António Guterres in talks aimed at bringing peace to Ukraine

 

The Secretary-General of the United Nations and former Prime Minister of Portugal, António Guterres, may be about to play a key role in de-escalating the war and bringing about peace in Ukraine.

Guterres is to have separate meetings with the presidents of Russia and Ukraine in their respective capitals. He has already told them he would like to discuss what urgent steps could be taken to end the war, as well as the future of multilateralism based on the charter of the United Nations and international law. The meeting with President Putin and his foreign minister in Moscow is scheduled for Tuesday.  Then on Thursday he is due to meet the Ukrainian foreign minister and President Vlodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv.

Like Pope Francis, Guterres had called for a four-day truce in the conflict during the Orthodox Christian Easter period with Easter Sunday on April 24. Russia rejected the idea.

In addition to pursuing his official tasks of high international office, the secretary-general has spoken emotionally about the sufferings of the war.

“I will never forget the horrifying images of civilians killed in Bucha. I immediately called for an independent investigation to guarantee accountability. I am also deeply shocked by the personal testimony of rapes and sexual violence that are now emerging,” he said recently.

While awaiting a response to his requests for personal meetings and well-aware that the war displaced more than 10 million people in just one month, Guterres sent his UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, Martin Griffiths, to the warring nations to press for an urgent humanitarian ceasefire.

He had previously set up a Global Crisis Response Group (GCRG) and in commenting on the group’s first report he noted that while most attention has been focused on the effects of the war on Ukrainians, it was also impacting in other countries in terms of increased poverty, hunger and social unrest. 

In highlighting overarching points made clear in the GCRG’s report, he said that “far beyond Ukraine’s borders, the war has led to massive increases in food, energy and fertilizers because Russia and Ukraine are lynchpins of these markets.”

He could almost have been talking about his home country, Portugal, but he was referring to no less than 74 developing countries with a population of 1.2 billion – one third of whom are already living in poverty while struggling with soaring food, energy and fertilizer costs. Thirty-six countries have been counting on Russia and Ukraine for more than half of their wheat imports. Prices of wheat and maize were already on the rise, but the war has made a bad situation very much worse.

At the same time - as well-reported in the media - Russia is a top energy supplier. Oil prices are up 60 per cent over the past year, accelerating the prevailing trends.

“Many developing countries are drowning in debt, with bond yields already on the rise since last September, leading now to increased risk premiums and exchange rate pressures,” said Guterres.

The GCRG report also shows that there is a direct link between food prices and social and political instability, which gave rise to Guterres’ insistence: “Our world cannot afford this. We need to act now.”

The secretary-general has not been without his critics. Before his requests for meetings with the leaders in Moscow and Kyiv, a group of more than 200 former UN officials wrote to him saying that he must personally do more to take a lead and mediate a peace, otherwise the UN itself risked “not just irrelevance, but its continued existence.”

These former staff members urged in their letter that the current UN boss should raise his profile and be prepared to take personal risks to secure peace, otherwise the UN itself would be facing an existential threat due to the invasion of Ukraine by one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The secretary-general has obviously taken the advice of former colleagues to heart. He faces a massive challenge and we will just have to wait and see what becomes of it.

Portugal and nuclear weapons

 

As a country fully committed to nuclear disarmament, Portugal shares most of the concerns of others about the lack of concrete steps on this by the major powers within the United Nations General Assembly.

It is Portugal’s view that the well- documented catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons should reinforce commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signed in 1968, which Portugal sees as the cornerstone for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.

This opinion, last delivered in a formal statement to the UN in 2018, noted that “we are witnessing a rise in global and regional tensions. We particularly call on the United States and the Russian Federation to preserve the treaty and ensure its full implementation, which is crucial for European and global security.”

