this policy would come back only if Mexico agreed. And Mexico has agreed with a series of preconditions, one being that there is some more clarity in terms of how quickly these applications are processed. Secondly, the fact that there has to be a more clearer financial package to address issues in Mexico and some of the other countries from where these refugees hail from. So those are positive signs. But what we're going to see is that nonetheless, thousands of people being sent back in difficult conditions, so much uncertainty, so much risk to their lives, so much risk to their livelihoods or lack of better word. And this is why it's been so strongly condemned, because the Democrat administration came to power with the promise for more humane policy, right? And like we'll talk about later, the refugee crisis is not, and we've talked about this before as well, the refugee crisis is not about some greedy people coming from some place into the land of glory and plenty, which is the United States. It is a direct result of the US policies across the world. So people who understand this, people who see it in that sense, figure this out, during Trump's period, at least 70,000 people were pushed back into Mexico from the United States under this policy. So it was a brutally effective policy for lack of better word. There's another policy for this is called Title 42, which again, the Biden administration has, it keeps implementing, which means that COVID-19 can be cited as a reason to push refugees out of the country again. So we have this whole setup where refugees' lives are massively under threat, they're being treated almost as subhumans in some ways. And while Mexico has, say, tried to bring about some guarantees, it's not probably going to make the situation better for them. In fact, Prashant, you've mentioned it over and over. The role US has played with the refugee crisis that has deepened globally, it can be seen across, if you could tell us more about that. Right, so let's look at the Latin American context. And I think a good example would be, for instance, Honduras. We've been talking about the Honduras a lot in this show, and it's a very important reason because in Honduras in 2009, there was a coup which was basically completely sponsored by the United States. The democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was overthrown. And from then on, from 2009 onwards, until recently, 2021 right now, Zyomara Castro, Zelaya's partner as well as the candidate of the Libre Party has become the new president. But over the past 12 years, Honduras has seen a drastic decline in every single parameter of society, whether it be employment, whether it be food, whether it be livelihood, whatever be the situation, there's been a massive decline as far as every social indicator as far as Honduras is concerned. There's been large-scale violence, corruption from the highest level, from the president onwards to each and every level of the government. What all this has caused is massive despair in a country like Honduras forcing thousands to migrate, right? So how can the United States, for instance, not accept responsibility for this? And this is not only Honduras, this is so many countries in the region where basically US-based, US-backed politicians, US-backed rulers have established governments that do not listen to the aspirations of the people, that do not meet the basic needs of the people, and people who are suffering are forced to migrate. That's really the genesis of the issue. So I think a lot of the discussion around refugees, and I can discuss this before, our refugees around migration completely ignores the fact that the United States, its Western allies are responsible. Whether it be through direct war, say in cases like Syria or Afghanistan, or whether it be in cases of coups and supporting dictators, for instance, who implement these kind of policies. These policies are responsible for the migration crisis in the first place. So really the question is that, how does the United States address this? One, by not supporting dictators, you would think that's an obvious thing, but no, it's not. Secondly, of course, by the fact that the kind of policies that US-backed or US-supported international institutions run, whether it be the IMF, the World Bank, the kind of loans they give, the conditionalities they put. The austerity policies many of these governments undertake due to the pressure by international institution. Basically, bankrupts these countries, basically destroys all social welfare programs, leading to this kind of mass misery and therefore migration. So I think, especially in the Americas, when we understand migration, we need to see it in this context, that over the years, we've seen migrant caravans, they're called migrant caravans because there are thousands of people, many of them setting out from Honduras. And there's a very clearly defined path almost. They go as more and more people gather, they reach Mexico. Each step, they face depression, they face depression in Mexico as well. And finally, they reach the borders of the United States, where they are treated like I said, like almost subhumans. So this is a much larger crisis. People who expected that the Biden administration would do a better job are clearly disappointed. So I think there is a much greater need for challenging the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, many of these issues. Thank you Prashant. We'll come back to you for our next story as well. And finally, we go to West Asia, where a news report shows, Israel did not properly investigate its atrocities against Palestinians. The report prepared by Palestine Center for Human Rights and the Israeli group, Bethlehem, talks about repression of Palestinians during the Great March of Return that began in 2018. Now Prashant, we're coming back to you. If you could tell us a little bit more about what's there in this report. Right. So the PCHR and Bethlehem report talks about Israeli investigations into Israeli military abuses that took place during the Great March of Return. Of course, now that itself is a big red flag, but we'll come to that. So the key issue is that in March 2018, what the Great March of Return began in Gaza. And now the Great March of Return involved people from Gaza marching to the border, it's not a border, it's more of a fence, boundary fence with Israel that is located every Friday. After the prayers, there would be this massive protests taking