International

Putin isolated as neutral powers join West in anti-Russia rhetoric

Published

4 years ago

December 26, 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin

TOKYO — As it has little chance of defeating Ukraine with conventional arms, Russia is destroying the country’s vital civilian infrastructure, such as power plants and housing units, to make people freeze and lose their will to fight.

Russia’s action is tantamount to torture of the Ukrainian people and must be stopped as soon as possible. For that, it is necessary to further isolate Moscow to weaken President Vladimir Putin’s will and ability to carry on the war.

From this point of view, what happened at the Group of 20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, on Nov. 15-16 was encouraging: The G-20 leaders issued a joint statement condemning Russia’s invasion in Ukraine.

It was rather unexpected. Since Russia invaded its neighbor on Feb. 24, the G-20 held several ministerial meetings but failed to make any meaningful decisions on the issue due to a deep rift between the West and Russia.

The G-20 is a group of countries with widely different political agendas that together make up more than 80% of global gross domestic product. Half of the members are major Western democracies like the U.S., European nations and Japan, but the group also includes Russia and China.

READ ALSO:

The rest are mostly “neutral powers” in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America that are not aligned with either the West or the China-Russia camp. These powers include India, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico. G-20 members’ official positions on Russia’s aggression in Ukraine are widely varied.

Unexpectedly, however, the G-20 adopted a joint declaration denouncing Russia’s war, overcoming differences in those positions. While not naming Russia, the document stated, “Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine,” adding, “The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.”

This statement has huge implications because it means that the neutral powers that had been reluctant to openly criticize Moscow have signaled a clear “no” to its invasion.

Initially, China, Putin’s close ally, tried to dilute the anti-Russia rhetoric in the declaration, but in the end, it went along with the majority and did not raise an objection to its adoption. Putin did not attend the event.

According to several diplomatic sources, Indonesia, this year’s host of the summit, and India, the host for next year, were instrumental in building consensus for the document. Officials of the two governments made well-coordinated efforts to lay diplomatic groundwork to win the support of other G-20 members.

For both India and Indonesia, the G-20 is the only high-profile international framework where they can negotiate with such nations as the U.S., China, Russia and European nations on an equal footing. They were desperate to save the group from collapse over Moscow’s war.

READ ALSO:

In particular, Indonesia made a flurry of diplomatic efforts to build a network of nations to support the condemnation of Russia. Several days before the summit, Jakarta spent more than 60 hours with senior officials of other G-20 members, working out details of the declaration.

This signals that the international situation surrounding Russia is beginning to change significantly 10 months after the start of the war, with a growing number of neutral powers trying to distance themselves from Moscow.

One major factor is the increasing brutality of Putin’s military operations in Ukraine. Russia’s attacks targeting civilians and social infrastructure are disturbing many emerging countries that have traditionally maintained friendly ties with Moscow, according to a Southeast Asian diplomat.

In one episode symptomatic of this trend, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi assailed Putin over his invasion during a meeting in September. In a comment suggesting a shift in New Delhi’s posture on the war in Ukraine, Modi said, “Today’s era is not of war.” In an apparent nod to Modi’s comment, the G-20 declaration said, “Today’s era must not be of war.”

Another factor driving the change in neutral powers’ stance is the fact that the conflict is further aggravating the global food and energy crises. Deep discontent with Russia is spreading among emerging economies and developing nations hard hit by food and energy crunches.

Top officials and experts from Western, Middle Eastern and African nations discussed the impact of the Ukraine war on the food crisis at the World Policy Conference, an international discussion forum, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, from Dec. 9 to 11.

At the gathering, many emerging countries expressed concerns about the potential impact of a slow recovery in food production in Ukraine, a major exporter of grain and other agricultural products. Some called for concerted efforts to ensure stable food exports from Ukraine via the Black Sea.

This situation offers a great opportunity for the West to expand its cooperation with neutral powers over such global challenges as food and energy shortages and their rising prices. Such cooperation would draw neutral nations toward the Western camp and narrow the room for Moscow to maneuver.

Japan, as the host of the Group of Seven summit in 2023, can play an important role in promoting such strategic cooperation. Tokyo should work with New Delhi, the host of the G-20 summit in 2023, to lead international efforts to make effective responses to these global challenges.

On the military front, it is vital for the U.S. and Europe to step up their support to Ukraine and put additional pressure on Russian forces. The more trouble the Russian military faces in Ukraine, the more emerging and developing countries will likely break ranks with Moscow.

The U.S.-centric world order that had prevailed since the end of World War II has come to an end. The global community has now split into three main blocs — the West, neutral powers and the China-Russia camp. Whether the world can regain stability will depend on how well the West and neutral powers will be able to bury their differences and cooperate in tackling global challenges.