The 10th review of the treaty scheduled for January this year was postponed because of COVID restrictions. It will now take place in New York from the 1^st to the 22^nd of August. Meanwhile, concerns are growing about the possible use of tactical missiles with nuclear warheads let alone intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Concerns increased with President Putin’s implied threat to turn the Ukraine war into a   broader nuclear conflict when he told his top defence and military leaders to put nuclear forces in “a special regime of combat duty.” That is not as worrying as it may sound because both Russia and the United States are understood to keep their nuclear arsenals on high alert at all times.

But then there was that other remark from Putin warning that any attempt by other countries to intervene with his military campaign would lead to “such consequences that you have never encountered in your history.”

Last Thursday the Kremlin went further and threatened to deploy nuclear weapons in the Baltic region if Sweden and Finland went ahead and joined NATO.  Now, the latest bur probably not the last warning from Moscow is that if the US and its allies don’t stop supplying weapons to Ukraine there will be “unpredictable consequences.”

The thinking among Western officials is that all this tough talking may be because of Russia’s setbacks in Ukraine. Unless phase two of its invasion achieves much more success against the Ukrainian resistance, Putin may want to ramp up his hopes for a glorious legacy by going nuclear.

Following Russia’s alleged use of chemical weapons against Ukraine, Putin may also feel the need to go further as his conventional military might is less than that of the former Soviet Union and much less than that that of the 30 combined forces of NATO.

The deliberate use of short-range tactical weapons would be bad enough. Recent studies have concluded that - unlikely as it may be - the use of hypersonic or ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads would create unprecedented destructive blasts and firestorms, hurl up to 150 million tons of smoke and soot into the upper atmosphere and cause widespread and deadly radioactive fallout.

It‘s not possible to foretell the likely impact on Portugal of a large or even a relatively small nuclear exchange between the superpowers. It would involve many unknown factors. If the impact here did not include many deaths from fallout, it could at least enforce even tighter in-house isolation than COVID and affect such things as communications, international trade, food and other essential supplies.

It may not be very  reassuring to most of us, but the fact is that while ‘nuclear’ is a worrying word when applied to warheads rather than the peaceful source of energy, the use of small nuclear devices in Ukraine could be far less destructive than the continued, concentrated dropping of a large number of conventional bombs expected in the days and weeks ahead.    

 

How best to cope with bad news

“No news is good news,” as the old saying goes. Sadly, the opposite is true nowadays. Almost all the headline news is bad news, very bad news.

We’re constantly being bombarded with news about the horrific war in Ukraine, the soaring costs of living, the continuing COVID pandemic and the calamitous threat of climate change.

Those who regularly read or tune into quality news services in Portugal or elsewhere in the Western world can expect for the most part reliable, up-to-date information.

Unlike the propaganda and disinformation dished out by the state-controlled media in Russia, even reliable information in the West can be hard to manage. More and more people are suffering from bad news fatigue.

Older folks will tell you they have lived in “the good times,” meaning between the Secord World War and what many fear may soon become the Third. But the way things are going is especially troubling for the young. A major survey conducted among 16 to 25-year-olds found that nearly 60% of 10,000 respondents in 10 countries said they felt afraid, sad, anxious, angry or powerless about climate change, mainly because of inadequate government measures to avoid a climate catastrophe. In Portugal, 65% of respondents said they were very worried or extremely worried, one of the highest percentages in the countries surveyed worldwide.

One way for all age groups to dodge the negative impact of bad news is by resorting to wilful blindness. Switching off the TV and radio, not reading newspapers and having little or nothing to do with true or fake news on the Internet can provide relief. Wilful blindness has its merits, but also its disadvantages. Burying one’s head in the sand may be okay for a while, but the importance of accessing new information should not be underestimated.

Ignorance can be a temporary shelter, but ignorance is not bliss. It may ensure a degree of happiness for a while, but not for long.

 The notion that “ignorance is bliss” was first raised by the 18^th century English poet Thomas Gray who wrote: “Ignorance is bliss. Tis folly to be wise.”  He went on to suggest that ignorance is more about not encumbering one’s mind unnecessarily rather than being apathetic about knowledge.

