Archive by Author

Dobbs decision shows US can be both powerful and humane

Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a win for the United States, democracy, the Constitution, women and, yes, the pro-life movement in all its wild diversity and unrelenting spirit — as well as for human rights movements overall.

The Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood is a win for the United States, which is now no longer one of the very few countries in the world that allow abortion throughout pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. Yes, many states will continue to allow legal abortion under some or all conditions. But now one of the most powerful, prosperous, free nations on the globe no longer considers the “right” to destroy unborn human beings as a fundamental liberty. This demonstrates that a country can be powerful but humane.

It is a win for democracy. The Dobbs majority convincingly demonstrates that five members of the Supreme Court have no right to read their own predilections about abortion into a document that belongs to the people. The people ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment – the claimed ground of the abortion right invented in Roe and Casey – and during every year until Roe, the people voted in their state legislatures to ban most or all abortions. It is impossible, then, for a Supreme Court to say that the people’s understanding of “liberty” has ever included a right to abortion that might be read into the “liberty” guarantee of the 14th Amendment. If the people want a constitutional right of abortion, they can vote to place it in the Constitution. Until then, no judge can invent one.

It is a win for human life not because Dobbs promises constitutional protection for unborn human beings, but because for the first time in 49 years, citizens have the chance to argue effectively to protect that life and to try to convince a majority of their fellow Americans. Since Roe, no such argument has been permitted a chance of winning.

It is a win for women, who have increasingly been pressured to live as if their natural ability to bear children, and their desire to rear them, are disabilities. A disability affecting their potential for education. A disability impairing their economic and employment opportunities. A disability respecting their entire social equality. No. American society – including our economy – should now be required to face the fact that women get pregnant and need help and support then and throughout their parenting. It is a scandal that so many American institutions, especially corporations, act as if all women should model the “ideal male worker” and come to the public-square free of child care responsibilities.

It is a win for the unrelenting efforts of pro-life scholars for over 49 years. This body of scholarship never simply stamped its feet and demanded that everyone adopt a moral respect for unborn life. It argued the biological case for their humanity and their right not to be killed. It argued about the history and meaning of the 14th Amendment’s “liberty” clause. It made the case that traditional judicial respect for past precedents – stare decisis – could not apply to past decisions that are egregiously wrong, legally unworkable and totally devoid of respect for the text of the Constitution, for history and for precedent. Today, the majority’s opinion in Dobbs, which relies upon this impressive trove of scholarship, vindicates these 49 years of effort. 

Finally, it is a win for the diverse and underfunded pro-life movement, as well as for every human rights movement – such as the cause of abolition – that just kept going in the face of unrelenting opposition. Millions of American women and men have brought us to this day. Whether the leading pro-life organizations or the smaller ones representing Democrats, pro-life feminists, non-violence activists, gays and lesbians, and hundreds more groups.

Despite opposition from billionaire pro-choice funders, the leading media, academia, the entertainment industry and popular culture — they never gave up. May other human rights movements take heart from this day and persist unto their own victories.

Helen Alvaré is associate dean for academic affairs and the Robert A. Levy Chair in Law & Liberty at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

Source: TEST FEED1

How much will you pay? Navigating the true cost of higher education

High school and college graduation ceremonies across the country have wrapped up, and a new generation of students is preparing to begin their higher education. Or perhaps not. A recent report from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center shows 662,000 fewer students enrolled in undergraduate programs in spring 2022 than a year earlier, a decline of 4.7 percent.

Many of these enrollment shifts demonstrate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on students who likely chose to delay enrollment. Cost also is often a large contributing factor. Just getting into college can be expensive, and unexpected costs can create a barrier. For students pursuing a four-year degree, many schools charge application fees to even determine admission. 

