Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday he is worried about the consequences of suspending aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine as the fighting continues against Russia.

“Yeah, I am worried about cutting off intelligence and weapons to Ukraine as long as the fighting is going on,” Graham said on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday.”

“If we pull the plug on Ukraine, it’d be worse than Afghanistan. I don’t think President Trump has any desire to do that,” he continued. “But until we have a ceasefire, I would give Ukraine what they need in terms of intelligence and weapons to themselves.”

Graham has been critical of the way Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky handled the now-infamous Oval Office meeting with President Trump and Vice President Vance.

During the meeting, Zelensky pressed the American leaders on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s history of breaking ceasefire agreements, and, in turn, Trump and Vance berated Zelensky and accused him of being ungrateful for U.S. support. The meeting was broadcast live on television.

The disastrous meeting seemed, at least for the time being, to pause negotiations on a deal to grant the U.S. access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. Ukraine had been pressing for security assurances in exchange for its resources.

Trump also decided to pause U.S. military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine — a move that has many Republican lawmakers questioning what the U.S. has to gain from it, as they urge the president to reverse course on his decision.

Graham said Sunday he will be introducing legislation to “sanction the hell out of” Russia if they don’t come to the negotiating table.

“In terms of Russia, I will be introducing sanctions on their banking sector and on their energy sector next week, urging them to get to the table if they don’t engage in ceasefire and peace talks with the administration. We should sanction the hell out of them. And I’ll have legislation to do that next week,” Graham said.

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT

'Say thank you' Rubio tells Poland amid Ukraine Starlink spat

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Poland's foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski of "making things up" and suggested on Sunday he was ungrateful, in a strong rebuke after Sikorski said Ukraine may need an alternative to the Starlink satellite service.

Poland pays for Kyiv to use the services of Elon Musk's Starlink, which provides crucial internet connectivity to Ukraine and its military.

Musk, a high-profile figure in the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, said in a post on his X social media platform early on Sunday that Ukraine's "entire front line would collapse if I turned it (Starlink) off".

In response, Sikorski wrote on X: "Starlinks for Ukraine are paid for by the Polish Digitization Ministry at the cost of about $50 million per year.

"The ethics of threatening the victim of aggression apart, if SpaceX proves to be an unreliable provider we will be forced to look for other suppliers."

In a series of posts on X on the subject, that lasted through the day, Musk said later he would not turn off Starlink in Ukraine.

"To be extremely clear, no matter how much I disagree with the Ukraine policy, Starlink will never turn off its terminals ... We would never do such a thing or use it as a bargaining chip."

The U.S. government has already revoked some access to satellite imagery for Ukraine and paused intelligence sharing, piling pressure on Kyiv as Trump seeks a swift end to the war, now in its fourth year after Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters in February that U.S. negotiators pressing Kyiv for access to Ukraine's critical minerals had raised the possibility of cutting the country's access to the Starlink service.

'BE QUIET'

Rubio had hit back at Sikorski, saying in a post on X that he was "making things up" and that "no one has made any threats about cutting Ukraine off from Starlink".

"And say thank you because without Starlink Ukraine would have lost this war long ago and Russians would be on the border with Poland right now," Rubio added.

In a separate reply to Sikorski's post, Musk wrote: "Be quiet, small man. You pay a tiny fraction of the cost. And there is no substitute for Starlink."

A Polish foreign ministry spokesperson said by text message that providing Starlink services was not an act of charity from the U.S. and that Poland paid a subscription.

Poland's nationalist opposition party Law and Justice criticised Sikorski's comments, with lawmaker Marcin Przydacz saying on X: "A quarrel with the Americans on X is just what we need at a time of key decisions in the region."

Shares in Franco-British satellite operator Eutelsat soared as much as 650% during the week ending March 7, due to speculation the company could replace Starlink in providing internet access to Ukraine. The shares pulled back on Friday to end the week up around 380%.

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT

Elon Musk claims Ukraine front line will ‘collapse’ if Starlink is turned off

Elon Musk claimed that if he turned off his Starlink satellite internet system the “entire front line” in Ukraine would collapse.

The comments triggered a bitter row with Poland which pays for Kyiv to use the vital service, allowing it to maintain crucial internet connectivity after Russia’s destruction of fixed-line and mobile networks.

Last year, Kyiv said that approximately 42,000 terminals were being used by the military, hospitals, businesses and aid organisations.

When confronted on X by someone who told him to “stop pretending Putin isn’t the aggressor”, Mr Musk said: “I literally challenged Putin to one on one physical combat over Ukraine and my Starlink system is the backbone of the Ukrainian army. Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.

“What I am sickened by is years of slaughter in a stalemate that Ukraine will inevitably lose.”

Mr Musk’s statement comes as Poland said on Sunday it may seek an alternative if the richest man in the world’s company proves to be “unreliable”.

Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s minister of foreign affairs, wrote on social media: “Starlinks for Ukraine are paid for by the Polish Digitization Ministry at the cost of about $50 million per year.

“The ethics of threatening the victim of aggression apart, if SpaceX proves to be an unreliable provider, we will be forced to look for other suppliers.”