Thomas Jefferson in the 18^th century certainly did not believe in being “lazy minded.”  He once recalled: “I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding ever authority which stood in their way.”

To the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), “the good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge.” As an ardent atheist he had his own version of the 10 commandments. Here they are:

1: Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

2: Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

3: Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.

4: When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.

5: Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

6: Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

7: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

8: Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.

9: Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

So, having taken all this in, perhaps it’s a good idea to check a quality news source at least once a day or so, but not to overdo it.

 

Religious battle in Ukraine war

President Putin and Patriarch Kirill

With the approach of Easter, the commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a Christian battle is raging within the war in Ukraine.

The battle is between leaders of different factions of the Christian Orthodox Church, the predominant religion in both Ukraine and Russia. It is reminiscent of so many other religious conflicts dating back, from Portugal’s point of view, to the second Crusade to the Holy Land and the Battle of Lisbon in 1147 when the city was captured from Almoravid Muslim occupation. It was a pivotal event that allowed Portugal to become an independent Christian kingdom.

 Portugal is not innocent of forcibly occupying other countries.  Beginning in the 1400s, this small nation sent occupiers as well as explorers to South America, Africa and Asia. One of their main objectives was to spread Catholicism.  Portugal’s Christian empire survived for more than six centuries and only finally ended after wars in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau in 1975. But none of this was nearly as devastating as the present invasion in Ukraine.

It should be noted that although Jesus Christ’s name has often been used to justify military conflicts, the Gospels contain no record of Jesus giving his disciples any explicit teaching on the subject of war. 

Unlike Jesus, the leader of the 60 million Orthodox Christians in Russia, Patriarch Kirill, has certainly not been silent on the present war in Ukraine. He has given Russia’s brutal civilian killings and urban destruction his wholehearted blessing. In televised sermons from Moscow’s cathedral he has described the war as “an apocalyptic battle against evil forces that have sought to destroy the God-given unity of Holy Russia.”

 
Patriarch Kirill and President Putin share a nationalist ideology that they believe justifies the war. Kirill once went so far as to say Putin’s presidency was “a miracle given by God.”

Putin himself is thought to be a devout Christian and he has often appeared with Kirill at Easter services. It will be interesting if they are together this year on Sunday April 24 to bolster the propaganda being regularly aired by the Kremlin’s state-owned media.

In contrast to the Russian claims, the leader of the worldwide Orthodox Church,  Bartholomew , theEcumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who is based in Istanbul, has joined forces with other Orthodox leaders and denounced the invasion as an “atrocious" act that is causing enormous suffering. During a recent visit to Poland, which has welcomed the largest number of refugees fleeing the war, Patriarch Bartholomew said: “It is simply impossible to imagine how much devastation this atrocious invasion has caused for the Ukrainian people and the entire world,” He went on to say during a Warsaw news briefing that solidarity with Ukrainians “is the only thing that can overcome evil and darkness in the world.”

Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, the head of the Polish Bishops' Conference, has also deplored Russia’s invasion of Ukraine saying it has resulted in the deaths of “thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of children, elderly people, women and men who had nothing to do with the hostilities. Many of the aggressor’s actions bear the hallmarks of genocide.”  Gądecki has urged Russia’s patriarch to use his influence on President Putin to demand an end to the war and for Russian soldiers to stand down. Kirill has done just the opposite and highly praised the Russia forces.

 
The Orthodox Church in Ukraine is divided between an independent church based in Kyiv and another one loyal to Kirill in Mosco. Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church severed contact with Bartholomew after the Istanbul patriarch recognized the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as independent of the Moscow patriarch in 2019.

Even though Putin justified his invasion of Ukraine in part as a defence of the Moscow-oriented Orthodox Church, leaders of both the Ukrainian Orthodox factions have condemned the invasion, as has Ukraine’s significant Catholic minority.

