Tag Archives: charities and charitable giving

Unanswered questions about Trump’s tax returns


New York
CNN
 — 

After years of legal battles, pontificating and theorizing, former President Donald Trump’s tax returns from 2015 to 2020 are now part of the public record. Many critics and political opponents have theorized that Trump fought the public disclosure of his tax returns because they potentially provided evidence of illegal or politically damaging behavior.

It’s not immediately clear that they do either.

However, Trump’s tax returns raise numerous questions about the former president’s finances, his business activities, foreign ties and his charitable donations, among other issues.

Trump broke with decades of tradition in becoming the first elected president since Nixon to refuse to disclose his tax returns to the public When Democratic lawmakers demanded them, Trump fought for years to keep them private, taking the battle to the Supreme Court – a legal fight he ultimately lost.

He frequently claimed during his 2016 presidential candidacy that he couldn’t release his taxes because they were being audited, a claim that was debunked last week when the House Ways and Means Committee disclosed that Trump’s 2015 and 2016 taxes weren’t audited until 2019.

For now, the thousands of pages of documents offer only more questions about what Trump’s finances, and may offer potential avenues for new investigations.

Trump reported having foreign bank accounts, including a bank account in China between 2015 and 2017, his tax returns show.

The tax returns do not show what the bank account was used for or how much money passed through it or to whom. The New York Times first reported about Trump’s Chinese account in 2020, and Trump Organization lawyer Alan Garten told the Times that the account was used to pay taxes on the Trump International Hotels Management’s business push in the country.

Trump did not report the Chinese bank account in personal financial disclosures when he was president, likely because it was listed under his businesses. Yet he may have still been required to report accounts to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

Trump’s companies and business interests span the globe. On his tax return, Trump listed business income, taxes, expenses or other notable financial items from or in Azerbaijan, Panama, Canada, India, Qatar, South Korea, the United Kingdom, China, the Dominican Republic, United Arab Emirates, the Philippines, Grenada, US territory Puerto Rico, Georgia, Israel, Brazil, St. Maarten, Mexico, Indonesia, Ireland, Turkey and St. Vincent.

But the tax returns don’t explain what business ties he had in those countries and with whom he might have been working while he was president.

Unlike previous presidents, Trump declined to divest his business interests while he was in office. Critics said his many foreign holdings compromised his ability to act independently as a politician.

During his presidency, Trump pledged he would donate the entirety of his $400,000 salary to charity each year. He frequently boasted about donating parts of his quarterly paycheck to various government agencies.

If he donated his 2020 salary, he didn’t claim it on his taxes. Among the six years of tax returns the House Ways and Means Committee released, 2020 was the sole year in which Trump listed no donations to charity.

That doesn’t mean his salary wasn’t donated, but it’s unclear if he made good on his promise in 2020.

In each year of Trump’s presidency, Trump claimed that he had loaned three of his adult children – Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric – undisclosed sums of money on which he collected interest.

The tax returns don’t say how much he lent them or why he gave them loans in the first place.

Between 2017 and 2020, Trump claimed he received exactly $18,000 in interest on a loan he gave his daughter Ivanka Trump and $8,715 in interest from his son Donald Trump, Jr.. In 2017 to 2019, Trump said he received exactly $24,000 from his son Eric Trump, and Eric paid him $19,605 in interest in 2020.

The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said the loans and the amounts of claimed interest could indicate Trump was disguising gifts to his children. If the interest Trump claims to have charged his children was not at market rate, for example, it could be considered a gift for tax purposes, requiring him to pay a higher tax rate on the money.

Trump entered the US presidency with a vast web of business holdings, including hundreds of limited liability companies, corporations and partnerships with operations both domestically and overseas.

The massiveness and intricacy of his business operations – including companies nested within each other like Matryoshka dolls – brought a level of complexity not seen before in the US presidency and spurred concern about potential conflicts of interest, especially with foreign entities.