In February, Poland said it would continue to cover Ukraine’s Starlink subscription despite sources saying the US could consider cutting it. The Trump administration reportedly threatened to cut off Ukraine’s access if Kyiv did not agree on a deal over critical mineral resources. Mr Musk denied the reports at the time.

‘Be quiet, small man’

On Sunday, Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, weighed into the row accusing Mr Sikorski of “making things up” and suggesting he was ungrateful.

“And say thank you because without Starlink Ukraine would have lost this war long ago and Russians would be on the border with Poland right now,” Mr Rubio said.

Mr Musk subsequently said Mr Rubio’s comments were “absolutely correct”.

In a separate reply to Mr Sikorski’s post Musk wrote: “Be quiet, small man. You pay a tiny fraction of the cost. And there is no substitute for Starlink.”

The latest row follows Donald Trump’s upending of the US policy on Ukraine and Mr Musk’s suggestion that sanctions should be placed on Ukraine’s top oligarchs.

The US paused military aid and the sharing of intelligence with Kyiv last week, after a meeting between the US president and Volodymyr Zelensky, his Ukrainian counterpart, descended into acrimony in front of the world’s media.

Europe looking to fill the gap

Europe is said to be negotiating with four companies to fill the gap in response to fears about Starlink being turned off.

Eutelsat, an Anglo-French rival, announced on March 4 that it was working with European institutions and business partners and had equipment ready for rapid deployment to support critical missions and infrastructure in Ukraine, according to the Financial Times.

Eutelsat runs 35 geostationary satellites and has expanded its low-earth orbit (LEO) network to up to 600 satellites after its acquisition of Britain’s OneWeb in 2023.

The LEOs used by OneWeb are identical to those used by Starlink.

The Musk-owned satellite internet system provides internet access to 125 countries.

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT

Elon Musk and Marco Rubio Bury the Hatchet and Team Up to Bully Key Ally Poland

Marco Rubio and Elon Musk set aside their bad blood on Sunday to demand a “thank you” from Poland for the satellite internet services the billionaire’s Starlink provides to the Ukrainian army.

In an X post bragging about how he once challenged Russian President Vladimir Putin to a fistfight over the Ukraine war, Musk said the Starlink system developed by his rocket company SpaceX is “the backbone of the Ukrainian army.”

“Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off,” he wrote.

Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s foreign affairs minister, saw the post as a threat.

“Starlinks for Ukraine are paid for by the Polish Digitization Ministry at the cost of about $50 million per year,” he said in reply to the SpaceX CEO. “The ethics of threatening the victim of aggression apart, if SpaceX proves to be an unreliable provider we will be forced to look for other suppliers.”

Before Musk could respond, an unlikely ally stepped in to defend Starlink: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who reportedly blew up at the billionaire last week in a tense Cabinet meeting shouting match.

Rubio accused Sikorski of “just making things up.”

“No one has made any threats about cutting Ukraine off from Starlink,” he said on X. “And say thank you because without Starlink Ukraine would have lost this war long ago and Russians would be on the border with Poland right now.”

Rubio seemingly forgot that Poland shares a border with Russia’s Kaliningrad province, which means that Russians are, quite literally, on the country’s border.

Minutes later, Musk returned to the conversation with his own retort to the Polish official: “Be quiet, small man. You pay a tiny fraction of the cost. And there is no substitute for Starlink.”

Sikorski backed down, thanking Rubio for “for confirming that the brave soldiers of Ukraine can count on the vital internet service provided jointly by the U.S. and Poland.”

But it wasn’t just the Polish minister who saw Musk’s initial post as a threat to cut off Starlink’s services in Ukraine.

Musk issued a clarification in response to other users who called him out for seemingly “threatening” to shut down the satellite internet service.

“To be extremely clear, no matter how much I disagree with the Ukraine policy, Starlink will never turn off its terminals,” the billionaire said. “I am simply stating that, without Starlink, the Ukrainian lines would collapse, as the Russians can jam all other communications! We would never do such a thing or use it as a bargaining chip.”

The New York Times last week reported that Musk and Rubio had a tense exchange in front of President Donald Trump during a recent Cabinet meeting.

Musk reportedly tore into the Secretary of State for failing to fire enough people, a mandate the billionaire has been carrying out through his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Rubio, who according to the Times has been privately furious with Musk for dismantling USAID, countered that 1,500 State Department staff had already taken an early retirement offer.

Trump reportedly sat back watching the exchange with his arms crossed, later stepping in to say that Rubio was doing “a great job” and that everyone needed to work together.

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT

Putin Won

Historians like to play a parlor game called periodization, in which they attempt to define an era, often by identifying it with the individual who most shaped the times: the Age of Jackson, the Age of Reagan. Usually, this exercise requires many decades of hindsight, but not so in the 21st century.

Over the past 25 years, the world has bent to the vision of one man. In the course of a generation, he not only short-circuited the transition to democracy in his own country, and in neighboring countries, but set in motion a chain of events that has shattered the transatlantic order that prevailed after World War II. In the global turn against democracy, he has played, at times, the role of figurehead, impish provocateur, and field marshal. We are living in the Age of Vladimir Putin.

