1UA TV

Western diplomats fear the spread of extremist groups and persistent economic and social problems in Western Africa and the Sahel are nearing a tipping point that could have disastrous consequences for the region and beyond. 

The officials from both Europe and the United States warned Thursday that international efforts have so far failed to counter factors that are driving young people to take up arms and called for increased cooperation with countries in the region. 

“The rise of violent extremism and the worsening of the humanitarian situation in the Sahel and the wider West African region is threatening the future of the entire African continent and of all of us,” European Union Ambassador to the U.S. Stavros Lambrinidis told the virtual conference. “This is as high stakes as it gets.” 

U.S. officials described the situation as no less dire. 

“Despite a decade of robust international investments, the region continues to trend in the wrong direction,” said U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Gonzales. 

“Armed groups continue to expand their presence as well as their capabilities and their violence,” Gonzales added. “We need to address the underlying drivers of insecurity more holistically in order to turn the tide.” 

The biggest concern has been Mali, where terrorists linked to groups like Islamic State and al-Qaida have continued to make inroads, and where the military government, which seized power in August 2020, postponed elections scheduled for this February until 2026. 

Earlier this week, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) imposed a series of sanctions against Mali’s interim government for refusing to hold elections as initially agreed, including the suspension of all commercial and financial transactions, and putting financial assistance on hold. 

The EU on Thursday announced it would follow suit with its own sanctions against Mali’s interim government. 

“Despite all the warnings that we made to the Malian authorities, we see no sign of progress on the part of these authorities,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said following a meeting with the EU defense minister in the French city of Brest. 

“The risk that the situation in this country [Mali] continues to deteriorate is evident,” he said. “We will follow the situation closely.” 

Borell said that despite the imposition of sanctions, EU missions to Mali to train and advise Malian armed forces will continue. 

Mali’s ambassador to the United Nations decried the ECOWAS sanctions as “illegal, illegitimate and inhumane” but said the interim government remains open to additional talks with its neighbors.

Further complicating matters, European officials have raised concerns about Mali’s decision to bring in mercenaries from the Russia-based Wagner Group to bolster its security forces – a charge that Mali’s interim government has denied. 

The U.S. Defense Department, while declining to confirm the reports, described the prospect as worrying. 

“Given the Wagner Group’s record, any role for Russian-backed Wagner Group forces in Mali will likely exacerbate an already fragile and unstable situation,” spokesperson Cynthia King told VOA.

The U.S. suspended military training and cooperation with Mali following the August 2020 coup. 

Germany, which has about 1,000 troops in Mali, has said it would be taking another look at its mission. France, which had 3,000 troops in Mali, has slowly been reducing its military footprint, withdrawing from all but one of its military bases in the country. 

Despite the drawdown, French officials insist they remain committed to helping Mali defeat terrorist groups on its soil. 

“France will not abandon Mali or the other Sahel countries,” French Ambassador to the U.S. Philippe Etienne told Thursday’s virtual conference on the region. “At the request of African nations, France is continuing to combat these armed groups in the Sahel with very appreciated support from the United States.” 

“Young recruits who join these terrorist organizations are doing this not necessarily because they want to engage in jihad but also because they have no other prospects,” he said. “Stabilizing the Sahel in the long term will take time, and there’s a long way to go.” 

Emanuela Del Re, the EU special representative for the Sahel, said the goal, ultimately, is to “keep Mali engaged and not isolate it.” 

“We must keep the dialogue open and alive and hold the transitional authorities to their commitments,” she said.

VOA’s Margaret Besheer and Annie Risemberg contributed to this report.
…

In a landmark ruling, a German Court Thursday convicted a former Syrian intelligence officer of crimes against humanity for his role in state-sponsored torture and murder under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The regional court in the western city of Koblenz found 58-year-old Anwar Raslan guilty of overseeing the murder of 27 people at the al-Khatib detention center in Damascus, also known as “Branch 251”, in 2011 and 2012.

Raslan has denied all charges.

Raslan and another defendant, junior officer Eyad al-Gharib, were put on trial in April 2020. Gharib was accused of helping to arrest protesters and deliver them to the detention center. He was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison last year.