Friday’s public release of Trump’s 2015 to 2020 personal and business tax filings may shed some additional light as to how those operations evolved during and shortly after his time in office. But they don’t spell out where money was going and to whom.

Since 1977, the Internal Revenue Service has had a policy of auditing every president’s personal tax returns while they are in office. But the IRS didn’t do any examination of Trump’s tax returns until the Ways and Means Committee requested an audit in April of 2019.

When the committee asked Treasury Department representatives about the apparent lapse, they declined to provide information about the actual operations of the mandatory audit program, according to the committee’s report.

It remains unclear whether Trump received special treatment or, as the committee noted, the IRS was hamstrung by an acute lack of resources.

The lack of an audit looks especially suspect after representatives for Trump’s predecessor and successor said they had been subjected to annual audits by the IRS. A Biden White House spokesman told the AP that the IRS audited Biden in both 2020 and 2021. Representatives for former President Barack Obama told the New York Times that the IRS audited him each year he was in office.

Read original article here

Viktor Bout: Freed Russian arms dealer “wholeheartedly” supports Ukraine war



CNN
 — 

Freed Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout said on Saturday he “wholeheartedly” supports Moscow’s so-called “military operation” in Ukraine and that if he had the opportunity and necessary skills, he would “certainly go as a volunteer.”

Bout, nicknamed the “Merchant of Death” by his accusers, was released Thursday from US detention in a prisoner swap for US basketball star Brittney Griner.

Bout made the remarks in a video interview with Kremlin-controlled TV network RT. He was interviewed by Maria Butina, a Russian gun-rights enthusiast-turned TV personality who now works for the network.

In the interview, he denied any connections with the Taliban and that he supplied arms to Afghanistan.

When asked if he had a portrait of President Vladimir Putin in his prison cell, Bout said: “Yes, always. Why not? I’m proud that I’m Russian and that our president is Putin.”

The former Soviet military officer was serving a 25-year prison sentence in the United States on charges of conspiring to kill Americans, acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles, and provide material support to a terrorist organization. Bout, who had maintained his innocence, is believed to be in his 50s, with his age in dispute because of different passports and documents.

Griner, 32, returned to the United States early Friday after being released from custody in an exchange for an international arms dealer. She was “in good spirits” and “incredibly gracious,” National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told CNN.

Griner – who had played in the off-season for a Russian women’s basketball team – was arrested on drugs charges at an airport in the Moscow region in February. Despite her testimony that she had inadvertently packed the cannabis oil found in her luggage, she was sentenced to nine years in prison in early August and moved to a penal colony in Mordovia in mid-November after losing her appeal.

The swap, which US President Joe Biden confirmed on Thursday, did not include another American that the State Department has declared wrongfully detained, Paul Whelan. Whelan was arrested on alleged espionage charges in 2018 and sentenced to 16 years in prison in a trial that US officials have called unfair.

The families of Griner and Whelan had urged the White House to secure their release, including via prisoner exchange if necessary.

Read original article here

Jeff Bezos for the first time says he will give most of his money to charity


Washington
CNN Business
 — 

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos plans to give away the majority of his $124 billion net worth during his lifetime, telling CNN in an exclusive interview he will devote the bulk of his wealth to fighting climate change and supporting people who can unify humanity in the face of deep social and political divisions.

Though Bezos’ vow was light on specifics, this marks the first time he has announced that he plans to give away most of his money. Critics have chided Bezos for not signing the Giving Pledge, a promise by hundreds of the world’s richest people to donate the majority of their wealth to charitable causes.

Exclusive: Jeff Bezos offers his advice on taking risks right now


01:50

– Source:
CNN

In a sit-down interview with CNN’s Chloe Melas on Saturday at his Washington, DC, home, Bezos, speaking alongside his partner, the journalist-turned-philanthropist Lauren Sánchez, said the couple is “building the capacity to be able to give away this money.”

Asked directly by CNN whether he intends to donate the majority of his wealth within his lifetime, Bezos said: “Yeah, I do.”

Bezos said he and Sánchez agreed to their first interview together since they began dating in 2019 to help shine a spotlight on the Bezos Courage and Civility Award, granted this year to musician Dolly Parton.

The 20-minute exchange with Bezos and Sánchez covered a broad range of topics, from Bezos’s views on political dialogue and a possible economic recession to Sánchez’s plan to visit outer space with an all-female crew and her reflections on a flourishing business partnership with Bezos.

That working relationship was on display Saturday as Bezos and Sánchez announced a $100 million grant to Parton as part of her Courage and Civility Award. It is the third such award, following similar grants to chef Jose Andrés, who has spent some of the money making meals for Ukrainians — and the climate advocate and CNN contributor Van Jones.

“When you think of Dolly,” said Sánchez in the interview, “Look, everyone smiles, right? She is just beaming with light. And all she wants to do is bring light into other people’s worlds. And so we couldn’t have thought of someone better than to give this award to Dolly, and we know she’s going to do amazing things with it.”

The throughline connecting the Courage and Civility Award grantees, Bezos said, was their capacity to bring many people together to solve large challenges.

“I just feel honored to be able to be a part of what they’re doing for this world,” Bezos told CNN.

Unity, Bezos said, is a trait that will be necessary to confront climate change and one that he repeatedly invoked as he blasted politicians and social media for amplifying division.

But the couple’s biggest challenge may be figuring out how to distribute Bezos’ vast fortune. Bezos declined to identify a specific percentage or to provide concrete details on where it would likely be spent.

Despite being the fourth-wealthiest person in the world, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Bezos has refrained from setting a target amount to give away in his lifetime.

Bezos has committed $10 billion over 10 years, or about 8% of his current net worth, to the Bezos Earth Fund, which Sánchez co-chairs. Among its priorities are reducing the carbon footprint of construction-grade cement and steel; pushing financial regulators to consider climate-related risks; advancing data and mapping technologies to monitor carbon emissions; and building natural, plant-based carbon sinks on a large scale.

Though Bezos is now Amazon’s

(AMZN) executive chair and not its CEO — he stepped down from that role in 2021 — he is still involved in the greening of the company. Amazon is one of more than 300 companies that have pledged to reduce their carbon footprint by 2040 according to the principles of the Paris Climate Agreement, Bezos said, though Amazon’s

(AMZN) footprint grew by 18% in 2021, reflecting a pandemic-driven e-commerce boom. Amazon’s

(AMZN) reckoning with its own effect on the climate mirrors its outsized impact on everything from debates about unionization to antitrust policy, where the company has attracted an enormous level of scrutiny from regulators, lawmakers, and civil society groups.

Bezos compared his philanthropic strategy to his years-long effort constructing a titanic engine of e-commerce and cloud computing that has made him one of the most powerful people in the world.

“The hard part is figuring out how to do it in a levered way,” he said, implying that even as he gives away his billions, he is still looking to maximize his return. “It’s not easy. Building Amazon was not easy. It took a lot of hard work, a bunch of very smart teammates, hard-working teammates, and I’m finding — and I think Lauren is finding the same thing — that charity, philanthropy, is very similar.”

“There are a bunch of ways that I think you could do ineffective things, too,” he added. “So you have to think about it carefully and you have to have brilliant people on the team.”

Bezos’ methodical approach to giving stands in sharp contrast to that of his ex-wife, the philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, who recently gave away nearly $4 billion to 465 organizations in the span of less than a year.

While Bezos and Sánchez plot out their plans for Bezos’ immense wealth, many people of more modest means are bracing for what economists fear may be an extended economic downturn.

Last month, Bezos tweeted a warning to his followers on Twitter, recommending that they “batten down the hatches.”

The advice was meant for business owners and consumers alike, Bezos said in the interview, suggesting that individuals should consider putting off buying big ticket items they’ve been eyeing — or that companies should slow their acquisitions and capital expenditures.

“Take some risk off the table,” Bezos said. “Keep some dry powder on hand…. Just a little bit of risk reduction could make the difference for that small business, if we do get into even more serious economic problems. You’ve got to play the probabilities a little bit.”

Many may be feeling the pinch now, he added, but argued that as an optimist he believes the American Dream “is and will be even more attainable in the future” — projecting that within Bezos’ lifetime, space travel could become broadly accessible to the public.

Sánchez said the couple make “really great teammates,” though she laughed, “We can be kind of boring,” Sánchez said. Bezos smiled and replied, “Never boring.”

Sánchez, the founder of Black Ops Aviation, the first female-owned and operated aerial film and production company is a trained helicopter pilot. She said in the interview that they’ve both taken turns in the driver’s seat.

Bezos has credited his own journey to space for helping to inspire his push to fight climate change. Now, it is Sánchez’s turn.

Sánchez told CNN she anticipates venturing into orbit herself sometime in 2023. And while she did not directly address who will be joining her — quickly ruling out Bezos as a crewmate — she said simply: “It’ll be a great group of females.”

Bezos may be adding NFL owner to his resume. CNN recently reported that Bezos and Jay-Z are in talks on a potential joint bid on the Washington Commanders.

It is not clear if the two have yet spoken with Dan Snyder and his wife, Tanya, the current owners of the NFL team, about the possibility.

But during the interview on Saturday, Melas asked Bezos if the speculation was true.

“Yes, I’ve heard that buzz,” Bezos said with a smile.

Sánchez chimed in with a laugh, “I do like football. I’m just going to throw that out there for everyone.”

Bezos added, “I grew up in Houston, Texas, and I played football growing up as a kid … and it is my favorite sport … so we’ll just have to wait and see.”

– CNN’s Chloe Melas contributed to this report



Read original article here

Lab-made blood could have enormous potential for people with rare blood conditions



CNN
 — 

Scientists have transfused lab-made red blood cells into a human volunteer in a world-first trial that experts say has major potential for people with hard-to-match blood types or conditions such as sickle cell disease. The research could someday mean an end to long searches for compatible donors or dangerous transfusion reactions.

The experimental transfusion was done at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, as part of a collaborative effort among UK scientists to understand how lab-made blood transfusions could work.

The scientists took whole blood from donors in a UK database and separated out the stem cells. These are the body’s raw materials – the cells from which all specialized cells, like a red blood cell, can generate.

The researchers grew red blood cells from those stem cells and transfused them into two healthy volunteers.

The transfusions involved only a tiny amount of blood: the equivalent of one or two teaspoons. A standard blood transfusion would involve many hundred times that amount.

This stage of the trial involves two mini transfusions at least four months apart, one with a standard donation of red cells and the other with lab-made cells from the same donor.

The researchers are closely monitoring the volunteers to determine whether the process was safe. They say there have been with “no untoward side effects” so far.

They’re also watching how long the lab-grown cells last compared with an infusion of standard red blood cells. Red blood cells typically last about 120 days, but a transfusion from a standard donation contains cells that are a variety of ages because the bone marrow continuously makes these cells.

Previous tests have shown that manufactured cells function like normal cells and that these lab-made cells are likely to survive longer overall while in circulation. This study will determine for the first time whether that’s true.

Further trials will be necessary to determine whether there could be a clinical use of this lab-grown product.

The research could eventually make a difference for people with sickle cell disease, those who develop antibodies against most donor blood types, or those with genetic disorders in which their body can’t make red blood cells or the blood cells they make don’t work well.

Red blood cells are the helper cells that carry oxygen from the lungs to the body’s tissues, which use this oxygen to produce energy. The process also generates waste in the form of carbon dioxide that the red blood cells take to the lungs to be exhaled out.

With sickle cell disease – also called sickle cell anemia – red blood cells take on a folded shape that can clog tiny blood vessels and cause organ damage and pain. People with sickle cell often need multiple transfusions over the course of their lives.

“This world leading research lays the groundwork for the manufacture of red blood cells that can safely be used to transfuse people with disorders like sickle cell,” Dr. Farrukh Shah, a researcher on the study and medical director of transfusion for NHS Blood and Transplant, said in a news release. “The need for normal blood donations to provide the vast majority of blood will remain. But the potential for this work to benefit hard to transfuse patients is very significant.”

Dr. Glenn Ramsey, medical director of the blood bank at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and a professor of pathology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, said he has had many patients over the years who are extremely difficult to transfuse and would have benefited from a therapy like the one in this study.

Often, if there is not a local blood match, he has to turn to the American Rare Blood Donor Program – and even then won’t always find an appropriate donor. In one case a few Thanksgivings ago, it was so difficult to find a match for one patient that they had to turn to a world database and bring in blood from Canada.

“This doesn’t come up very often, and it’s an extreme example, but this would be the kind of problem that these kinds of cells could try to solve,” said Ramsey, who was not involved in the new research.

He found the work “quite exciting” and its potential enormous.

Scientists have been working on this issue for many years, he said.

“Down the road in years to come, this might be a way to replace transfusions as we know it,” Ramsey said. “It’s still a long way from getting to that point, but it certainly starts us down the road to see if this will even be feasible.”

Dr. Cheryl Maier, an assistant professor of pathology and laboratory medicine and a medical director at the Emory Center for Transfusion and Cellular Therapies, said the experiment is a “really exciting advancement.”

She is particularly interested in the possibilities of lab-made red blood cell for people with sickle cell.

“There hasn’t been a lot of attention on some of these diseases, especially sickle cell, which mostly affects African American patients, and it can be really frustrating and disheartening that there isn’t more attention to it,” said Maier, who wasn’t involved in this study.

“For certain patients, especially patients with sickle cell disease or other patients that need some kind of chronic transfusion therapy, if you gave them incompatible blood, they would have oftentimes a very strong bad transfusion reaction,” she said.

The research could lay the groundwork for studies of things like platelets, which are often in critically short supply, she said. If scientists find that lab-made red blood cell products last longer, it may also improve the quality of life for people who wouldn’t have to be transfused as regularly.

“Even in 2022, there are patients that we almost can’t find units for, and they get a delay in their treatment because we can’t find matching units for them,” Maier said. “I think it definitely has the ability to revolutionize how we support some patients that are really difficult to support with blood products currently.”

Read original article here

Girl Scouts of the USA receive largest ever donation from single donor



CNN
 — 

Girl Scouts of the USA received its largest ever donation from a single individual, a gift of $84.5 million from MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon

(AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos, the group said in a release.

The donation will be awarded to 29 local councils selected by Scott, along with the national chapter.

Scott, one of the wealthiest women in the world, divorced Bezos in 2019. Last year, Scott announced donations of $2.7 billion to nearly 300 organizations, following donations of $1.7 billion and $4 billion to various causes in 2020. One of the largest was a $436 million gift to Habitat for Humanity International and its affiliates, to be used to promote home ownership in Black and minority communities.

Since mid 2020, Scott has donated $12.8 billion to more than 1,200 organizations, according to Forbes.

The grants to the Girl Scouts will be used, in part, to “create more equitable membership opportunities in communities that have been under engaged” and “foster meaningful program innovation informed by the current interests and needs of girls to prepare them for leadership, including an expanded focus on career readiness and mental wellness,” the release said.

“This is a great accelerator for our ongoing efforts to help girls cultivate the skills and connections needed to lead in their own communities and globally,” Girl Scouts CEO Sofia Chang said in a release.

Girl Scouts of the USA says it’s the largest leadership organization for girls in the world, with 2.5 million members worldwide.

Read original article here

On the eastern front, a stunning week of Ukrainian success and Russian failures



CNN
 — 

The last week has seen a stunning transformation of the battlefield in eastern Ukraine, as a swift armored offensive by Ukrainian forces rolled through lines of Russian defenses and recaptured more than 3,000 square kilometers of territory.