Perhaps, that fact helps explain why Donald Trump’s recent excoriation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office felt so profound. The moment encapsulated Putin’s ultimate victory, when the greatest impediment to the realization of the Russian president’s vision, the United States, became his most powerful ally. But Trump’s slavish devotion to the Russian leader—his willingness to help Putin achieve his maximalist goals—is merely the capstone of an era.

Nothing was preordained about Putin’s triumph. Twenty years ago, in fact, his regime looked like it might not survive. With the color revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, Russian influence in its old Soviet satellites quickly withered. The threat was that democratic revolution would spread ever closer to the core of the old empire, Moscow, as it had in the dying days of communism. Indeed, as Putin prepared to return to Russia’s presidency in 2012, after a stint as prime minister, protests swelled in Moscow and spread to other Russian cities, and then kept flaring for more than a year.

Preserving his power, both at home and abroad, necessitated a new set of more aggressive tactics. Resorting to the old KGB playbook, which Putin internalized as a young officer in the Soviet spy agency, Russia began meddling in elections across Europe, illicitly financing favored candidates, exploiting social media to plant conspiracy theories, creating television networks and radio stations to carry his messaging into the American and European heartlands.

Just as the Soviet Union used the international communist movement to advance its goals, Putin collected his own loose network of admirers, which included the likes of the French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen, the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon, who venerated Putin for waging a robust counteroffensive on behalf of traditional values, by claiming the mantle of anti-wokeness. The fact that so many Western elites abhorred him titillated these foreign fans.

Putin’s objectives were always clear: He craved less hostile leaders in the West, people who would work to dismantle NATO and the European Union from within. Above all, he hoped to discredit democracy as a governing system, so that it no longer held allure for his own citizens. Scanning this list, I’m dismayed to see how many of these objectives have been realized over time, especially in the first weeks of the second Trump administration

One of Putin’s core objectives was the protection of his own personal fortune, built on kickbacks and money quietly skimmed from public accounts. Protecting this ill-gotten money, and that of his inner circle, relies on secrecy, misdirection, and theft, all values anathema to democracy.

As Putin has sought to impose his vision on the world, Ukraine has been the territory he most covets, but also the site of the fiercest resistance to him—a country that waged revolution to oust his cronies and that has resisted his military onslaught. Until last week, the United States served as the primary patron of this Ukrainian resistance. But the Trump administration has surrendered that role, thereby handing Russia incredible battlefield advantages. Because the Trump administration has cut off arms to Ukraine, it will exhaust caches of vital munitions in a few months, so it must hoard its stockpiles, limiting its capacity to fend off Russian offensives. Because the U.S. has stopped sharing intelligence with Kyiv, the Ukrainian army will be without America’s ability to eavesdrop on Russia’s war plans. All of these decisions will further demoralize Ukraine's depleted, weary military.

Just three years ago, as European and American publics draped themselves in Ukrainian flags, Putin’s Russia seemed consigned to international isolation and ignominy. For succor and solidarity, Putin was forced to turn to North Korea and Iran, an axis of geopolitical outcasts. But Trump is bent on reintegrating Putin into the family of nations. He wants Russia restored to the G7, and it’s only a matter of time before he eases up on sanctions that the Biden administration imposed on Russia. And Trump has done more than offer a place among the nations. By repeating Russia’s own self-serving, mendacious narrative about the origins of the Ukraine war, he lent American legitimacy and moral prestige to Putin.

The Russian leader’s rise wasn’t uninterrupted, but the ledger is filled with his victories, beginning with Brexit, an event he deeply desired and worked to make happen. That was a mere omen. His populist allies in France and Germany now constitute the most powerful opposition blocs in those countries. Within the European Union, he can count on Viktor Orbán to stymie Brussels when it is poised to act against Russian interests. Meanwhile, the European Union’s foreign-policy chief claims that the “free world needs a new leader,” and former heads of NATO worry for the organization's very survival.

Putin is winning, because he’s cunningly exploited the advantages of autocracy. His near-total control of his own polity allows him to absorb the economic pain of sanctions, until the West loses interest in them. His lack of moral compunction allowed him to sacrifice bodies on the battlefield, without any pang of remorse, an advantage of expendable corpses that Ukraine can never match. Confident in the permanence of his power, he has patiently waited out his democratic foes, correctly betting that their easily distracted public would lose interest in fighting proxy wars against him.

What’s most devastating about Putin’s reversal of fortune is that he read Western societies so accurately. When he railed against the decadence of the West and the flimsiness of its democracy, he wasn’t engaging in propaganda, he was accurately forecasting how his enemy would abandon its first principles. He seemed to intuit that the idealism of American democracy might actually vanish, not just as a foreign-policy doctrine, but as the consensus conviction of its domestic politics.

Now, with a like-minded counterpart in the White House, he no longer needs to make a case against democracy to his own citizens. He can crow that the system is apparently so unappealing that even the United States is moving away from it.

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT