Former Niger Delta militant leader and chief executive officer of Tantita Security Services Limited, Government Ekpemupolo, aka Tompolo, has alleged that the Nigerian Navy is aiding and abetting oil theft in the Niger Delta.

He disclosed that naval personnel had severally shot at his men, Department of State Service (DSS) officials, and men of the Nigeria Security and Defence Corps (NSCDC) while performing pipeline surveillance duties.

The shocking revelation is coming amid elation over Nigeria’s increased crude oil output to 1.8 million barrels per day.

He condemned the Navy for allegedly preventing the interception of a vessel allegedly used in oil theft in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, recently, and decried the faceoff between the Navy and Tantita.

Tompolo spoke when the national executive of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), led by their President, Afam Osigwe, made a fact-finding visit to Oporoza, headquarters of Gbaramatu Kingdom in Delta State, on issues surrounding oil theft and problems faced by oil producing communities in the Niger Delta.

Tompolo said the task of protecting oil pipelines made him step on the toes of oil theft barons, appealing to Nigerians, including government security agencies to support President Bola Tinubu’s effort towards improving Nigeria’s economy by ending the crime.

He warned that Nigeria may become an economic wreck if the sponsors of oil theft continue to have their way, and  solicited the support of the NBA, with regards to defending arrested suspects.

Responding, the NBA president stressed the need for all Nigerians to work towards the betterment of the Nigerian economy, calling on legal practitioners in the area, to see how they can work in this regard.

“As Nigerians, our fate are tied together. We have a common interest in seeing that the Nigerian economy works, a common interest in seeing that the commonwealth of Nigeria is protected for the well-being of every person, and all hands must be on deck to ensure that the economic loss we suffer as a result of oil theft, is combatted,” he said. 

“We also call on our colleagues in this community and, indeed, other communities to join hands with the NBA to see in what way, we can contribute in this regard, in getting a better Nigeria.”

He said that the NBA, at their recent National Executive Council meeting, took interest in the issue of oil theft because of its negative impact on Nigeria’s economy, the government’s inability to deliver the dividends of democracy, the impact on foreign reserves and Nigeria’s ability to meet its minimum Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) quota.

The Guardian

Netanyahu, in Gaza, says Hamas will no longer rule enclave

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a visit to Gaza on Tuesday that Hamas would not rule the Palestinian enclave after the war had ended and that Israel had destroyed the Islamist group's military capabilities.

Netanyahu also said Israel had not given up trying to locate the 101 remaining hostages believed to be still in the enclave and he offered a $5 million reward for the return of each one.

"Anyone who dares to harm our hostages will have blood on their head. We will hunt you down and get you," Netanyahu said.

"Whoever brings us a hostage will find a safe way, he and his family, to get out," he said. "Choose, the choice is yours, but the result will be the same. We'll get them all back."

The comments were made in a video recording by Netanyahu during his visit to Gaza with Israel's defence minister and the head of its army, where he also received a briefing on operational activities.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine hits Russia with US ATACMS missiles for first time on war's 1,000th day

Ukraine used U.S. ATACMS missiles to strike Russian territory on Tuesday, taking advantage of newly granted permission from the outgoing administration of U.S. President Joe Biden on the war's 1,000th day.

Russia said its forces shot down five of six missiles fired at a military facility in the Bryansk region. Debris of one hit the facility, starting a fire that was swiftly put out and caused no casualties or damage, it said.

Ukraine said it struck a Russian arms depot about 110 km (70 miles) inside Russia, an attack that caused secondary explosions. Ukraine's military did not publicly specify the weapons used, but a Ukrainian government source and a U.S. official confirmed it had used ATACMS.

A U.S. official said Russia intercepted two of eight missiles and that the strike was at an ammunition supply point.

Biden gave approval this week for Ukraine to use ATACMS, the longest-range missiles Washington has supplied, for such attacks inside Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the use of ATACMS was a clear signal the West wanted to escalate the conflict.

Moscow has said such weapons cannot be launched without direct U.S. operational support and their use would make Washington a direct combatant in the war, prompting Russian retaliation.

The attacks came as Ukraine marked 1,000 days of war, with a fifth of its territory in Russian hands and doubts about the future of Western support as U.S. President-elect Donald Trumpheads back to the White House.

