The deplorable situation of the Muslim nation;

 

The deplorable situation of the Muslim nation; Dr Amira Abo el-Fetouh; December 30, 2022;;

For me, the state of our Islamic nation breaks my heart. Indeed, every Muslim is saddened by the weakness and humiliation that our Islamic nation has witnessed. The nation has strayed for decades and whenever it tries to get back on course, it becomes more strayed and scattered. Its enemies speak out against it with hostility and who call Muslims terrorists, they fight Islam under the guise of "fighting terrorism" and utilise Arab rulers who appointed them in their countries, as spearheads in this malicious war.

 

The new year comes with the threat of dividing Yemen into two; separating the south from the north as part of a conspiracy by the United Arab Emirates, which armed and financed the separatists, claiming it had withdrawn from the Saudi-led coalition. The UAE destroyed Yemen, bombed the homes of Yemenis while they were sheltering within them, killed thousands of Yemenis and destroyed the country.

 

2023 will witness a worsening situation for Palestinian, with racism, abuse and the murder of Palestinians rising, especially as the extreme right-wing Netanyahu government takes office. There is no sign of hope for the establishment of the Palestinian state that they have been promising since the Oslo Accords, while the Zionist enemy continues to storm Al-Aqsa Mosque and shoot peaceful worshippers. Zionist settlers are storming the mosque and desecrating it, and in spite of the oppression, humiliation and abuse that Palestinians are subjected to, the "civilised" world remains inactive.

 

Should I highlight what is happening to the Muslims in Myanmar or the Uyghurs in China and the various types of torture and the systematic oppression they face, obliterating their lineage and uprooting their existence by the criminal fascist racist regime in China? It is tragic and shameful to hold an Arab-Chinese summit on the land of the Two Holy Mosques without mentioning these victims.

 

Or should I talk about the Muslims of Kashmir after India abolished the self-governance of the Muslim region of Kashmir? The first country that hastened to support India's decision was the UAE. The Emirates described the Muslims of Kashmir as terrorists.

 

Here I remember what happened to Timor and how they seized and separated it from the Muslim state of Indonesia under the pretext that its inhabitants are Christians. They established a state whose population does not exceed 900,000 people, but Kashmir, whose Muslim population exceeds 13 million citizens, is not allowed to be an independent state or be annexed to Muslim Pakistan, instead they stripped it of its self-governance status.

 

What about what is happening in Syria, and the conspiracies that are planned to divide and occupy its land by the Russians and the Safavids?

 

In Libya, colonial countries are competing to gain a part in Libya for their own interest, they use their agent Haftar to strike the capital, Tripoli, and kill its peaceful people who are defending their country and dignity, and today he plans to separate Cirenaica from Libya!

 

Today, Iraq is witnessing Iranian victories, as Tehran appoints presidents and governors who are directly affiliated with it to the extent that one of its leaders said Iran occupies the capitals of five Arab states; Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Bahrain. Yes, Iran or the Safavid state as it was called took over these five countries.

 

It is a new year, but nothing is new this year.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20221230-the-deplorable-situation-of-the-muslim-nation/?mc_cid=73c5aedf48&mc_eid=f50a97be6b

Top India Analysts Dispel "India's Size Illusion"

 

Top India Analysts Dispel "India's Size Illusion"

 

https://www.southasiainvestor.com/2022/03/top-india-analysts-dispel-indias-size.html

 

India's leaders and their western boosters have been promoting the country as an emerging superpower to counter rising China. They cite the size of India's economy, demography, military and consumer market to back up their assertions. These claims are challenged by India's former chief economic advisor Arvind Subramanian and Josh Felman, former head of IMF in India, in an article titled "India's Size Illusion".  In a similar article titled "The Chinese Threat No One Is Talking About — And How to Counter It", Sameer Lalwani, a senior fellow for Asia strategy at the Stimson Center, has raised serious questions about India's ability to counter China in the Indian Ocean region. 