Globally, the Orthodox Church is the smallest of the Christian denominations with about 260 million members, 60 million of them in Russia, the rest spread mostly across Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Protestants have approximately 800 million members worldwide and the Roman Catholics about 1.2 billion.

 
Despite the current bitter rivalry, as a whole the Orthodox Church claims to be the one true church established by Christ and his apostles. So does the Roman Catholic Church from which people in parts of Russia and Ukraine split and converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity in 988. 

 
For the first time since the thousand-year- old schism, a Catholic pontiff and an Orthodox patriarch met in 2016. Then last month Pope Francis spoke again with Patriarch Kirill, this time in a video conference. The Pope rejected the Russian’s religious defence of the Ukraine crisis. The Pope insisted that wars are always unjust, because the ones who pay are “the people of God.”

Acording to a Vatican statement, the Pope continued: “We must unite in the effort to help peace, to help those who suffer, to stop the fire.” He added: “Our hearts cannot help but cry out in front of the children, the women killed, all the victims of the war. War is never the way. The Church must not use the language of politics, but the language of Jesus.”

Many non-religious people across the world who do not believe in God must be wondering if indeed  He really does exist and does not take sides in wars, is it worthwhile for anyone in any religion to pray for peace?

 
President Putin is a Christian. So is President Biden. Will God be listening to their very different points of view and prayers on Easter Sunday?

Madeleine inquiry in the UK - questions still needing answers

 

The “Last Photo”- was it really taken on 3d May?

Madeleine McCann has been making headline news internationally yet again as the London Metropolitan Police investigation into her disappearance is reportedly going to be shelved this autumn.

I wonder if the Met’s Operation Grange has been deeply flawed from the very start and could that have something to do with the British ‘establishment’, a network that is said to include top politicians, billionaire newspaper owners and some leading police officers? But now we’re getting into the realm of speculation. Let’s not go there. Let’s stick with some of the facts as we know them.

The UK charity Missing People says that 140,000 people go missing in Britain every year. That’s 383 a day. Two thirds of the cases examined by the charity are under 18 years-of-age. So why did the British Government, diplomats and certain other influential individuals immediately give unprecedented support to the parents of this particular missing child? That’s the first of many fundamental questions that need answering.

The review and investigation conducted by Operation Grange, a special unit set up within London’s police force more than a decade ago, was always destined to fail, according to a well-known, distinguished London detective who said he would not get involved in the case because the official remit of Operation Grange was to investigate the “abduction” in the Algarve as if it had taken place in the UK. Why such a limited remit when suspicions hovered over Madeleine’s parents and while there was very little credible evidence that Madeleine had been abducted?

Why was Operation Grange told to turn a blind eye to the possible criminal involvement of Madeleine’s parents or their holidaying friends, which is the normal starting point in missing children cases? If neither the parents nor friends were involved, which may indeed be so, a standard investigation including them would have cleared their names, which the Portuguese police probe has never done. 

Why did such a limited investigation, which followed the review launched in May 2011, carry on and on with British Home Office approval at a cost to British taxpayers that has reached 13 million pounds? That’s more than 15 million euros or more than 16 million dollars.

Why have the British news media – especially the ‘red-tops’, but also some of the ‘quality broadsheets’ – become so biased and sycophantic in their reporting by always referring to Madeleine’s “abduction” without  adding a word such as “alleged” or “suspected”, and without questioning other possibilities? Why has The Sun, owned by the American-based billionaire Rupert Murdoch, been so privy to the little information dribbling out about the Operation Grange investigation?  And why has the British press long been castigating the Portuguese police and implying that the peaceful resort of Praia da Luz was a den of iniquity, an insult that the local residents emphatically deny?