Their trials were the first to address state-led torture during Syria’s civil war, which began in 2011. 

Efforts by the U.N. Security Council to refer Raslan’s and other cases from Syria to the Hague-based International Criminal Court have been blocked by Syria’s main allies, Russia and China. The German court tried the two men under the principle of universal jurisdiction for serious crimes.

Human rights activists hope the trial will set a new precedent. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth told the French news agency, AFP, the verdict was historic, and expressed his hope the trials will allow nations around the world to try suspects for war crimes, and mass atrocities in their own countries.

Some information for this report was provided by the Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse.
…

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth has stripped her son, Prince Andrew, of his military affiliations and royal patronages as the controversy over allegations he had sex with an underage girl continued to swirl.

“The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement Thursday.

“With The Queen’s approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen,” the statement said.

Earlier this week, a New York judge ruled a civil suit against Andrew by the accuser, Virginia Giuffre, could move forward.

Giuffre says she was forced to perform sexual acts with Andrew at the behest of convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his companion, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Andrew denies the charges.

In 2019, Epstein was found dead in a Manhattan jail while he awaited another trial for sex trafficking. His death was ruled a suicide.

Maxwell was recently convicted of sex trafficking.
…

When a gunfight erupted during clashes in Diyarbakir in October 2014, video journalist Rojhat Dogru was at the center of the action.

At one point, a little too close. Hit by a bullet, Dogru was rushed to a hospital, where he uploaded footage to the Iraq-based Gali Kurdistan TV while being treated.

The coverage won Dogru an award but now, seven years after the clashes, the video journalist is fighting a life sentence.

A court in Diyarbakir last week issued the sentence after convicting Dogru of “disrupting the unity and integrity of the state.” It further sentenced him to 10 years and 10 months for “attempted deliberate killing,” and a year and three months for “propagandizing for a terrorist organization.”

The verdict has appalled press freedom advocates.

“This is the heaviest punishment I’ve seen recently. There is no murder, no bombing, but it is just news coverage,” Veysel Ok, co-director of Turkey’s Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), told VOA.

Violent clashes

As a Kurdish journalist, Dogru covered events in Diyarbakir and the region for Gali Kurdistan TV, including footage on what is known as the Kobani protests in 2014. That coverage earned him a Southeastern Journalists Association award.

Protests broke out that year after pro-Kurdish groups claimed Ankara was reluctant to help Kurds in Kobani, a city in neighboring Syria besieged by the Islamic State militants.

Police were called in as the protests turned violent, with clashes between supporters of the Free Cause Party, an offshoot of a violent Kurdish Islamist militant group, and PKK supporters. The PKK is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Turkey.

Official figures put the death toll at 37, and an indictment in the mass court case lists hundreds wounded as well as schools and public buildings damaged and over 1,700 homes and businesses looted.

The Turkish government accuses the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) of instigating the protests, and over 100 people, including former HDP co-chairs Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksekdag, have stood trial for the protests.

The HDP denies the charges against it.

From awards to lawsuits

In an interview about his coverage that day, Dogru spoke of the crucial role journalists play in documenting such events.

“I took the footage of the moments when two groups shot each other on the streets in an unbiased and objective way. This footage was crucial in terms of showing that both sides in the conflict had weapons in their hands,” Dogru said in an article published on the MLSA’s website days before the court issued its verdict.

“Although I was injured, I continued to take a video. I even took video of the moments when I was injured with my camera,” Dogru said.

The journalist was left needing treatment for injuries to his chin, stomach and leg.

The first lawsuit against Dogru was filed three years after the clashes, the journalist’s lawyer, Resul Temur, told VOA.

The plaintiff, named in some reports as Ridvan Ozdemir, alleges he was caught in the clashes and injured by a gun fired from Dogru’s direction.

Ozdemir alleged that Dogru shot him, and a case was filed on charges of “disrupting the unity and integrity of the state” and “attempted deliberate killing.”

‘Beyond normal’

Dogru denied the allegation, telling the MLSA “it is beyond normal to shoot with a gun in one hand while taking a footage with the camera in the other.”

He added that an expert witness watched the footage and, in a report filed with the court, said that Dogru had not used a gun.

During the trial, said Temur, the plaintiff did not remember whether Dogru was holding a camera.

“We said that it was strange that he did not remember the camera but remembered the gun,” Temur said.

More charges followed in 2018 when authorities allegedly found Dogru’s number on a PKK member detained by the police in Diyarbakir.

In December of that year, Dogru was held in pretrial detention on accusations of “membership of a terrorist organization.” He was released in February 2019 under judicial control.

A judge in Diyarbakir later combined the legal charges into one case, which reached its conclusion on January 6.

An arrest warrant was also issued for the journalist, who did not attend the hearing in person.

Temur told VOA they have appealed and called the trial “biased.”

‘A heavy price’

The verdict astonished press freedom advocates who believe that a higher court should reverse it on appeal.

“It is against the nature of the job of a cameraman to shoot with one hand and use a gun with another. This was refuted by the expert report [in the court]. So, the punishment is not acceptable,” Mucahit Ceylan, president of the Southeast Journalists Association, told VOA.

“In this region at critical times, [Dogru] risked his own life to cover the news, was injured, and now he is punished,” Ceylan said.

He believes the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

Ok, the MLSA co-director, was also shocked by the heavy sentence.

“Of course, there is a possibility that this will be reverted from the Constitution and European Court of Human Rights, but [until then] he will eventually spend years in prison,” Ok told VOA. “A heavy price will be paid, and there is nothing legal about it.”

This story originated in VOA’s Turkish Service.
…

Efforts to de-escalate tensions along the Russia-Ukraine border shift Thursday to Vienna and a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Permanent Council.

The session follows a bilateral meeting between Russia and the United States in Geneva on Monday and talks Wednesday in Brussels between Russia and NATO.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters that after Thursday’s meeting, the parties involved would reflect on the discussions and “determine appropriate next steps.”

Price said Wednesday the United States expects the Russian delegations to the three sets of meetings will “have to report back to [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin, who we all hope will choose peace and security, and knowing that we are sincere, and that we are steadfast when we say we prefer the course of diplomacy and dialogue.”

The United States and its NATO allies have urged Russia to de-escalate tensions and for the situation to be resolved diplomatically, and on Wednesday offered ideas for reciprocal actions to reduce risks, improve transparency and communication and arms control.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who led the U.S. delegation in Brussels, said the NATO-Russia meeting ended with “a sober challenge” for Moscow to reduce tensions and “choose the path of diplomacy, to continue to engage in honest and reciprocal dialogue so that together we can identify solutions that enhance the security of all,” during a press conference.

After the nearly four-hour meeting on Wednesday, Sherman said, “there was no commitment to de-escalate, nor was there a statement that there would not be.”

She added Russia heard loudly and clearly it is very hard to have diplomacy when 100,000 of its troops are massed along the Ukrainian border, and as live fire exercises are being conducted.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said he has proposed the idea of a series of meetings with Russia, which asked for time to return with an answer.

“NATO allies are ready to engage in dialogue with Russia, but we will not compromise on core principles, we will not compromise on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every nation in Europe,” Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels.

Russia has sought security guarantees such as the withdrawal of NATO troops and military equipment from countries that border Russia, and limiting the expansion of the 30-member NATO alliance. It has also denied it has plans to invade Ukraine.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told reporters Wednesday that the discussions with NATO were deep and substantive, but said Russia does not seriously consider NATO to be a defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia.

“If NATO opts for the policy of deterrence, we will respond with a policy of counter-deterrence,” Grushko said. “If it turns to intimidation, we will respond with counter-intimidation. If it looks for vulnerabilities in Russia’s defense system, we will look for NATO’s vulnerabilities. It’s not our choice, but we don’t have other options if we don’t overturn this current very dangerous course of events.”

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy proposed a new international summit to end the crisis.

“It is time to agree in a substantive manner on an end to the conflict, and we are ready to take the necessary decisions during a new summit of the leaders of the four countries,” Zelenskiy said Tuesday in a statement following a meeting with European diplomats.