Russia's Defence Ministry also said air defence units destroyed 42 Ukrainian drones in at least eight southern and central regions between 9 p.m. and 11.55 p.m. (1800 to 2055 GMT) on Tuesday, including 32 in Bryansk region.

Ukraine has long deployed drones to hit targets deep inside Russian territory, including airfields and sites associated with energy. But the use of dozens dispatched over a short period of time was unusual.

At the United Nations in New York, Ukraine's U.N. ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya, read a statement from his country and 42 others and the European Union, rejecting Russia's "attempted illegal annexation" of Ukrainian territory and demanding immediate withdrawal.

"One thousand days is a tragic reminder of the need to remain resolute in ensuring ... that international law prevails, not just in Ukraine, but wherever it is challenged," he said.

Military experts say using the U.S. missiles can help Ukraine defend a pocket of captured Russian territory in the Kursk region as a bargaining chip, but was not likely to have a decisive impact on the 33-month-old war, in part as the move comes far too late.

The missile's range of up to 300 km is much shorter than some that Moscow has used to strike Ukraine, including its hypersonic Kinzhal weapon with a reported range of up to 2,000 km.

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new nuclear doctrine that appeared intended as a warning to Washington. It lowers the threshold under which Russia might use atomic weapons to include responding to attacks that threaten its territorial integrity.

Washington said the update to the nuclear doctrine was no surprise and rejected "more of the same irresponsible rhetoric from Russia".

Zelenskiy said the step showed Putin had no interest in peace: "Especially on this day ... they presented (a) nuclear weapons strategy. Why? They didn't present (a) peace strategy. Did you hear it? ... Putin wants war."

The Pentagon said the U.S. State Department has approved another potential $100 million sale of military equipment and services to Ukraine, while Denmark said it was making a new donation of about $138 million for development of Ukraine's arms industry.

TRUMP CRITICISMS OF AID

Trump has criticised the scale of U.S. aid to Kyiv and said he will end the war quickly, without saying how. Both sides appear to anticipate his return in two months will be accompanied by a push for peace talks, which are not known to have taken place since the war's early months.

The warring sides have been escalating to try to secure a stronger position at any negotiations. Zelenskiy says Kyiv must do everything for the war to end diplomatically next year.

"At this stage of the war, it is being decided who will prevail. Whether us over the enemy, or the enemy over us Ukrainians ... and Europeans. And everyone in the world who wants to live freely and not be subject to a dictator," he told parliament.

Dozens of civilians and soldiers gathered for a moment's silence at a candle-lit commemoration in the evening in Kyiv. Some sobbed.

"My life has been turned upside down. There is no life for me. I only want victory and to return home. I am grateful to all the men defending our country," said Yuliia, from the city of Mariupol which was captured by Russia in 2022.

U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric cited data from the UN Human Rights Office that more than 12,000 civilians had been killed and nearly 27,000 injured in Ukraine over the past 1,000 days, with more than 2,400 child casualties.

Over six million Ukrainians live as refugees abroad and the population has fallen by a quarter since Putin ordered the invasion that began Europe's biggest conflict since World War Two.

Military losses are huge, although casualty figures remain secret. Public Western estimates based on intelligence reports say hundreds of thousands have been wounded or killed on each side.

In the first year after the invasion, Ukrainian troops pushed Russian forces back from the outskirts of Kyiv and recaptured territory. Since then, relentless trench warfare has ground eastern Ukrainian cities to dust.

In a move described in the West as an escalation, Russia has deployed 11,000 North Korean troops, some of whom Kyiv says have clashed with Ukrainian forces in Kursk. Zelenskiy said Pyongyang could send 100,000 soldiers.

Russia for its part continues to advance slowly in eastern Ukraine, and said it captured another settlement on Tuesday.

With winter setting in, Moscow on Sunday renewed its aerial assault on Ukraine's power system, launching the biggest barrage since August.

There has been no public narrowing of negotiating positions. Kyiv demands a full Russian withdrawal from all occupied territory and Western security guarantees comparable to membership in NATO's mutual defence treaty to prevent future Russian attacks.

Moscow says Ukraine must drop all ambitions to join NATO and withdraw all troops from provinces Russia says it has annexed since its invasion.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Russia’s new nuclear doctrine (KEY POINTS)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially signed a new national nuclear doctrine that outlines the scenarios in which Moscow would be authorized to deploy its nuclear arsenal. Here are the key points of the updated document, as stipulated on the Kremlin's website.

State policy on Nuclear Deterrence is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.

The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure, and takes all necessary efforts to reduce nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations, that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones.

The Russian Federation ensures nuclear deterrence toward a potential adversary, which is understood to mean any individual states or military coalitions (blocs, alliances) which see the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and possess nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction or conventional forces with a significant combat capability. Nuclear deterrence is also ensured toward any states which provide the territory, airspace, and/or maritime space under their control as well as resources for preparing and conducting an aggression against the Russian Federation.

An aggression of any single state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and/or its allies will be regarded as an aggression of the coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole.

An aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies of any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state will be regarded as their joint attack.

The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction against itself and/or its allies, as well as in the event of an aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus as constituents of the Union State using conventional arms, if such an aggression creates a critical threat for their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity.

The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.

Reuters/RT

Michael Gibbings

According to research from the Workforce Institute, 63% of employees and leaders believe that trust needs to be earned. Building trust is the backbone of a strong relationship. However, what if you’ve tried everything—open communication, assuming good intent, even actively supporting your colleague— and yet all these efforts fail? 

Whether you don’t trust the colleague because they take credit for your work, they’ve let you down in the past, gossip too much, play the political game, are unreliable, or something else, you still need to find a way to work together. Taking a strategic approach puts you in a stronger position. 

ACCEPT THE REALITY 

Acknowledge your feelings of mistrust. It’s okay to feel this way. It’s a natural response to past experiences. However, don’t let these feelings affect your judgment or professionalism.  

Emotional intelligence is crucial in managing complicated relationships. It involves recognizing your emotions, accepting your feelings, and understanding their impact. With strong self-awareness, you are better placed to determine how to respond wisely rather than letting your emotions dictate your actions. Remember, you’re at work to do a job, and success requires you to find ways to navigate complex and challenging relationships. 

OWN YOUR PART 

Your approach starts with challenging yourself to examine how trustworthy you are in the context of this relationship. For example, do you deliver on your commitments in a way that makes you reliable? Do you own up to your mistakes so that you are accountable? One issue might be that your colleague views you as untrustworthy. Consequently, improving the relationship starts with uncovering, acknowledging, and accepting the part you have played and what you might need to do differently. 

ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES 

Don’t wait for your colleague to set the boundaries for your work relationship. Be proactive. Start by identifying what is most important to you. This step helps you determine the boundaries that align with your values and goals. This approach isn’t about isolating or excluding the other person. Instead, it’s about defining what’s okay and what’s not okay.  

For example, if your colleague is constantly dumping work on you at the last minute, remember that you can decline requests that don’t align with your priorities or exceed your capacity. Be clear on why you are saying no and deliver the message positively. You might say, “Thanks for thinking of me. I’d love to be involved, but I don’t have the capacity at the moment. Can I get involved later?”  You want to position the boundaries clearly and professionally while keeping the door open for future involvement. 

STAY FOCUSED AND CONSISTENT 

When trust is lacking, it’s easy to get caught up in personal feelings. Instead, shift your focus to the task at hand and concentrate on the shared goals and objectives. For example, if you are jointly working on a project, specify what each of you will do to complete the task. Being clear on the task and what’s required can help create a sense of purpose and direction, reducing the emphasis on personal differences. 

In all your interactions, strive for professionalism and consistency. If you constantly shift your behavior and are inconsistent, it sends a message to your colleague that you’re hard to trust. 

SEEK THE SIMILARITY 

Despite your differences, there’s likely to be some common ground. It could be a shared interest or a mutual acquaintance. When you find common ground, you start to recognize the similarities rather than focusing on differences. This approach elevates connection, making it easier to work together. 

LEVERAGE THIRD-PARTY SUPPORT 

If, after continued effort, you find the situation deteriorating, you can consider seeking help from a third party. This could be a supervisor, an HR representative, or a professional mediator.  

The benefit of a third party is they can provide an unbiased perspective, help clarify misunderstandings, and guide the conversation constructively toward a mutually beneficial resolution. When leveraging the support of a third party, the goal is not necessarily to rebuild personal trust but to establish ways that the two of you can work together professionally.  

ALWAYS THINK LONG-TERM 

Sadly, not everyone plays nice at work, and politics is a reality of the workplace. Don’t let a colleague’s behavior and approach negatively impact how you feel and show up at work.  

Your reputation is one of your most essential career assets. Treat it as such by staying true to who you are and not sidestepping your values. When you gossip, play politics, or are overly negative, your reputation can slide. Always think long-term. In an era where you can never be sure where your career will land, you don’t want to find your career ambitions thwarted by something you did many years ago when you weren’t paying close attention to your reputation. 

Working with someone you don’t trust is challenging but possible. Your strategic approach isn’t about changing your colleagues but finding a way to work more effectively together. After all, in the professional world, results matter, which means getting the job done means working with people you don’t necessarily trust. 

Fast Company

The just-concluded Ondo State governorship election has once again exposed the tragic and unchanging reality of Nigeria’s electoral system—a system so deeply entrenched in corruption that it has become a farce. This is not a matter of a few “bad apples” within the system, but a reflection of a political culture that thrives on the exploitation of poverty, the manipulation of vulnerable citizens, and the perversion of democracy. It is a disturbing reminder of the editorial stance we took on September 24, 2024, in which we concluded that Nigeria’s electoral process is irreparably flawed and incapable of producing the leaders the country desperately needs. The farce witnessed in Ondo reaffirms this grim reality.

The monetary cost of this election serves as a grotesque illustration of the corruption that pervades Nigeria’s political system. Reports of widespread vote-buying—ranging from N5,000 to N20,000 per voter—paint a disturbing picture of how elections are fought and won in Nigeria. According to preliminary findings by Yiaga Africa, both the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were actively engaged in these corrupt practices, coercing citizens into selling their votes for a few thousand naira. In the case of the winning APC candidate, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, if each of the 366,781 votes he garnered cost an average of N12,500, that alone would mean over N4.6 billion was spent on purchasing the electorate’s loyalty. When factoring in the additional costs of heavily monetized primaries, campaigns, and election-day expenses, it is estimated that not less than N20 billion was likely spent by the APC to secure this victory. The PDP, despite being the losing party, would have spent a similar sum, albeit at a somewhat reduced scale.

This staggering amount of money represents a horrifying distortion of the democratic process. It is not an investment in public policy, infrastructure, or social services, but rather a massive outlay aimed at buying votes to maintain the stranglehold of the ruling parties on the system. In a country where basic services such as healthcare, education, and security are woefully inadequate, this obscene expenditure underscores the priorities of the political elite: the pursuit of power at any cost, even if it means prolonging the suffering of the very people they claim to serve.

The security lapses in Ondo, as reported by both Yiaga Africa and the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), further highlight the systemic rot that runs through Nigeria’s electoral framework. Election observers documented numerous instances where security personnel were either absent or complicit in the vote-buying process. In one shocking case, police officers were seen in an altercation over the distribution of money—allegedly bribes—between party agents. In other instances, security agencies looked on, indifferent or ineffectual, as party agents handed out cash to voters. This absence of accountability is not a mere oversight, but a reflection of how the institutions meant to safeguard democracy have been co-opted by the very forces undermining it.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), too, continues to show a disturbing lack of will to curb these malpractices. Despite the presence of technological systems such as the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), which was intended to enhance the credibility of the election process, the system failed in certain areas, causing delays and disenfranchising voters. The malfunctioning BVAS is emblematic of the broader dysfunction within Nigeria’s electoral machinery, which continues to operate with limited regard for the principles of fairness and integrity.

At the heart of this electoral tragedy lies a psychological and moral defect that is as corrosive as the financial corruption it breeds. The willingness of political figures to engage in vote-buying is not merely a tactic—it is a reflection of a deeper moral decay. Any individual who would bribe voters to win an election has already demonstrated a profound disregard for the public good. Such individuals are driven by an insatiable hunger for power, not for service, and this disposition inevitably seeps into their governance.

The psyche of the typical Nigerian politician is one that has internalized corruption as a necessary and acceptable tool for achieving power. The act of buying votes, as was so prevalent in Ondo, is not an anomaly but a symptom of a broader cultural and systemic rot. This corrupt mindset, once embedded in an individual, does not dissipate upon assuming office. On the contrary, it reinforces itself, ensuring that governance is not about the welfare of the people but about consolidating personal power, enriching cronies, and maintaining the status quo.