Has Operation Grange ever properly considered that Madeleine may have disappeared several days before her parents raised the alarm on 3^rd May, or did that exceed their remit? A private research project carefully examined local weather conditions during the week of the McCann’s holiday. The analysis concluded that the date and time of the so-called “Last Photo” on a camera used by Kate McCann must have been doctored. There had been plenty of time to make fake changes because the camera and photo were not presented to the Portuguese police for examination until 24th May, a couple of days after Gerry McCann returned from a short visit to the UK. Operation Grange was fully informed about all this, but to no avail. Why?  

Convicted paedophile Christian Bruckner and his lawyer have totally denied any involvement, yet German prosecutors claim they are 100 per cent certain that Madeleine is dead and that Bruckner killed her. But if they had such certainty, why have they not charged him? The German authorities did not share whatever evidence they had with Operation Grange who insist they do not know whether Madeleine is alive or dead.  “It seems extraordinary our officers are so much in the dark,” said a former senior Met officer. “It begs the question why we are still bothering to run an inquiry if the Germans are so dominant.”  

Among the other things Operation Grange has showed no interest in is the remarkable offer by Dr Mark Perlin, chief scientist and executive of an American company, Cybergenetics, which is reputed to have the world’s most advanced equipment and methods to examine and identify DNA samples. Asked by an Australian news outlet if he could help in the Madeleine case, Dr Perlin said he would gladly analyse forensic samples found by specialist dogs in the McCann’s holiday apartment and in a car they had hired 25 days after the repored disappearance. He said he could decipher 18 previously unsolvable DNA samples dating back to 2007.

A now defunct laboratory in the UK had been unable to come to any proper conclusions about them. Despite the lapse of time, Dr Perlin was optimistic that if the samples were sent to him, he and his team could accurately identify the DNA in less than a fortnight. He offered his services to Operation Grange free of charge, but he got no response. Dr Perlin extended the offer to Gerry McCann, but he did not respond either.  Again, one wonders, why?

Neither the British Home Office nor anyone else connected with Operation Grange have been open and transparent about the limited investigation, but questions about it will not go away because the operation is widely perceived -  rightly or wrongly -  as having been a sham, some sort of cover-up.

Surely the public, who have long been fascinated if not obsessed with the most discussed and reported missing person case in history, should be allowed straightforward answers to reasonable questions. The Portuguese people offended by British news reports and Operation Grange visits to Praia da Luz, and the British taxpayers who have funded the investigation without any say in the matter, deserve honest explanations. Most of all, Madeleine deserves justice.

 

          

Putin’s personality problems

 

The bizarre behaviour of President Vladimir Putin continues to astound analysts across the Western world. It could be just the way this enigmatic narcissist wants it to be.

 Most ‘normal’ people in Portugal and elsewhere are sceptical of the political elite. They distrust them. Putin is currently top of the heap.

The centre-right president and centre-left prime minister of Portugal, which is internationally rated as one the five most peaceful countries in the world, may not be totally admired by all Portuguese  voters, but at least they are considered to be sound of mind. Putin on the other hand is widely perceived to be anything but.

While not openly commenting on Putin’s psychological condition, Portugal’s Prime Minister Antonio Costa has vehemently condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine. 

Meanwhile, many psychologists and investigative journalists using open source materials have concluded that Putin is probably a psychopath. The presence of a psychopath in any community  is worrying at the best of times, but one with so much power and global influence as Putin is of course exceptionally dangerous.

Many of the personality characteristics of a psychopath are observable and they include a grandiose sense of self-esteem, an uncontrollable tendency to commit violent activities, a compulsive need to tell lies and antipathy to love and a lack of remorse or shame.  Psychopaths are often highly intelligent, but usually have poor judgement and a failure to learn from experience. 

In Putin’s case as in many others, it probably all started with a very traumatic childhood. He was born in Leningrad (now St Petersburg) in 1952. An estimated 800,000 people in the city had been killed during the 900-day Nazi siege in World War ll. Putin’s father was severely wounded while serving in the Russian army. His mother almost died of starvation. The couple lost two children before Vladimir’s birth. 