In Washington, Democratic lawmakers Wednesday proposed a comprehensive sanctions package to deter Russia from further aggression.

The Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022 would impose crippling sanctions on the Russian banking sector and senior military and government officials if Putin escalates hostile action against Ukraine.

U.S. President Joe Biden has ruled out a military confrontation with Russia in the event it decides to attack Ukraine, but he says the U.S. and its allies would impose significant economic sanctions if Russia does invade.

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters. 
…

As the United States and Russia met for talks in Geneva this week, the future security of Europe was at stake. But absent from the negotiating table was the European Union, to the clear frustration of the bloc’s officials.

“On this dialogue, there are not two actors alone. It’s not just U.S. and Russia. If you want to talk about security in Europe, Europeans have to be part of the table,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell told reporters January 5.

Borrell made the comments following a visit to the front lines of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed rebels continue to fight Ukrainian forces nearly seven years after Moscow’s forceful annexation of Crimea.

Latecomers

The EU is late to the table, says analyst Liana Fix, a resident fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington.

“The problem here is that the European Union has not been involved formally in talks in 2014 when the Ukraine crisis started. Back then we had Germany and France in the Normandy format [talks] and no official EU representative,” Fix told VOA.

“On the other side, the European Union should make it clear what it can contribute to the discussion,” she said. “Within the European Union, the question is: Who is more powerful — the member states or the EU as an institution itself? And on the other hand, in Moscow, the EU is not taken seriously.”

There are fears the smoldering war in eastern Ukraine could be about to reignite. In recent months, Russia has massed over 100,000 troops close to the Ukrainian border, prompting Western fears of an imminent invasion. Meanwhile, Moscow complains of a NATO military buildup in Eastern Europe and has warned of the dangers of confrontation.

Those tensions came to a diplomatic head this week. But neither the U.S.-Russia bilateral talks nor Wednesday’s summit between NATO and Russia — the first such meeting in two years — appear to have yielded progress.

Amid a changing world order and rising geopolitical tensions, France is leading a European push for what Paris calls greater “strategic sovereignty,” partly driven by doubts about America’s commitment to NATO that took root during the administration of former President Donald Trump.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said this week that Russian President Vladimir Putin was deliberately trying to bypass the EU.

“He has no consideration for the European Union, and he is totally determined to try to put dents in European unity, which is solidifying,” Le Drian told BFM TV.

Moscow also aims to undermine the transatlantic alliance, argues analyst Petro Burkovskiy, a senior fellow at the Kyiv-based Democratic Initiatives Foundation.

“Russia uses these talks in order to destroy trust between the United States and European partners and tries to demonstrate that the United States [is] ready to discuss its security in Europe and discuss its policy in Europe behind the European partners,” Burkovskiy told The Associated Press.

Key EU role

Without its own military force, the European Union as an institution may not be taken seriously by Moscow — but it does have a key role to play, said Fix.

“When the European Union and the United States now think about sanctions towards Russia in case of an intervention, of an invasion of Ukraine, then it is the European Union that will have to deliver an economic sanctions package and have to deliver the agreement of all member states,” Fix said.

Meanwhile, following talks between NATO and Russian officials Wednesday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who led the United States’ delegation, said transatlantic allies were united.

“I think one of the things that Russia has done, which it probably did not expect, it has brought all of Europe, NATO and non-NATO allies alike, together, to share the same set of principles, the same ambition, the same hopes and the same commitment to diplomacy,” she told reporters.
…

As the United States and Russia met for talks in Geneva this week, the future security of Europe was at stake. But the European Union was not present – and bloc officials have voiced growing frustration, as Henry Ridgwell reports from London.
…

A civil lawsuit filed in a U.S. court by a woman who says she was sexually abused by Britain’s Prince Andrew when she was 17 will move forward, following a judge’s ruling Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said lawyers for Prince Andrew failed to challenge the constitutionality of the case brought by Virginia Giuffre in August. Andrew’s lawyers also had argued the allegations were vague.

Kaplan wrote “Giuffre’s complaint is neither ‘unintelligible’ nor ‘vague’ nor ‘ambiguous.’ It alleges discrete incidents of sexual abuse in particular circumstances at three identifiable locations. It identifies to whom it attributes that sexual abuse.”

Andrew’s lawyers had also tried to dismiss the suit, arguing it violated a confidential settlement Giuffre reached with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2009.

Earlier this month, the agreement was unsealed and it revealed Epstein paid Giuffre $500,000 in return for dropping the case without him having to admit fault. In the settlement, she also agreed to “remise, release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge” parties and “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant.”

Andrew was not specifically mentioned.

Giuffre asserts she was trafficked by Epstein and his longtime companion Ghislaine Maxwell, who was recently convicted of sex trafficking.

Giuffre says the two forced her to perform sexual acts with Andrew.

Andrew denies the charges.

In 2019, Epstein was found dead in a Manhattan jail while he awaited another trial for sex trafficking. His death was ruled a suicide.

Neither lawyers for Andrew nor Buckingham Palace have commented on the Wednesday ruling.

Some information in this report comes from The Associated Press.
…

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy tweeted during a NATO summit he attended in June that Western leaders had confirmed his country “will become a member of the Alliance.” 

The Ukrainian leader’s tweet, seen by some Western diplomats as ill-timed and intended to goad Russia, drew a predictably furious response from Kremlin officials. They have long warned that the accession of Ukraine to NATO is unacceptable to Moscow, the crossing of a red line which would be met by retaliatory measures. 

Despite — or because of — Kremlin threats, and a Russian military buildup along the borders of Ukraine, President Zelenskiy has continued to press for Ukraine to be admitted into NATO as soon as possible, saying it is the only way to deter further Russia aggression. Others, including some Western leaders, fear it would do the reverse — invite more Russian aggression. 

At the June summit, Zelenskiy did not get an admission date. And U.S. President Joe Biden, who has been a strong champion in the past for Ukraine to join the Atlantic alliance, scotched talk of an impending admission. “School’s out on that question. It remains to be seen,” he said when reporters asked him about Ukraine joining. 

“In the meantime, we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression,” he said. Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a series of increasingly insistent demands for guarantees that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO.

Some observers question whether what they see as a tamping down by Biden, and senior U.S. and European officials, of Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, is evidence that Russia may already have achieved one of its key goals — namely, to prevent Ukraine from joining the Western alliance.

At best, the White House and European allies are sending mixed messages about NATO membership for Ukraine, they say. “The urgency of Moscow’s ultimatums would suggest that Ukraine is on the verge of NATO membership. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth,” according to Peter Dickinson, editor of UkraineAlert, a newsletter of the Atlantic Council, a U.S.-based research group. 

“At this point, the closest Ukraine has ever come to joining NATO is a vague and largely symbolic commitment to future membership received at the alliance’s 2008 summit in Bucharest. While this pledge has been repeated on numerous subsequent occasions, it carries no real weight and is essentially a reaffirmation of the alliance’s standard open-door policy towards all potential new members,” added Dickinson, also an editor of Business Ukraine magazine.

In June, NATO did “upgrade” its relationship with Ukraine, designating the country an Enhanced Opportunities Partner. The EOP program, which was launched in 2014, aims “to support and deepen cooperation between allies and partners, which have made significant contributions to NATO-led operations and missions,” according to NATO. Sweden, Finland, Australia, and Jordan also enjoy the designation. But as NATO states on its website: “Ukraine’s status as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner does not prejudge any decisions on NATO membership.”

After Zelenskiy posted his June tweet, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also sought to downplay the significance of the designation, telling reporters, “Nothing new” had happened. And he referred them to the 2008 NATO conference in Bucharest, where the alliance welcomed the membership aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia. But NATO declined to offer either a membership action plan, or MAP, which would have set them on a definite path to admission.

Then-U.S. President George W. Bush had pushed for NATO to offer MAPs to both countries, but several European members, including Germany, were opposed, fearing to do so would further roil relations with Russia. A British diplomat told VOA opposition from some of America’s partners has not evaporated. “There is little appetite among some members to inherit an open conflict, which NATO would do, if Ukraine became a member,” he said.

Dilemma

With Putin loudly insisting NATO should never admit Ukraine, the Biden administration, and Western alliance partners, are caught in a dilemma, say some analysts and Western diplomats. Many NATO members are not ready to admit Ukraine for a range of reasons, including a worry that Ukraine is still not on top of corruption. But while they do not want to be hurried into making a decision, they are also fearful of being accused of appeasing Russia or Moscow interpreting that they are weak.

The dilemma facing the West has been seized on by Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington research organization, to argue that the U.S. should negotiate with Russia a treaty that renders Ukraine a neutral country.

Lieven acknowledges the idea would be criticized by Western hardliners. “They need to ask themselves, however, whether they are really prepared to contemplate war with Russia; and if not, what they are proposing as a concrete alternative to these proposals,” he wrote for the Quincy Institute, which advocates for a non-interventionist American foreign policy. 

But it is unlikely Ukraine would agree to the erosion of its rights as an independent nation. Zelenskiy has been pushing even harder than his pro-NATO predecessors for a timetable for Ukraine membership, but he has been rebuffed with the latest knock back coming last month when NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg sidestepped his request for a schedule for Ukrainian membership.

On his Facebook page, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said the meeting between Zelenskiy and Stoltenberg to discuss the strengthening of Ukraine’s armed forces was “very good, positive,” but added, “The only drawback, to be honest, was that we weren’t told the year when Ukraine will become a NATO member, although we asked.”

All this week senior U.S. officials have emphasized that Russian demands for a halt to any further NATO enlargement — and specifically a guarantee that Ukraine never be admitted as a member — are “non-starters.” 

Ambassador Julianne Smith, U.S. permanent representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, added her voice Tuesday, echoing previous dismissals of Russian demands by Blinken and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman. “We will not allow anyone to slam NATO’s ‘Open Door’ policy shut,” Smith said.

Despite the strong words, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer questions whether the Kremlin has, in effect, already been allowed to exercise a veto on Ukrainian membership because of NATO fears of being bungled into war. He said in a newspaper commentary that Kyiv has had to wait for a long time to join NATO, but it is likely it will have to wait much longer.

“Allies appear unenthusiastic about a MAP now, particularly because there is no good answer to the question, ‘If Ukraine joins NATO tomorrow, does the alliance then find itself at war with Russia?’” 

Pifer suggested Ukraine stop demanding a timetable for membership, saying in “the current circumstances, the answer will either be silence or no. Neither helps NATO-Ukraine relations.” He added, “There should be candor between NATO and Ukrainian officials about the state of play with MAP, as there should be on Washington’s part.” 

A British diplomat who asked not to be identified for this article, told VOA, “Maybe clarity is best avoided at this stage — admitting Ukraine now would inflame tensions and ambiguity keeps Russia guessing, too.
…

Prime Minister Boris Johnson apologized Wednesday for attending a garden party during Britain’s coronavirus lockdown in 2020, saying there are things his government “did not get right.”

Johnson is facing a tide of anger from public and politicians over claims he and his staff flouted pandemic restrictions by socializing when it was banned. Some members of his Conservative Party say he should resign if he can’t quell the furor.

Johnson acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he went to the May 2020 garden party at his Downing Street office, though he said that he had considered it a work event to thank staff for their efforts during the pandemic.

“I want to apologize. … With hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside,” Johnson told lawmakers in the House of Commons.

Opponents and allies alike have been demanding Johnson come clean about the “bring your own booze” party, held when Britain was under a strict lockdown imposed by Johnson to curb the spread of the coronavirus.

An invitation to the “socially distanced drinks” gathering was emailed to about 100 people by a senior prime ministerial aide. At the time, people in Britain were barred by law from meeting more than one person outside their household.

Johnson’s lunchtime appearance at the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions session in the House of Commons was his first public appearance since details of the party emerged. 

The prime minister struck a tone of contrition, but urged people to await the conclusions of an investigation by senior civil servant Sue Gray into several alleged parties by government staff.

Opposition Labour Party leader Keir Starmer said Johnson’s statement was “the pathetic spectacle of a man who has run out of road.