According to a recent study by U.S. News & World Report, the average cost to submit a college admissions application is $50. Some schools charge more than $75 per application. If a student applies to five to seven schools, as recommended by the College Board, that can quickly add up to over $250. Admissions application costs do not include the cost of taking the SAT exam ($60) or ACT exam ($63 without the writing portion; $88 with a writing portion). And these exams often carry additional fees, such as change of date and/or cancellation fees. Additionally, some colleges require an enrollment deposit that comes due after admission. Waivers of fees are sometimes available, either through high schools or college admissions offices, but this option may not be advertised to prospective students.  

Higher education administrators can be proactive by sharing information about fee waivers on school websites and social media platforms. For example, free college application week will run from Oct. 15-17 and is a great time for high school seniors or those hoping to attend college in fall 2023 to submit applications to reduce or eliminate out-of-pocket costs. But schools need to make this information available to prospective students, parents and student advocates. 

Students with disabilities who will apply for accommodations in college require diagnostic documentation. If their documentation is out of date — within the past three years for many institutions — the student will have to pay for an updated evaluation to complete their accommodation request. The out-of-pocket costs for these evaluations can range from $300 to $10,000. This financial barrier can deter a student from seeking accommodation, or even deter them from applying for and attending college. Not all students have access to health care to obtain the required diagnostic testing, so it becomes a lost opportunity.

At Rush University in Chicago, we recently assisted a student seeking information about financial assistance because of a health condition that resulted in a large medical bill. Fortunately, we were able to provide assistance from an emergency fund designated for such cases at our institution. But many students are unaware of such resources and support services — not just at our institution but at colleges and universities across the country. The nuances and barriers to higher education can be vast and confusing. 

A possible solution could be to provide access to specific information and coaching to students in high school to better prepare them for higher education. High school guidance counselors need up-to-date training on these issues, as do school social workers and student advocates. Providing accurate and timely information allows students to analyze what they need and then choose the path that is best for them — do they want to further their education or head straight to the workforce? 

We believe that, for many, the value of a college degree has proven worthwhile. The Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities reports the annual median earnings for workers ages 22-27 without college degrees was $30,000, versus those with a college degree generating $52,000. The potential lifetime earnings from having a college degree can surpass $2 million. In addition to the value of higher education itself — in terms of exposure to ideas and learning — other benefits of having a college degree include a greater scope of employee benefits, such as health insurance coverage with a higher employer contribution, which results in a lower cost to the employee.

Whatever choice a student makes regarding their future, an informed choice is always the best one. 

Marie Lusk is director of the Office of Student Accessibility Services at Rush University, treasurer for the Coalition for Disability Access in Health Science Education, and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.

Jill Gable is director of the Office of Student Financial Aid at Rush University, chair of the Graduate and Professional Schools Committee with the Illinois Association of Financial Aid Administrators, and a doctoral student focusing on organizational leadership at Grand Canyon University.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five takeaways from the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling

The Supreme Court made its most dramatic intervention in American life in decades Friday, striking down the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had provided a constitutional right to abortion.

The rescinding of the right is likely to lead to the banning of abortion in around half the states in the nation. 

Thirteen states already had so-called ‘trigger laws’ designed to make terminating a pregnancy illegal almost as soon as Roe fell. By Friday evening, nine states had outlawed abortion, according to The New York Times.

Friday’s ruling had been anticipated since early May, when Politico published a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito overturning Roe. The final version did not differ significantly from that draft, yet the announcement still delivered an enormous detonation that reverberated across the nation and the world.

Here are some of the big political takeaways. 

Devastated Democrats hope anger galvanizes voters

Liberals suffered a devastating defeat with the striking down of Roe. 

In the immediate aftermath of the decision, there was talk of expanding the Court or abolishing the Senate filibuster in order to enshrine Roe’s protections.

But even as liberals grapple with the loss of a right that has existed for half a century, they are also holding out hope of an electoral silver lining in November’s midterm elections and beyond.

“Voters need to make their voices heard this fall,” President Biden said at the White House Friday, responding to the decision. “They must elect more senators and representatives who will codify women’s right to choose into federal law.”

“A woman’s right to choose — reproductive rights — is on the ballot in November,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a news conference soon after the decision was announced.

Democrats are facing a plethora of problems in November, including inflation, high gas prices, pandemic fatigue and record-high levels of unauthorized migration at the southern border.

Could the seismic blow to abortion rights galvanize liberal-leaning women, in particular, to come out for Democrats in November?

It’s not certain but it’s plausible.

One test will be whether Democrats do better than expected in states where abortion is illegal or on the brink of being made so.

Arizona, Georgia, Ohio and Wisconsin — all of which have competitive Senate races this fall — are on the Guttmacher Institute’s list of states “certain or likely” to ban abortion in a post-Roe America. Guttmacher is a research organization that favors abortion rights.

Supreme Court deepens its partisan image problem

The image of the Supreme Court was battered and bruised even before Friday’s ruling.

A Gallup survey released the day before the decision saw public confidence in the high court at its lowest point in almost 50 years of polling.

Only one-in-four adults expressed “a great deal” or “quite of lot” of confidence in the Court. Gallup noted this outcome was five percentage points lower than the previous nadir, recorded in 2014.

In 2001, soon after the Supreme Court had contentiously decided the 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, public confidence in the court was twice as high as it is now.

Chief Justice John Roberts is aware of the problem. 

Roberts voted with his five conservative colleagues in determining the case directly under consideration in Friday’s decision — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which pertains to a Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks. 

But Roberts dissented on the question of striking down Roe.

Roberts has been at pains to try to protect the institution of the court before. 

His unexpected vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in 2012 is one example.

In 2019, after then-President Trump complained about an “Obama judge,” Roberts issued a statement insisting, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,” Roberts said.

His problem now is that most Americans don’t believe him. 

Anti-abortion movement wins biggest victory of 50-year struggle

The split-screen reactions to the Court’s verdict could hardly have been more dramatic.

While supporters of abortion rights responded in anger and horror, conservatives celebrated a victory for which they had worked for half a century.

“A grievous wrong was righted,” Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America, told The New York Times. 

“Today the ability to determine whether and when to limit abortion was returned to the American people,” said Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, in a statement.

The anti-abortion movement has waged its battle in states and in lower courts. It has also maintained its efforts despite grave disappointment in post-Roe cases that upheld the right to abortion, most notably 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

On the biggest question of all, the anti-abortion movement has now prevailed.

Many of its activists on Friday promised to confine their fight, this time in pursuit of a nationwide ban on abortion.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who has deep roots on the religious right and could be a GOP presidential contender in 2024, was among those declaring his support for this goal.

Other rights in the crosshairs

One of the most startling subplots in Friday’s national drama came in an opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas concurring with the decision to strike down Roe.

Thomas asserted that the justices should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell.”

The dry legal language did not obscure the meaning of what Thomas was suggesting. 

The three cases he mentioned established the right of married couples to contraception, the legality of same-sex intercourse, and the right to same-sex marriage.

In each of those cases, Thomas continued, the justices “have a duty to ‘correct the error.’”

The claim sent a further tremor across a shocked liberal America.

Biden, in his White House remarks, noted that Thomas had “explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception.”  

“This is an extreme and dangerous path the Court is now taking us on,” the president added.

Nation’s temperature rises higher

Biden urged in his Friday remarks that any protests should be “peaceful, peaceful, peaceful.”

He has good reason to urge calm. 

Two days previously, a 26-year-old man had appeared in court charged with the attempted murder of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The man, Nicholas Roske, had been arrested close to Kavanaugh’s home two weeks previously, while armed. Prosecutors claim Roske said he was upset about the draft opinion presaging the end of Roe, among other things.

The initial protests at the Supreme Court were boisterous but peaceful.

But a nation already frayed by polarization, incendiary political rhetoric, the Trump presidency, the Jan. 6 insurrection. and a once-in-a-century pandemic, is now facing into a long stretch where tensions threaten to boil even more violently.