According to reliable sources such as The Atlantic news magazine, his family lived in a single room in a rundown apartment with two other families. As his mother and father worked hard just to survive, it’s thought their small son went without proper parental care, sufficient food, emotional warmth, respect and kindness. He had few friends and was bullied by neighbouring thugs whom he learned to viciously defend himself against.

He grew up to be an intelligent lad, did well at high school and went on to get a university law degree. But the damage to his mind had probably already been done and was irreversible.

A great many people in Portugal, Ukraine, Russia and perhaps every other country in the world have mental health problems that are not nearly as severe as psychopathy and are treatable medically and with compassion. Unfortunately, in extreme psychopathic cases this is difficult because egocentricity, rigid pathological defence mechanisms and other harsh factors will not allow it. That does not mean psychopaths do not deserve support. But nor does it mean that acts of violence by them should be justified.  

While serving with the KGB, Putin’s career had produced “a macho, distrustful, unpredictable, cultivator of half-truths and disinformation who remains culturally and psychologically tied to a Soviet Union that no longer exists,” according to a source quoted in the American  journal Foreign Policy.

 Madeleine Albright, the U.S. secretary of state from 1997 to 2001, met Putin as the newly appointed acting president of Russia in 2000. In an article in the New York Times last month she recalled: “Putin spoke unemotionally and without notes about his determination to resurrect Russia’s economy and quash Chechen rebels. Flying home, I recorded my recollections. ‘Putin is small and pale,’ I wrote, ‘so cold as to be almost reptilian’.”

The former president of Latvia, Vaira-Freiberga, a teacher-scholar in Canada with a PhD degree in psychology, says that Putin has become “unhinged”, adding that invading Ukraine “was not the actions of a sane man interested in the welfare of his country.” In an interview with Global News, part of the Canadian Global TV network, she variously described Putin as “a narcissist and a psychopath, with no conscience whatsoever. And he is a megalomaniac. He is definitely megalomaniac with very strong paranoid tendencies.”

 Putin’s decision to launch his brutal invasion of Ukraine has made many other Western observers question the mental state of the man in charge of the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Foreign Policy has noted that those who have followed the Russian leader’s behaviour closely over the years have been struck by the bizarre and dark nature of his recent speeches in which he described Ukrainian leaders as a “gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis.”

Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a ​​senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security who previously worked as a senior Russia analyst at the CIA, has said that given the implications for the world, the U.S. intelligence community has teams of people, including doctors and psychologists working at the CIA’s secretive Medical and Psychological Analysis Center, devoted to analyzing the physical and mental health of authoritarian leaders, including Putin. “They use a variety of methods, including scrutinizing speeches and body language, to detect subtle shifts,” she told FP.

Charles Morgan, a forensic psychiatrist who previously worked for the CIA, told the magazine. “Although the science of indirect assessments is young at this stage, it seems to be true [that] a person’s past behavior is a more reliable indicator of how they will behave in the future than what they say they will do in the future.”

An article in the The Spectator in the UK said that “sitting at the end of an absurdly long table or marooned behind a vast table in a palatial hall, Vladimir Putin’s idea of social distancing has gone beyond the paranoid and into the realm of the deranged. His distance from reason and reality seems to have gone the same way. In little more than 48 hours, Putin’s sensible, peace-talking statesman had flipped into something dark and irrational that has worried even his supporters.”

John Sipher, a former senior member of the CIA’s Clandestine Service who served in Russia, has said that getting information from a leader’s inner circle in countries like Russia and China, which are regarded as “hard targets” by intelligence agencies, can be especially tricky.“Sources don’t grow on trees, and it’s especially difficult in a place like that. The rest of us are left to pour over Putin’s speeches and acts as the world wants to see what his next move may be.”

 

    

Ukraine and the information war

 

As the saying goes, “There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.” No one has to be lying. They may just have different viewpoints, but that’s not what’s going on in Ukraine.

Stories told in the past by Donald Trump and Boris Johnson were obvious examples of inexcusable lying. The main focus now of course is on the truthfulness or otherwise of Vladimir Putin.

When someone tells an incorrect story they genuinely believe to be true, they are unwittingly spreading misinformation. When someone tells a story they know to be false, they are spreading disinformation. The latter is Putin’s speciality.

Putin said repeatedly before 24 February that he was not going to order an invasion of Ukraine. Amassing troops and heavy armaments along Ukraine’s border was “a military exercise,” he insisted. He described the West’s concern about a possible attack as “hysteria.”

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed two weeks into the invasion that his country “did not attack” Ukraine. 

Who are they kidding with this doublespeak? In typical Orwellian fashion, the Kremlin has forbidden the people of Russia even to mention the words “invasion” or “war” in connection with Ukraine. To publicly protest against it is an offence punishable by imprisonment.

The Kremlin has shut down as far as possible any news infiltrating from the West. Meanwhile, the West is doing what it can to continue making reliable news available to the citizens in Russia. As well as the war on the ground, the news on war involves much disinformation, propaganda, cyber attacks and internet blackouts.

In contrast to what’s going on inside Russia, freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of information are constitutionally guaranteed in Portugal. Internet access is not restricted.  Against this background an opinion poll carried out by Politico in eight European countries last month showed the Portuguese as the most supportive of an EU coordinated defence of Ukraine, with 78% of respondents in favour of this.

Portugal is probably China’s closest contact in the EU, but China’s attitude to the war in Ukraine is obscure, all the more so because it is a distraction from Beijing’s Paralympic Winter Games.  While China is regarded as a key strategic partner of Russia and a powerful opponent of the United States, it also has strong ties with Ukraine. It remains to be seen how China will react physically or informatively to the extreme violence in Ukraine in the days and weeks ahead.

Meanwhile, newsrooms and individual journalists across the Western world are making use of technical ‘Open Source intelligence’ methods to fact check information. The aim is to verify or debunk questionable statements or images before broadcasting or publishing controversial stories. It is thought Russian manipulation is being used to blame others for carrying out atrocities such as the destruction of hospitals and direct targeting of civilians, including children, which Putin denies. ‘Open source’ investigations will be crucial in indentifying those to be held to account in future international court cases about war crimes against humanity.

One person above all others who has never minced his words untruthfully since this war began is Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He has pleaded with the West to create a “no fly zone” to stop Russian air strikes against his people, but NATO has repeatedly refused on the grounds that it would further provoke Putin and perhaps escalate the war into a nuclear disaster. There is nothing fake about the attitudes of either President Zelenskyy or NATO. No one is lying here. The just have different points of view.

In referring to the crass dishonesty emerging from the Ukraine crisis, Britain’s Poet Laureate, Simon Armitage, has written: “False news is news with pity edited out.” This seems most appropriate in the context of Putin’s claim that he had ordered Russia’s military to put its nuclear deterrence forces on “high alert,” implying he was prepared to use weapons of mass destruction if necessary to bring Ukraine to its knees. More recently, both the United States and Russia have accused each other of making threats about the use of biological or chemical weapons, but no one seems to be sure if this is a serious possibility or more doublespeak to create further doubt and fear within the enemy.

Western media outlets are not always completely neutral or on the same political wavelengths. In the United States Fox News is to the right of CNN. In the UK, The Guardian is to the left of the Daily Telegraph. Among the other reputable outlets reporting on the war directly from Ukraine and available to people living in Portugal are the BBC and Sky News.

Several journalists, including Sky News’ chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay, have been targeted in the Ukraine. Seriously wounded when more than 1,000 bullets shattered the car in which he and his TV crew were travelling, Ramsay was brought back to the UK with the following video that gives a special insight into the sort of risks dedicated journalists are prepared to take in order to report the truth.

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-teams-harrowing-account-of-their-violent-ambush-in-ukraine-this-week-12557585