 

"Desh ka bahut nuksaan hua hai", acknowledged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi after his military's 2019 failures against Pakistan in Balakot and Kashmir. This marked a major shift in Modi's belligerent tone that has been characterized by his boasts of "chhappan inch ki chhati" (56 inch chest) and  talk of  "munh tor jawab" (jaw-breaking response) and "boli nahin goli" (bullets, not talks) to intimidate Pakistan in the last few years.  These events should force India's western backers to reassess their strategy of boosting India as a counterweight to China.

 

India's Illusions:

 

Indian government's former Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian has enumerated and challenged arguments for what he calls "India's Size Illusion" as follows:

 

1. India’s economic size has not translated into commensurate military strength. Part of the problem is simple geography. (German Chancellor Otto Von) Bismarck (1815-1898) supposedly said that the US is bordered on two sides by weak neighbors and on two sides by fish. India, however, does not enjoy such splendid isolation. Ever since independence, it has been confronted on its Western frontier by Pakistan, a highly armed, chronically hostile, and often military-ruled neighbor. More recently, India’s northern neighbor, China, also has become aggressive, repudiating the territorial status quo, occupying contested land in the Himalayas, reclaiming territory in the east, and building up a large military presence along India’s borders. So, India may have fish for neighbors along its long peninsular coast, but on land it faces major security challenges on two fronts.

 

2.  Then there is the question of market size. As Pennsylvania State University’s Shoumitro Chatterjee and one of us (Subramanian) have shown, India’s middle-class market for consumption is much smaller than the $3 trillion headline GDP number suggests, because many people have limited purchasing power while a smaller number of well-off people tend to save a lot. In fact, the effective size of India’s consumer market is less than $1 trillion, far smaller than China’s and even smaller relative to the potential world export market of nearly $30 trillion.

 

Indo-Pacific Dominance:

 

In an article titled "The Chinese Threat No One Is Talking About — And How to Counter It", Sameer Lalwani, a senior fellow for Asia strategy at the Stimson Center, has raised serious doubts about India's ability to counter China in the Indian Ocean region. Here are a couple of excerpts from the article:

 

1. China has been building dozens of advanced warships that seem poised to head toward the vast body of water through which 80 percent of global seaborne trade transits.....Indeed, a deeper (US) partnership with India — the world’s largest democracy, on an upward economic trajectory, seemingly perfectly positioned to counter China on land and at sea — has been something of a holy grail for at least four U.S. administrations.......Yet what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a decade ago called a “strategic bet” on India does not seem to be paying off. Indian naval and political power in the Indian Ocean region is faltering, giving way to influence by Beijing. Many of these problems are of India’s own making.

 

2. There is increasing discussion and advocacy among China’s foreign policy scholars and former officials about an Indian Ocean fleet. Indeed, the idea is consistent with China’s efforts to acquire military facilities in the Horn of Africa, on Pakistan’s Indian Ocean coast, in Myanmar and in the UAE, which offers access to the Persian Gulf. China has also engaged in intelligence collection efforts in the region and increased its port visits and diplomatic presence.

 

India's "Accidental" Missile Firing:

 

India's March 9 "accidental firing" of Brahmos nuclear-capable supersonic cruise missile into Pakistan has raised serious questions about the safety of the Indian nuclear arsenal. Do the people in charge of India's nukes have basic competence to handle such weapons? Was this really an "unauthorized" or "accidental" firing? Why was there a long delay by New Delhi in acknowledging the incident?  Could Pakistan be blamed if it assumed that extremist right-wing Hindu elements had taken control of the missile system in India and fired it deliberately into Pakistani territory? Has the Indian government risked the lives of 1.6 billion people of South Asia?

 

Could this "errant" missile brought down commercial passenger planes that were in the air at the time of this "accidental" firing? Here's an excerpt from Bloomberg detailing air traffic in the flight path of the Indian Brahmos:

 

"Several planes passed through the direct trajectory of the missile that day, which flew from the Indian garrison town of Ambala and ended up in Mian Channu in Eastern Pakistan. They included a Flydubai jet heading to Dubai from Sialkot, an IndiGo plane going from Srinagar to Mumbai and an Airblue Ltd. flight from Lahore to Riyadh. All crossed the missile’s trajectory within an hour of its accidental launch, data from flight-tracking application Flightradar24 show.  Other international flights in the vicinity of the missile’s trajectory -- and within its range -- included a Kuwait Airways Co. jet heading to Guangzhou, China from Kuwait City, a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Riyadh from New Delhi, and a Qatar Airways service from Kathmandu to Doha, the data show. No advisory to pilots operating in the vicinity -- known as a notice to airmen or NOTAM -- was issued".