Source: TEST FEED1

More than 30 Senate Democrats call for Biden to take action to protect abortion access

A group of Democratic senators wrote a letter on Saturday urging President Biden to take action to protect abortion access across the country in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The 33 Senators called on Biden to use “the full force of the federal government to protect access to abortion in the United States.”

“There is no time to waste,” the letter read. “Nearly half of the states already had laws in place to ban abortion or severely restrict access as soon as the Supreme Court decision came down.”

Thirteen states had “trigger” laws in place that have gone into effect or are in the process of going into effect after Roe was overturned, removing federal-level abortion protections.

Apart from those states, another nine also have laws or constitutional amendments banning or severely restricting abortion already in place, according to pro-choice research group the Guttmacher Institute.

“Now is the time for bold action to protect the right to an abortion,” the letter said.

The senators urged: “You have the power to fight back and lead a national response to this devastating decision, so we call on you to take every step available to your Administration, across federal agencies, to help women access abortions and other reproductive health care, and to protect those who will face the harshest burdens from this devastating and extreme decision.”

The letter also raised concerns about potential further Republican action to restrict abortion nationwide, calling the Supreme Court decision and other actions to restrict abortion access “an unprecedented assault on women and the result of decades of activism by Republican extremists.”

The senators who signed on to the letter included Democratic Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Tina Smith (Minn.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Tom Carper (Del.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.), as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Source: TEST FEED1

Rhode Island state Senate candidate suspends campaign after video shows him hitting opponent at protest

A Republican candidate for Rhode Island state Senate suspended his campaign on Saturday after a video was posted that appeared to show him hitting an opposing candidate at a protest in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

Jeann Lugo, a police officer who was off duty at the time, is shown on video hitting opponent Jennifer Rourke amid a large Providence, R.I., rally in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision overturning Roe.

The Providence Police Department (PPD) announced on Saturday that it was “criminally investigating the behavior of an off duty officer last evening during a protest where a female was assaulted.”

“The officer has served for 3 yrs and placed on administrative leave w/pay this morning, pending a criminal investigation and administrative review,” the department wrote on Twitter.

The PPD confirmed to The Providence Journal that Jeann Lugo was the officer involved and the outlet reported that Lugo was charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct later Saturday.

Lugo told the Journal that he is “not going to deny” the claims that he hit Rourke.

“It was very chaotic, so I can’t really tell you right now. Everything happened very fast,” he said.

Lugo added in a statement to The Boston Globe: “As an officer that swore to protect and serve our communities, I, unfortunately, saw myself in a situation that no individual should see themselves in. I stepped in to protect someone that a group of agitators was attacking.”

Rourke wrote on Twitter that Lugo had “violently attacked” her, saying, “This is what it is to be a Black woman running for office. I won’t give up.”

Lugo announced on Saturday afternoon that he is ending his campaign for state Senate.

“I’ve decided now is the right time to seek office, therefore I will not be running for any office this fall,” Lugo tweeted, according to multiple outlets. His account appears to have since been deleted.

The Hill has reached out to both Lugo and Rourke for comment.

Source: TEST FEED1

ACLU, Planned Parenthood of Utah sue in attempt to block state's abortion trigger law

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Utah and Planned Parenthood of Utah filed a lawsuit against the state seeking to block its abortion “trigger” law, which went into effect on Friday following the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The groups argued that Utah’s law, which bans abortion at any stage of pregnancy with limited exceptions, violates the state’s constitution.

“If left in place, the Criminal Abortion Ban will be catastrophic for Utahns,” the lawsuit reads. “The Act will force some Utahns seeking abortion to instead carry pregnancies to term against their will, with all of the physical, emotional, and financial costs that entails.”

Utah S.B. 174, the Abortion Prohibition Amendments, was signed into law by Republican Gov. Gary Herbert in 2020 but only went into effect after the overturning of Roe.