The irony is stark: the very same politicians who use state resources to secure electoral victories are the ones who, once in power, preside over the misallocation and misappropriation of public funds, leading to the continued degradation of the country. A system that rewards these actions cannot produce competent, ethical leaders; it can only foster a class of politicians who view governance not as a public trust but as a lucrative business opportunity.

What we saw in Ondo—and across the country—is not an isolated incident but part of a larger, unbroken pattern. From Edo to Ondo, and countless other states, Nigeria’s political and electoral systems have been hijacked by two dominant parties that have perfected the art of corrupting the process. As we noted in our September 24 editorial, the current system is beyond reform. It is a mechanism designed to perpetuate the power of a corrupt elite that has no interest in the welfare of the people. Elections have ceased to be a genuine contest of ideas and policies and have instead become a transactional process in which power is auctioned to the highest bidder.

It is clear that Nigeria’s political system is fundamentally flawed. No amount of tinkering with the edges of the electoral process will change the fact that the system itself is designed to fail the people it is meant to serve. The cost of this failure is not merely monetary—it is measured in the perpetuation of poverty, the collapse of public services, and the erosion of hope for a better future. If Nigeria is to escape this endless cycle of corruption and misgovernance, it will require nothing short of a radical overhaul—a new political and electoral system built on transparency, accountability, and a genuine commitment to the public good.

Until then, elections like the one in Ondo will remain little more than a farce—expensive, corrupt, and ultimately meaningless to the millions of Nigerians who continue to suffer under the weight of bad governance.

Nigeria's foreign debt servicing costs have more than doubled to N3.8 trillion in the first eight months of 2024, far exceeding the N1.83 trillion budgeted for the year, according to the government's latest fiscal framework report.

The surge in foreign debt payments comes amid mixed revenue performance. While non-oil revenues exceeded targets, reaching N3.81 trillion (160.1% of target), oil revenues significantly underperformed, bringing in just N4.09 billion, or 75% of projections.

Key findings from the 2025-2027 Medium Term Expenditure Framework:

- Total debt servicing has consumed N5.51 trillion, representing 34.4% of the budget

- Government revenue reached N12.74 trillion, achieving 73.8% of its N17.25 trillion target

- Corporate tax collections surpassed targets by 74.5%, reaching N1.71 trillion

- VAT revenue exceeded expectations by 55.1%, totaling N530.41 billion

- Customs revenue hit N969.89 billion, achieving 95% of target

The oil sector continues to face challenges, with gross oil and gas revenue reaching only N9.83 trillion against a projection of N13.33 trillion for the period. After deductions, including the 13% derivation for oil-producing states, net oil revenue fell N2.86 trillion short of targets.

The significant increase in foreign debt servicing costs is largely attributed to the naira's depreciation, as these payments must be made in foreign currencies. This development comes as Nigeria's debt-to-GDP ratio has exceeded 50% for the first time, marking a crucial moment for the country's fiscal health.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) has announced it will take stringent action against airlines responsible for delayed passenger luggage. Starting with immediate effect, the NCAA will impose fines of $170 for international airlines and N10,000 for domestic carriers for luggage delays.

The announcement follows a statement made by the NCAA in October in Abuja, where it clarified that passengers whose luggage is delayed on domestic flights can claim up to N10,000, while those on international flights can receive up to $1,000 or 1,288 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as compensation.

During a roadshow at the Lagos airport on Monday, aimed at educating passengers ahead of the holiday season, Michael Achimugu, Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection at the NCAA, reiterated the agency’s commitment to enforcing these new penalties. He acknowledged that many passengers were previously unaware of their rights, which had led to frequent violations by airlines.

“For too long, passengers in Nigeria have not known their rights, which allowed airlines to overlook their responsibilities,” Achimugu stated. “Through initiatives like this roadshow, we’re working to ensure Nigerians are fully informed of the NCAA regulations and know where to turn for help.”

Achimugu emphasized that passengers who find themselves without their luggage can now demand compensation from airlines—N10,000 for domestic flights and $170 for international flights. He noted that many passengers were unaware of these entitlements, and the roadshow aims to close that gap.

In addition to the awareness campaign, Achimugu pointed to the NCAA’s newly launched website, which has made it easier for passengers to file complaints. He also highlighted that the portal had led to a noticeable increase in passenger complaints, holding airlines accountable for service lapses.