“His defence … that he didn’t realize he was at a party is so ridiculous that it’s actually offensive to the British public,” Starmer said. “He’s finally been forced to admit what everyone knew, that when the whole country was locked down he was hosting boozing parties in Downing Street. Is he now going to do the decent thing and resign?”

The party scandal adds to a mounting list of troubles for Johnson.

The scandal dubbed “partygate” has become the biggest crisis of Johnson’s two-and-a-half years in power. During the U.K.’s first lockdown, which began in March 2020 and lasted for more than two months, almost all gatherings were banned. Millions of people were cut off from friends and family, and even barred from visiting dying relatives in hospitals. Thousands were fined by police for breaking the ban on gatherings.

So there has been widespread anger at claims Johnson’s Conservative government flouted the rules it had imposed on the rest of the country by holding garden parties, Christmas get-togethers and office quiz nights in Downing Street, which is both the prime minister’s home and his office.

Opposition politicians are calling for Johnson’s resignation. More worryingly for the prime minister, many members of his own party are increasingly concerned about Johnson’s judgment and leadership.

The Conservatives picked Johnson as leader in 2019 for his upbeat manner and popular touch, and despite the serial allegations of rule-bending and dishonesty that have followed him through his twin careers as journalist and politician. The choice appeared vindicated when he led the party to a big election win in December that year.

But support inside the party is being eroded by discontent over continuing pandemic restrictions, which some Conservatives view as draconian. He is also facing disquiet about his judgment after a slew of financial and ethical misconduct allegations against him and his government.

The Conservatives have a history of ousting leaders if they become a liability — and a recent surprising loss in a by-election for a district the party held for more than a century has increased their jitters.

Conservative legislator Christian Wakeford urged Johnson not to “defend the indefensible.”

“It’s embarrassing and what’s worse is it further erodes trust in politics when it’s already low,” Wakeford wrote on Twitter. “We need openness, trust and honesty in our politics now more than ever and that starts from the top!”

Another Conservative lawmaker, Tobias Ellwood, said Johnson needed to apologize and “show some contrition” if he wanted to ride out the storm.

“We can’t allow things to drift, that is not an option,” he told Sky News.
…

Russia is contributing to an undersupply of natural gas to Europe, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Fatih Birol said on Wednesday, noting it comes amid a standoff between Moscow and the West over Ukraine. 

The Paris-based IEA, energy watchdog for developed countries, warned that the high energy prices and consumer pain wrought by the gas crunch makes the case for future mandatory storage quotas for European companies. 

“We believe there are strong elements of tightness in Europe’s gas markets due to Russia’s behavior,” Birol told reporters, noting “today’s low Russian gas flows to Europe coincide with heightened geopolitical tensions over Ukraine.” 

Russian gas company Gazprom reduced exports to Europe by 25% year-on-year in the fourth quarter of 2021 despite high market prices and reduced spot sales while other exporters boosted them, Birol said. 

“The current storage deficit in the European Union is largely due to Gazprom,” he added. “The low levels of storage in company’s EU-based facilities account for half of the EU storage deficit although Gazprom facilities only constitute 10% of the EU’s total storage capacity.” 

Russian energy exports have been in focus amid a standoff between Russia and the West as Russia has built up its troop presence near neighboring Ukraine, which is trying to forge closer ties with NATO. 

Some European Union lawmakers have accused Russia, which supplies more than 30% of the bloc’s natural gas, of using the crisis as leverage while Russia and NATO hold talks in Brussels on Wednesday. 

Moscow has denied this and Gazprom has said it has fulfilled European contracts in full. 

Yet Birol said Russia could increase deliveries to Europe by at least one-third through abundant spare capacity, the equivalent of 10% of the EU’s average monthly gas consumption or a full LNG vessel every day via commercially available pipelines. 

In contrast to its dealings with the European Union, Russia is delivering natural gas exceeding its contractual commitments to China, Birol added. 

“I think regulations in Europe should be reviewed to ensure that storage levels are in effect to cover end-user needs with mandatory minimum storage obligations for all commercial operators.” 
…