The Abortion Prohibition Amendments allows abortions in cases of rape, incest or severe fetal “brain abnormality” and does not classify the removal of ectopic pregnancies or “a dead unborn child” as abortion.

Under the law, a person who performs an abortion could face one to fifteen years in prison in addition to fines, although women seeking abortions would not be criminalized.

General Counsel John L. Fellows of the Utah Legislature wrote to members of the Legislative Management Committee on Friday announcing that the state’s abortion ban would go into effect after the high court ended federal-level abortion protections.

A second law, the Down Syndrome Nondiscrimination Abortion Act signed by Herbert in 2019, will also fully go into effect as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Down Syndrome Nondiscrimination Abortion Act, Utah H.B. 166, prohibits abortion when “the pregnant mother’s sole reason for the abortion is that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome.”

The act included a provision that it would apply to abortions occurring before viability if and when “a court of binding authority holds that a state may prohibit the abortion of an unborn child before the unborn child is viable outside of the mother if the sole reason for the abortion is that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Two arrested for destruction of property at Supreme Court amid protests

U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) arrested two people Saturday for destruction of property during protests at the Supreme Court in the wake of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The two allegedly threw paint over the fence separating protesters and others from the Supreme Court building, according to USCP.

Demonstrators have accumulated outside the Supreme Court since it released its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on Friday, ending federal-level abortion protections and returning authority over abortion access to the states.

The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, upheld a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

Capitol Police also released an update on heat issues affecting demonstrators at the Supreme Court with temperatures reaching the high 80s.

“The USCP and our local partners worked together to bring in cooling buses & additional people to help demonstrators with heat issues,” the police wrote, sharing that they had helped “roughly 12 people” thus far.

The Capitol Police tweeted an announcement on Friday that demonstrators were gathering “on Capitol Grounds” in front of the Supreme Court.

“Protesters are allowed to peacefully demonstrate,” wrote the police. “However they must follow the officer’s instructions so that everyone stays safe.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump told Jan. 6 filmmaker he was scared after getting COVID

Former President Trump acknowledged he was scared when he discovered he had COVID-19 given how many friends of his had died during the pandemic, he told a British documentarian filming him in the months leading up to Jan. 6.

The remarks are a shift from his public comments after he was infected with the coronavirus in October 2020. After Trump left Walter Reed Hospital, where he spent 3 days being treated for COVID-19, he told people “don’t be afraid of it.”

Filmmaker Alex Holder was subpoenaed by the House committee investigating Jan. 6 and asked to turn over his interviews with Trump, his adult children and Vice President Pence.

His footage touches on a variety of topics, from the attack to the fallout of Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis.

“At that point he was no longer the president, but when he was, he was in charge of the entire the COVID response, and hundreds of thousands of people had died. What he said to me was that the reason why he was sort of scared of COVID was essentially because he knew people who had died of COVID, basically he was referring to his friends, he was referring to people he knew personally that had got COVID and that some of them had died,” Holder said.

“And that’s why it was quite shocking to him when the doctor said to him he actually had COVID, so his way of understanding the danger of COVID came from his own personal connections to people rather than a national or global scale.”

Niece Mary Trump indicated in her book that Trump was scared but the family otherwise had not spoken publicly about their fear for him during that time. 

“I believe it’s the first time he and members of his family admitted how sick he was and how scared they were,” Holder said of his footage.  

Holder met with the House committee investigating the riot Thursday, where some of the questions focused on an interview he did with Ivanka Trump.  

In the interview with Holder, Ivanka Trump asserted about a month after the 2020 presidential election that “every single vote needs to be counted and needs to be heard” and that Trump “has to take on this fight.”

That departed from a clip the committee recently showed of her videotaped deposition in which she said she “accepted” Attorney General William Barr’s conclusion there was no widespread voting fraud.

In the trailer for the Discovery+ documentary released Wednesday, Trump and his adult children are each seen sitting down for interviews.