That is more territory than Russian forces have captured in all their operations in Ukraine since April.

As much as the offensive was brilliantly conceived and executed, it also succeeded because of Russian inadequacies. Throughout swathes of the Kharkiv region, Russian units were poorly organized and equipped – and many offered little resistance.

Their failures, and their disorderly retreat to the east, has made the goal of President Vladimir Putin’s special military operation to take all of Luhansk and Donetsk regions considerably harder to attain.

Over the weekend, the Russian retreat continued from border areas that had been occupied since March. Villages within five kilometers of the border were raising the Ukrainian flag.

Live updates: Russia’s war in Ukraine

The collapse of Russian defenses has ignited recriminations among influential Russian military bloggers and personalities in Russian state media.

As the Ukrainian flag was raised in one community after another over the last several days, one question came into focus: how does the Kremlin respond?

Ukrainian officials had telegraphed that an offensive was imminent – but not where it actually happened. There was plenty of noise about a counter-attack in the south, and even US officials talked about Ukrainian operations to “shape the battlefield” in Kherson. Russian reinforcements – perhaps as many as 10,000 – streamed into the region over a period of weeks.

There was indeed a Ukrainian assault in Kherson, but one whose intention appears to have been to fix Russian forces, while the real effort came hundreds of miles to the north. It was a disinformation operation the Russians might have been proud of.

Kateryna Stepanenko at the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based analytical group, says the deception worked.

“Ukrainian military officials reported that (Russian) Eastern Military District elements that had previously supported offensive operations towards Sloviansk had redeployed to the Southern Axis,” she told CNN.

Their replacements were clearly not up to the job – a mixed bag, Stepanenko said, of “Cossack volunteers, volunteer units, DNR/LNR militia units, and the Russian Rosgvardia (National Guard). Such forces were not sufficient to defend a vast and complex front line.”

The Ukrainians picked the weakest spot in Russian defenses for their initial thrust – an area controlled by the Luhansk militia with Russian National Guard units further back. They were no match for a highly mobile armored assault that quickly rendered artillery irrelevant.

Igor Strelkov, formerly the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic militia and now a caustic critic of Russian military shortcomings, noted the poor training of these units and “the exceptional caution of the actions of Russian aviation.” In short, Russian front-line units were hung out to dry without sufficient air support.

Multiple videos geolocated and analyzed by CNN, as well as local accounts, depict a chaotic withdrawal of Russian units, with large amounts of ammunition and hardware left behind.

The poor quality of Russian defenses along a critical north-south axis sustaining the Donetsk offensive is hard to fathom. Once underway, the intent of the Ukrainian offensive was crystal clear – to destroy that artery of resupply. Within three days, they had done so – not least because Russian reinforcements were slow to be mobilized.

The Russian Defense Ministry on Saturday sought to portray the abandonment of Kharkiv as a planned redirection of efforts to the Donetsk region – but it actually complicates those efforts.

Until this week, the Russians were able to attack Ukrainian defenses in Donetsk from three directions: north, east and south. The northern axis is now gone: the threat to the industrial belt in and around Sloviansk has much diminished, as has the prospect of Ukrainian defenses being surrounded.

Simply put, the battlefield in eastern Ukraine has been redrawn in days.

The most influential – and perhaps surprising – public critic of the situation was Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who has supplied thousands of fighters to the offensive. In a Telegram post Sunday, he said he would be contacting senior officials at the Defense Ministry to spell out his message.

“It’s clear that mistakes were made. I think they will draw a few conclusions,” he said.

Hinting at disarray among commanders, Kadyrov said that “if Russia’s General Staff did not want to leave, the (troops) wouldn’t back out” – but Russian soldiers “didn’t have proper military training” and that led to them to retreat.

Influential military bloggers in Russia have been even more blunt. Zakhar Prilepin, whose Telegram channel has more than 250,000 subscribers, reposted a commentary that described events in Kharkiv as a “catastrophe” and a wholesale failure of intelligence.

Hear what Zelensky would tell Trump about Putin

“Now we can observe the result of the criminal irresponsibility of those who were responsible for this direction,” the post reads, before concluding: “The special military operation is long over. There is a war going on.”

Another pro-Putin blogger who goes by the name Kholmogorov reposted an equally scathing account by the Partizan Telegram channel from the front lines, which that essentially accused the Russian authorities of abandoning the troops.

“The soldiers were on foot with one machine gun and a sack. Abandoned by the command, not knowing the way, they walked at random,” the post said.

The poster, who describes himself as a Russian Orthodox nationalist, says that while hatred of the enemy grows, “hatred of the government and command is growing even more.”

Adding his own thoughts, Kholmogorov said: “Lord, save the Russian soldiers from blows from the front and even more from blows in the back.”

A similar analysis came from the Telegram channel of Pyotr Lundstrem.

“There are NO thermal imagers, NO bulletproof vests, NO reconnaissance equipment, NO secure communications, NOT enough copters, NO first aid kits in the army.”

Referring to commemorations in Russia this weekend for the Day of Moscow, the city’s birthday, he added: “You are celebrating a billionth holiday. What’s wrong with you?”

On Saturday, as the rout continued, Putin was inaugurating a ferris wheel in Moscow.

The Institute for the Study of War notes the “withdrawal announcement further alienated the Russian milblogger and Russian nationalist communities that support the Kremlin’s grandiose vision for capturing the entirety of Ukraine.”

Prominent media figures in Russia are trying to spin this week’s calamity as a planned operation. Television host Vladimir Soloviev reposted a Telegram commentary that insisted the “enemy, buying into an easy advance on a given sector of the front, drives into a trap.”

“Currently, Russian units are purposefully regrouping,” the commentary added, even though there is little sign of that.

That begs the question as to how the Kremlin prosecutes the war after suffering its worst week of the entire campaign. It appears to be short of high-quality units. Some existing battalion tactical groups have been reconstituted; volunteer battalions have been raised across Russia to form a Third Army Corps. US officials say the Russians are running short of munitions, even turning to North Korea for supplies.

Stepanenko, at the Institute for the Study of War, told CNN that the remarkable success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive will force a reappraisal of how the new army corps is used.

Stepanenko, who studies the recruitment and organization of the Russian military, says the Russians “might still attempt to use these units to stop the Ukrainian counter-offensive in Kharkiv, although rushing ill-trained and unprepared raw units into such operations would be a highly dangerous endeavor.”

She believes that given the Russian need for fresh manpower, “it is likely that the Russian forces are deploying these elements directly onto the front lines in any case based on the reports that some volunteer battalions are already fighting on the Kherson front lines.”

The Russian military can still bring considerable power to bear in terms of its rocket, artillery and missile forces. But despite one shuffle of the high command already, its ground operations seem poorly organized, with little autonomy devolved to commanders. The last week has laid bare issues of motivation and leadership.

Russian bloggers who have supported the offensive say a radical rethink is required. One commented: “A change of approach to the war in Ukraine is needed. Mobilization of the economy and industry. Creation of a political control center for war.”

Strelkov came to the same conclusion, saying it is time to “start fighting for real (with martial law, the mobilization of the army and the economy.)”

Throughout the conflict, Putin has avoided a general mobilization, which might be unpopular at home.

It’s impossible to know whether the Kremlin will now double down in an effort to complete the special military operation or begins to look for a negotiated settlement.

The first option looks a tall order given the events of the last week; the second would be humiliating. The third possibility, perhaps the most likely, is that Russia will persist with its grinding inch-by-inch onslaught while taking little to no additional territory. But it now faces an adversary with the wind in its sails and fresh infusions of Western military aid being prepared for the winter months.

Ukraine’s battlefield advances have rejuvenated allied support, with a meeting in Germany this weekend producing further pledges of long-term support.

Read original article here