place at two outside border. And every Friday, there was continuous repression by the Israelis, right? So these were largely peaceful protests. There was, of course, some stone throwing, some incendiary balloons. But obviously, people did not come with, the protesters did not come with guns and rockets or anything. That's all. But these protests were nonetheless treated in a very horrific manner. The numbers, I think, say that around 223 Palestinians were killed during these protests, which started, like I said, in 2018 March. And they continued in various forms till the end of 2019. And most of these killings actually took place in the first half of 2018, if I'm not mistaken. And at that point of time, every week, you would hear horrific stories of Palestinian protesters being shot, Palestinian children, for instance, being shot. I think 46 of those killed were under the age of 18. Right? And it was clear for any person reading the news, any person watching the visuals at that point of time, it was clear from the beginning that there was a very clear, deliberate attempt to shoot at the protesters by Israeli soldiers, including snipers, right? So that is what is under investigation, the fact that Israeli soldiers used live fire on Palestinian protesters. That is what the Israeli set out to investigate. Now the key question here is why did they set out to investigate it? One major factor is that they were afraid that if they did not, at least for namesake conducted investigation, the International Criminal Court would intervene and have an international probe. So they wanted to sort of forestall it. So that is one of the reasons. But what the Israeli investigations did was basically reduce the mandate of the probe so much and bring in all sorts of factors that basically no one ended up guilty. There was this, almost there was large scale exoneration that took place. First of all, despite the fact that 8,000 people were injured, including many who were forced to amputate their arms and legs because of the shooting, none of those were investigated. Only the deaths were. And even these deaths, some of them were reviewed, some of them were under review, some of them were dismissed for various reasons. And I think there was one case of punishment in which an Israeli soldier got one month's worth of community service or something of that sort. So that actually shows the extent of the seriousness or lack of seriousness with which this investigation was conducted. And that is what basically this report chronicles, despite the fact that in open air, this is not darkness, this was not a hidden operation. This happened in public view, in open, at the border. Despite the fact that all these shootings were taken place, there has been no large scale accountability of the Israeli institutions. Those who were named as guilty, those who were even investigated were junior level soldiers. So it was as if it was just junior level soldiers who were firing without any permission or whatever. As opposed to the fact that this was clearly a systematic and systemic decision that was made from certain highest levels of authority. So I think basically it's a very short report. It's very important, I think that all of us read it because it shows the nature of Israeli impunity, which we talk about often on this show. But the key element here is that despite so many people dying and despite the namesake investigation taking place, very few people have actually been found guilty and there has been no justice. Prashant, what were some of the demands that were there at that time? Right, so I think two very important things. One was what's called the right to return. And the right to return basically says that those Palestinians who were displaced from their homes in 1948 when Israel was founded, the UN has declared that they and their descendants have a right to return to their homelands. Now this of course sounds great on paper, but Israel and its allies in the United States, other allies for instance, have always dismissed the idea. So that's one of the key demands. The other very important demand was the fact that the blockade of Gaza, which had been going on until 2007 after Hamas won the election, that should be withdrawn because that blockade has basically destroyed Gaza in every sense of the term. It has turned Gaza into what is called the world's largest open air prison. This is the UN saying it, not us. For instance, whether it be water, whether it be education, whether it be health, all this infrastructure has completely collapsed. And it is not only Israel which is imposing this blockade, but also Egypt. So it's important to remember that. And this blockade unfortunately is nonetheless continued. We saw that the crimes against the people of Gaza only escalated in 2021. In May we saw this massive bombing of Gaza in which again over 200 people were killed. And again there was a large scale destruction of infrastructure. We see that the blockade continues every time. Israel sees any action by Palestinians as even slightly something they do not like, they tighten the blockades, even the small entry points that are there. So those entry points which are very strongly policed sometimes are shut down. Egypt also cooperates with that. And all this happens despite the fact that in principle all the countries of the world are committed to a two state solution. They do believe that Palestinians should have a separate state. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the people of Gaza are living under a very bitter and brutal siege. The thing with the great march of return was that it put these issues front and center. And it showed that this was not only one political, it is not just Hamas for instance mobilizing its supporters. This is a coalition of groups across Gaza. And this put these issues front and center in a way that it could not be ignored because every week these protests were continuously taking place. And it was an act of very powerful resistance. It was an act of mobilization. And it also showed I think the people of, people across the world and also the Palestinians themselves that despite all these atrocities and cruelties imposed by Israel, the Palestinian spirit of defiance and resistance was still very much intact. Well Prashant, thank you. We at People's Dispatch keep following stories in this region quite closely. This is all that we have from us today to come back to People's Dispatch and keep following Daily Debrief.