Nikkei Asia

International

Kemi Badenoch: I Don’t Want Migrants Turning UK Into Nation Of ‘Little Ghettos’

Published

4 hours ago

October 6, 2026

Trends Admin

Leader of the UK Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch

Kemi Badenoch: I Don’t Want Migrants Turning UK Into Nation Of ‘Little Ghettos’

UK Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has warned against the emergence of what she described as “little ghettos” of separatist migrant communities in Britain, arguing that newcomers must integrate and respect the country’s culture and values.

Badenoch made the remarks while opening the Conservative Party’s annual conference in Birmingham, where she set out her vision for rebuilding the party and Britain.

Speaking about immigration and integration, the Conservative leader said she wanted Britain to remain a “high-trust” society in which people coming into the country accept the social expectations and responsibilities that come with living there.

“I don’t want lots of little ghettos of separatist communities where they are recreating the place that they came from. That will ruin the United Kingdom,” Badenoch said.

She added that Britain was “not a dormitory” or “a hotel” and argued that migrants who come to the country, including those who come primarily to work, should respect British culture and values.

Badenoch stressed that she was not advocating race-based citizenship, saying Britain had never operated such a system. However, she argued that British culture, norms and expectations remained important to maintaining social cohesion.

READ ALSO:

“It is not just about the values and the principles,” she said, arguing that the way people conduct themselves and the expectations they share also form part of British culture.

The remarks form part of Badenoch’s broader attempt to establish a tougher Conservative Party position on immigration, integration and national identity as the party seeks to regain political ground.

She has also acknowledged failures by previous Conservative governments to deliver promised reductions in immigration. In her newly published policy document, The Right Way, she argues that the party needs clearer principles and a more consistent approach to government.

The Conservatives are also proposing tougher conditions for migrants seeking permanent settlement in the UK, including changes to the rules governing indefinite leave to remain.

Badenoch’s comments have drawn attention because of the sensitivity surrounding immigration and multiculturalism in Britain, with critics arguing that language about migrant communities risks stigmatising minority groups.

Her supporters, however, say the emphasis on integration rather than race is intended to reinforce a shared national identity and social cohesion.

The debate comes as immigration remains a major political issue in the UK, with the Conservatives facing pressure from Reform UK over migration while the Labour government continues to face questions over legal and irregular immigration.

Badenoch, who became Conservative leader in November 2024, used the conference to present her party as a political alternative focused on economic growth, stronger national security, reduced bureaucracy and stricter immigration policies.

Her comments on migrant communities are expected to remain a significant part of the Conservatives’ political message as the party seeks to redefine its approach to immigration, integration and British identity.

Kemi Badenoch: I Don’t Want Migrants Turning UK Into Nation Of ‘Little Ghettos’

International

Trump Approves Firing Squad Execution For Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan

Published

4 hours ago

October 6, 2026

Trends Admin

Trump Approves Firing Squad Execution For Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan

President Donald Trump has approved the execution by U.S. Army firing squad of former Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who was sentenced to death for the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 people dead and 32 others wounded.

The Pentagon announced the decision on Monday, saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had recommended the firing-squad execution and Trump approved it.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the Secretary of the Army would determine the date and location of the execution.

Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, opened fire at a medical facility at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, shortly before he was due to deploy to Afghanistan.

The attack killed 12 active-duty soldiers and one retired serviceman, while 32 others were wounded. Hasan was shot and seriously injured by a responding civilian police officer and has been partially paralysed since the attack.

READ ALSO:

A military jury convicted Hasan in 2013 of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder and sentenced him to death.

During his court-martial, Hasan represented himself and did not call witnesses in his defence. He acknowledged that he carried out the shooting and argued that his actions were intended to protect Muslims whom he believed were being targeted by U.S. military operations.

Hasan has remained on military death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, while pursuing legal challenges to his conviction and sentence.

Trump’s approval does not mean the execution will take place immediately. Further legal and administrative procedures remain, and Hasan could seek relief through the federal courts, potentially delaying the execution.

If carried out, Hasan’s execution would be an extraordinary event in the history of the U.S. military justice system.

The U.S. military has not carried out an execution since 1961, when Army Private John Bennett was hanged. The last known U.S. military execution by firing squad took place in 1945.

The decision also comes amid renewed debate in the United States over methods of execution. The Trump administration has expanded the available methods for carrying out federal executions, while recent difficulties surrounding lethal injection have intensified scrutiny of capital punishment.

Hasan’s case has remained one of the most prominent military death-penalty cases in the United States since the Fort Hood attack nearly 17 years ago.

The Army is now expected to determine when and where the execution will take place, subject to the remaining legal process.

Trump Approves Firing Squad Execution For Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan

International

UK Threatens to Expel 27 Israeli Diplomats as Jerusalem Consulate Standoff Escalates

Published

15 hours ago

October 5, 2026

Trends Admin

UK Threatens to Expel 27 Israeli Diplomats as Jerusalem Consulate Standoff Escalates

The UK-Israel diplomatic crisis has escalated to its most dangerous level in decades, with Britain threatening to expel 27 Israeli diplomats if Israel proceeds with its plan to shut down the British consulate in East Jerusalem this Thursday. The extraordinary standoff—sparked by UK sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements—now threatens to sever one of the West’s most strategically important bilateral relationships. According to reports confirmed by The Jerusalem Post and The New Arab, British Ambassador to Israel Simon Walters personally delivered the warning to Israeli officials: for every British diplomat forced out of the East Jerusalem consulate, London will expel one Israeli diplomat from its embassy in London. With 27 British staff members facing expulsion, Israel’s London embassy—which has already been without an ambassador since September 2025—could be effectively gutted. The UK Foreign Office declined to comment on the reported threat, while Israeli diplomatic sources told The Jerusalem Post there was “no reason for us to address speculation regarding decisions other countries might make in the future.”

Behind the scenes, UK National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell made a quiet visit to Israel last week in a desperate attempt to prevent the closure, three sources told Reuters. The talks failed to produce an agreement to keep the consulate open, and the British government did not disclose the visit.

The confrontation traces back to September, when UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced sweeping trade sanctions on goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. In a dramatic statement to Parliament, Miliband accused the Israeli government of turning a “blind eye” to what he called “ethnic cleansing” by settler terrorists. “The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists,” Miliband said. “All too often the Israeli government has turned a blind eye to this, and worse members of it have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians.” The UK settlement sanctions, announced in coordination with France and Canada, will ban imports from illegal settlements and target companies and individuals providing “construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate for settlement expansion.” According to the House of Commons Library, the measures will take effect within six to nine months, with the import ban applied geographically based on settlement postcodes. Britain specifically cited the Israeli government-backed E1 settlement project—which would effectively sever the West Bank from East Jerusalem—as a key factor undermining the two-state solution.

READ ALSO:

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced a series of countermeasures on September 8, calling the UK sanctions “morally distorted” and accusing Britain’s ruling Labour Party of interfering in Israel’s upcoming October 27 general election. The Israeli retaliation included closing the British Consulate General in East Jerusalem within 30 days, removing British representatives from the US-led International Gaza Support Center in Kiryat Gat, ending British participation in training Palestinian Authority security forces in Ramallah, and barring 12 British officials deemed “anti-Israel” from entering Israel, including 11 MPs and a lawyer. Sa’ar framed the measures as a necessary response to what he called a “hostile Labour government.” “Israel has nothing against the British people,” he said. “Unfortunately, a hostile Labour Government is in office, systematically acting against the State of Israel, and it has left us with no choice but to finally respond.”

The British Consulate General in East Jerusalem is not a routine diplomatic post. Established in 1838—110 years before the founding of Israel—it operates separately from the UK embassy in Tel Aviv and handles relations with Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. The consulate is located in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. The UK, like most of the international community, does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem, which Israel occupied in 1967 and later annexed in a move not recognized internationally.

The UK sanctions on Israel have drawn fierce criticism from within the British Jewish community. Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis called the measures a “dark day for British Jews,” warning they could “embolden those, at home and abroad, who use hatred as a weapon against Jews.” Miliband, who describes himself as a “proud British Jew,” rejected the chief rabbi’s claim directly. Asked on BBC Radio 4 whether Mirvis was wrong, Miliband replied: “Yes, I am saying I don’t agree with the chief rabbi, somebody over whom I have great respect.” He added: “Anyone who holds British Jews, or indeed Jews around the world, responsible for the actions of the Israeli government is engaging in antisemitism, pure and simple.” The Board of Deputies of British Jews said it followed the announcement with “deep regret,” warning that deteriorating UK-Israel relations could “further inflame community tensions.”

The standoff has been further inflamed by domestic political developments in Britain. On Sunday, the UK Green Party voted to declare Zionism a form of racism, passing the motion by 1,022 votes to 813 at its annual conference. Israel’s foreign ministry declared the resolution “a clear antisemitic text” and announced that Foreign Minister Sa’ar was barring Green Party leader Zack Polanski from entering Israel. Israeli President Isaac Herzog called the Green Party decision “a disgrace,” while Labour Party chair Bridget Phillipson described it as “shameful.”

With the consulate closure deadline set for Thursday, both sides appear entrenched. Israel’s Foreign Ministry has confirmed the consulate will close “as announced.” Two sources told Reuters that while talks were still ongoing, an agreement before the deadline was unlikely. If Israel proceeds and the UK follows through on its threat, the expulsion of 27 Israeli diplomats would mark an unprecedented rupture in British-Israeli relations. Israel’s embassy in London has already been without an ambassador since September 2025. The loss of 27 additional diplomats would effectively gut the mission. A Western diplomat told The Guardian that the closure would set a “dangerous precedent” for the status of diplomatic missions monitoring the status quo in Jerusalem, emphasizing that the UK does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city under international law. The coming days will determine whether this UK-Israel diplomatic crisis escalates further—or whether a last-minute compromise can pull both nations back from the brink.