“I think I treat people well, unless they don’t treat me well, in which case you go to war,” Trump tells filmmakers.

Asked if he would be willing to talk about what happened at last year’s Capitol riot, Trump replies, “Yep.”

The video is a big get for the committee, which has not been able to sit down with either Trump or Pence, and who have relied heavily on video in making their case to the public.

“Well, it’s been significant. It’s a lot of video we had not been privy to,” Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters Friday.

“We will include that in some of our hearing presentations. But you know, we had to go through it and make a decision as to what is the best place we can put it.”

Holder spent two hours with the committee reviewing his time with the Trump family, which kicked off in September and lasted beyond his presidency. 

Trump would say those who were protesting, including those who entered the building, were riled up due to voter fraud because they’re “smart.”

“That was actually a very shocking way of referring to those people as being smart, which is a very awful way of describing them,” Holder said.

Trump’s children did not speak to him about Jan. 6. 

“And with respect to the kids, I think their silence speaks volumes,” he said.

The day certainly made an impression on Holder, who arrived on the scene along with those who marched from the Capitol.

Even amidst the adrenaline of the moment it was clear to him, “this is a historic game changer in American politics, and it won’t be the same again. The world also won’t be the same again depending on how this plays out. And the impact of Jan. 6 is obviously bigger than that day because it happened by virtue of weeks of denigrating the most important aspect of democracy: voting.” 

However, Holder also said his conversations with the former president gave him the impression Trump remains truly convinced the election was stolen from him. 

“It doesn’t matter if you tell him 200,000 times and give him every bit of evidence in the world,” he said.

“The idea that he was putting out this information and knowing it not to be true I think dilutes the issue. It’s more that he has — on this point and on others as well — has an irrational position and therefore trying to prove him wrong is moot.” 

In the days since Holder’s subpoena was made public, some Trump aides at both the campaign and the White House said they were unaware the Trump family had even agreed to do a documentary.

It pushed Holder to clarify that the Trumps had never sought nor been granted any editorial control over the piece.

But in retrospect, Holder says he saw ways the Trumps may have steered them away from being observed.

“I thought through certain things that may have been done without my knowledge, where they sort of kept us away from the press and under wraps,” noting that at times White House staff would put up partitions to keep their interviews shielded.

Emily Brooks contributed.

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky urges countries to send Ukraine air defense systems amid Russian missile strikes

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a plea for the country’s allies to send it air defense systems in response to continued Russian missile attacks. 

Zelensky made a speech addressed to the Ukrainian people and the world on Saturday as the Russia-Ukraine war reached four full months. He said countries issuing punishing sanctions on Russia is not enough, and air defense systems are needed more in Ukraine than “anywhere else in the world.” 

“But it’s not us who will be overpowered, we will overpower them,” Zelensky said. “No Russian missiles, no strikes can break the morale of Ukrainians. And each of their missiles is an argument in our negotiations with partners.” 

Zelensky said 45 Russian missiles had struck Ukraine in the past day with the goal of demonstrating that the Russian army will succeed in capturing the country. He said Russia was originally planning to conquer Ukraine within a few days, and the show of force with missiles will not make any strategic difference. 

“This is such a phase of the war – morally difficult, emotionally difficult,” he said. “When we know that the enemy will not succeed, when we understand that we will still be able to defend our state, but we do not feel the time limits of this, we do not feel how many more strikes, losses, efforts will be before we see that victory is already on our horizon.” 

He said he plans to attend the Group of Seven (G-7) summit, a meeting of the leaders of the world’s largest economies, on Monday and a NATO summit after that. 

Zelensky’s speech comes as Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from the city of Severodonetsk, one of the last remaining strongholds in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. 

But Ukraine did achieve a non-military victory this week when it was accepted to be an official candidate to join the European Union. Becoming a member may take years, but the step further integrates Ukraine into the rest of Europe as Moscow attempts to draw it into the Russian sphere of influence.

Source: TEST FEED1