The roadshow, which began in Lagos, will also be held at airports in Abuja and Port Harcourt.

Meanwhile, an NCAA report revealed that Air France had the highest number of delayed baggage cases among international airlines flying into Nigeria, with 2,075 incidents. Other airlines with significant baggage delays included KLM (1,938 cases), Egypt Air (1,850), and Royal Air Maroc (1,745). In total, 19,274 instances of delayed or missing luggage were reported across all airlines—both domestic and international—in the first half of 2024.

Lebanon, Hezbollah agree to US proposal for ceasefire with Israel, Lebanese official says

Lebanon and Hezbollah have agreed to a U.S. proposal for a ceasefire with Israel with some comments on the content, a top Lebanese official told Reuters on Monday, describing the effort as the most serious yet to end the fighting.

Ali Hassan Khalil, an aide to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, said Lebanon had delivered its written response to the U.S. ambassador in Lebanon on Monday, and White House envoy Amos Hochstein was travelling to Beirut to continue talks.

There was no immediate comment from Israel.

Hezbollah, a heavily armed movement backed by Iran, endorsed its long-time ally Berri to negotiate over a ceasefire.

"Lebanon presented its comments on the paper in a positive atmosphere," Khalil said, declining to give further details. "All the comments that we presented affirm the precise adherence to (U.N.) Resolution 1701 with all its provisions," he said.

He was referring to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended a previous war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006.

Its terms require Hezbollah to have no armed presence in the area between the Lebanese-Israeli border and the Litani River, which runs some 30 km (20 miles) north of the frontier.

Khalil said the success of the initiative now depended on Israel, saying if Israel did not want a solution, "it could make 100 problems".

Israel has long claimed that Resolution 1701 was never properly implemented, pointing to the presence of Hezbollah fighters and weapons along the border. Lebanon has accused Israel of violations including flying warplanes in its airspace.

Khalil said Israel was trying to negotiate "under fire", a reference to an escalation of its bombardment of Beirut and the Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs. "This won't affect our position," he said.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

What long-range missile strikes in Russia could mean for Ukraine war

The U.S. decision to authorise long-range Ukrainian strikes could help Kyiv defend the foothold in Russia's Kursk region that it seized as leverage in any war talks, but may come too late to change the course of the war, analysts said.

Two months before leaving office, President Joe Biden lifted some restrictions that have blocked Kyiv from using U.S.-supplied weapons for strikes deeper into Russian territory, in a major policy change, Reuters reported on Sunday.

Military analysts said the impact on the battlefield, where Ukraine has been on the back foot for months, would depend on what limits remained. But while the shift may shore up the Kursk operation, it was unlikely to be a gamechanger overall.

"The decision comes late, and like other decisions in this vein, it may be too late to substantially change the course of the fighting," said Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

"Long-range strikes were always one piece of the puzzle, and had been overly freighted with expectations in this war."

There also is no way to know how long the new policy will last. It was criticised by Richard Grenell, one of the closest foreign policy advisors of returning president Donald Trump, who replaces Biden on Jan. 20. Trump has long criticised the scale of U.S. aid to Kyiv and has vowed to end the war quickly, without saying how. A Trump spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ukraine has lobbied for the change for months, arguing its inability to hit areas inside Russia, and in particular military airbases hosting warplanes involved in strikes on Ukraine, was a major handicap.

Russian forces, which have been on the offensive for more than a year, have been advancing at their fastest rate since 2022 in eastern Ukraine and exerting pressure in the northeast and southeast.

Russia says Ukraine cannot fire the missiles at targets inside Russia without direct help from NATO allies, calling this a major escalation. On Monday, the Kremlin said any such decision would mean the United States was directly involved in the conflict.

The first Ukrainian strikes could happen in the coming days and are likely to be carried out using ATACMS rockets, which have a range of up to 190 miles (306 km), Reuters reported.

A central European defence official told Reuters the strikes would give Kyiv a greater chance to defend itself from aerial attacks, but would not decisively swing the conflict in Ukraine's favour.

Russia had already moved many of its air assets beyond the reach of Western weapons in Ukraine, the official said, although the range would cover beyond the area of Kursk occupied by Ukraine.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said he was "not opening champagne just yet" as it was unknown how many rockets the Ukrainians had and whether they had enough to impact the battlefield.

The decision to authorise the strikes only after months of Ukrainian lobbying follows a patternrepeated throughout the war as the Biden administration tried to balance its support for Ukraine with concern about escalation.

Previously, Washington vacillated for months before approving giving Ukraine long-range missiles, tanks and planes.

Some military analysts say such delays gave Moscow time to recover from early failures and reinforce defences of occupied territory, contributing to the failure of a major Ukrainian counteroffensive last year.

UKRAINE UNDER PRESSURE

Being able to attack Russian territory with missiles could have its most direct impact in Kursk, where Ukraine aims to hold a salient it captured after its first major cross-border assault in August. The Russian land could be a bargaining chip in any negotiations after Trump enters the White House.

Kyiv says Russia has massed 50,000 troops to try to retake the territory in Kursk, and that it has deployed 11,000 North Koreans, some of whom it says have joined the fight. Russia has neither confirmed nor denied the deployment.

"ATACMS missiles can hold at risk high value Russian and North Korean targets. This would help Ukrainian forces defend the Kursk salient, which is under pressure," said Kofman.

Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute, said it would be difficult for Ukraine to hold its ground in Kursk in the long term, but its fortunes there would depend on resources.

"Ukraine has committed some of its best units there, so they may be able to hold for some time if they continue to receive enough ammunition and combat replacements," he said.

Kyiv-based military analyst Serhii Kuzan said there were an array of targets in Russia at a depth of up to 500 km from Ukraine that Kyiv's forces saw as priorities, but many of which would still be out out of range of ATACMS.

France and Britain have not spelled out whether they would follow the Americans by allowing Ukraine to use Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles, which have a range of 250 km (155 miles).

"Russia can shoot down Storm Shadow and ATACMS, so the salvo size that can be launched is also an important consideration," Lee added.

On the streets of Kyiv on Monday, the general feeling was that the decision would help, but that it had come far too late.

"This should have been used either as a preventative measure, or as a sharp reaction in February or March 2022. Now it does not play a big role," said Olga Korovyachuk, 21.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Moscow issues long-range missiles warning to West

Moscow has issued a stark warning to the United States and its allies, stating that any use of long-range missiles by Kiev to strike deep inside Russian territory would signify the “direct participation” of the Western powers in the conflict. 

Monday evening’s statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry comes amid unconfirmed reports that US President Joe Biden has authorized Kiev to use American-supplied ATACMS missiles to target sites inside Moscow’s pre-2014 borders. 

Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the ministry, said any such move would “radically change the essence and nature of the conflict.”

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that US President Joe Biden had given Ukraine permission to use ATACMS missiles against Russian territory. However, the White House has made no official statements.

When asked about the reports on Monday, Zakharova noted that they have not been confirmed by Washington.

Zakharova further emphasized: “Kiev’s use of long-range missiles to attack our territory will mean the direct participation of the United States and its satellites in hostilities against Russia. In this case, Russia’s response will be adequate and tangible.”

Zakharova’s comments follow a report in The New York Times on Sunday that suggested Biden had greenlit Ukraine’s use of the long-range missiles to target Russian forces defending Kursk Region, allegedly alongside North Korean troops. 

While the White House has neither confirmed nor denied the claim, the very possibility of such a policy shift has elicited a strong reaction from Moscow.

The Foreign Ministry reiterated President Vladimir Putin’s earlier warnings regarding Western nations potentially providing Ukraine with long-range weapons. In September, Putin stated that any move to arm Kiev with such capabilities would force Moscow to make “appropriate decisions based on the threats presented to us.” 

He suggested that such actions would represent a shift in whether “NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict.”

Zakharova underscored the gravity of the potential escalation, warning that Moscow would not stand idly by: “In this case, Russia’s response will be adequate and tangible.” 

The Kremlin has consistently framed Western military aid to Ukraine as a threat to its national security, and Zakharova’s comments further emphasize Moscow’s stance on long-range weaponry. The situation remains tense, with some Western leaders openly admitting concerns about further escalations and the potential for direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Amid rising tensions, Moscow also noted uncertainty regarding the veracity of US policy changes. “It is not yet known whether these claims are based on official sources,” a statement outlined.

Reuters/RT

This US election marks what Germans call a Zeitenwende (“turning point”). Voters are signaling clearly that they want change, preferring a second Donald Trump administration to another caretaker government presiding over a regime that they reject.

True, political parties that promised to protect the status quo have lost elections in country after country this year. But the significance of voters in the world’s oldest democracy rejecting their country’s constitutional foundations – the rule of law, an independent and impartial judiciary, due process, and an orderly transfer of power – can hardly be overestimated.

The blame game started before the election results had sunk in, with a predictable focus on elitism, identity, and the losing candidate herself. This cycle of recrimination will tear apart the Democratic Party and render it even less fit for governing in the future. It also will distract from the elephant in the room: capitalism. Democracy is in a death spiral because it is subject to a socioeconomic regime that pits everyone against everyone else, undermining the capacity for consensus and collective decision-making.

It is not the first time that capitalism has upended democracy. A century ago, the effects of rapid industrialization at the expense of individuals and their communities fueled communism and fascism in Europe. Writing during World War II, the economic historian Karl Polanyi traced the root cause of his era’s political upheavals to an economic system that subordinated society to the market principle.

The problem, according to Polanyi, started with the abolition of the “poor laws” in England in the early nineteenth century. Uprooted, landless masses had no choice but to migrate to cities, where they were exploited as cheap labor in factories that consumed their lives and those of their children. While this system undoubtedly generated prosperity, it came at enormous costs to too many people. Without the devastation brought by World War I, the backlash against it by the masses might have taken much longer.

The United States, which fought in WWI but not on its own territory, largely avoided the backlash despite the economic depression of the 1930s. Importantly, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration accomplished something that other countries did not: It gave the American people enough economic security that they could begin to envision a better future for themselves and their families.

This time is different, and not only in the US. We live in a system that most politicians have declared to be without alternative. In fact, they themselves have long surrendered control of the system and lack the capacity or will to imagine a different one. The late Fredric Jameson’s aphorism that “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism” has gained renewed currency, and it is not hard to see why. Governments have very little room for maneuver, lest they be punished by (utterly amoral) financial markets. Long celebrated as a tool for disciplining policymakers, financial globalization has placed the fate of entire societies in the hands of investors who care only about price signals and are oblivious to human needs.  

Governments tied their own hands in the hope that markets would deliver capital, goods, and jobs. Buying into the belief that they should get out of the market’s way, they opened their countries to free capital flows, even as they supported the selective legal coding of assets and intermediaries to benefit the well-heeled. Later, they encouraged their central banks to bail out intermediaries who threatened to bring down the entire financial system in yet another crisis.

Countries also adopted international treaties that gave multinational corporations the power to sue host states for harming the profitability of their investments, or for “unfair and inequitable” treatment. With these cases overseen by an arbitral tribunal located elsewhere, governments effectively disarmed their own courts and undermined their own constitutions (whose provisions cannot be used as a defense against violations of international treaties).

Some countries (Germany most prominently) went so far as to deny future elected governments the option of raising additional debt finance, by enshrining balanced-budget requirements in their constitutions. Others held their people on a short leash by pursuing fiscal austerity, even as the rich thrived on yet another asset boom supported by easy monetary policies. Like Odysseus, who had his hands bound to the ship’s mast to withstand the call of the sirens, governments found ways to escape the call of the voters who had elected them. Democratic self-governance lost credibility long before the rise of the anti-democratic parties that now openly deride it.

For his part, Polanyi expected the war to be followed by another transformation that would put society, and not markets, in control. The legal and institutional mechanisms adopted to advance this goal did work initially, but powerful private actors and their lawyers soon found ways to arbitrage around them.

Two decades after the war, what the University of Michigan’s Greta Krippner describes as the financialization of the American economy had already taken off. Financial returns became the end to which all other needs and aspirations were subordinated. While the collateral damage of this process was widespread, the biggest blow was dealt to our capacity for collective decision-making.

Had communism and socialism not collapsed at the very moment when financialization unleashed its full force, many might have noticed its corrosive effects on democracy much earlier. Instead, capitalism was celebrated as the only game in town. As a result, we did not witness the “end of history” that Francis Fukuyama proclaimed when the Cold War wound down. We are condemned to relive it, but whether as tragedy or farce remains to be seen.

Project Syndicate