 

India: A Paper Elephant:

 

In an article titled "Paper Elephant", the Economist magazine talked about how India has ramped up its military spending and emerged as the world's largest arms importer. "Its military doctrine envisages fighting simultaneous land wars against Pakistan and China while retaining dominance in the Indian Ocean", the article said. It summed up the situation as follows: "India spends a fortune on defense and gets poor value for money".

 

After the India-Pakistan aerial combat over Kashmir, New York Times published a story from its South Asia correspondent headlined: "After India Loses Dogfight to Pakistan, Questions Arise About Its Military".  Here are some excerpts of the report:

 

"Its (India's) loss of a plane last week to a country (Pakistan) whose military is about half the size and receives a quarter (a sixth according to SIPRI) of the funding is telling. ...India’s armed forces are in alarming shape....It was an inauspicious moment for a military the United States is banking on to help keep an expanding China in check".

Europe’s big question: What a diminished Russia will do next

 

Europe’s big question: What a diminished Russia will do next

Nick Paton Walsh

Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, International Security Editor, CNN

Updated 6:33 PM EST, Sun January 1, 2023

 

                  

 —

Russia’s war in Ukraine has proven almost every assumption wrong, with Europe now wondering what left is safe to assume.

 

Its invasion in February managed to startle in every way. To those who thought Moscow was sane enough to not attempt such a massive and foolhardy undertaking. To those who felt the Russian military would waltz across a land of 40 million people and switch to clean-up operations within 10 days. And to those who felt they had the technical and intelligence prowess to do more than just randomly bombard civilian areas with ageing artillery; that the Kremlin’s military had evolved from the 90s levelling of Grozny in Chechnya.

 

And finally, to those who felt nuclear saber-rattling was an oxymoron in 2022 – that you could not casually threaten people with nukes as the destruction they brought was complete, for everyone on the planet.

 

Still, as 2022 closes, Europe is left dealing with a set of known unknowns, unimaginable as recently as in January. To recap: a military once considered the world’s third most formidable has invaded its smaller neighbor, which a year ago excelled mostly in IT and agriculture.

 

 

Russia spent billions of dollars apparently modernizing its military, but it turns out that it was, to a large extent, a sham. It has discovered its supply chains don’t function a few dozen miles from its own borders; that its assessment of Ukraine as desperate to be freed from its own “Nazism” is the distorted product of nodding yes-men, feeding a president – Vladimir Putin – what he wanted to hear in the isolation of the pandemic.

 

Russia has also met a West that, far from being divided and reticent, was instead happy to send some of its munitions to its eastern border. Western officials might also be surprised that Russia’s red lines appear to shift constantly, as Moscow realizes how limited its non-nuclear options are. None of this was supposed to happen. So, what does Europe do and prepare for, now that it has?

 

 

 

Key is just how unexpectedly unified the West has been. Despite being split over Iraq, fractured over Syria, and partially unwilling to spend the 2% of GDP on security the United States long demanded of NATO members, Europe and the US have been speaking from the same script on Ukraine. At times, Washington may have seemed warier, and there have been autocratic outliers like Hungary. But the shift is towards unity, not disparity. That’s quite a surprise.

 

 

 

 

Declarations that Russia has already lost the war remain premature. There are variables which could still lead to a stalemate in its favor, or even a reversal of fortune. NATO could lose patience or nerve over weapons shipments, and seek economic expediency over long-term security, pushing for a peace unfavorable to Kyiv. But that does, at this moment, seem unlikely.

 

Russia is digging in on the eastern side of the Dnipro River in southern Ukraine, and has the advantage that the Donetsk and Luhansk frontlines in Ukraine’s east are nearer its border. Yet its challenges are immense: poorly trained, forcibly conscripted personnel make up 77,000 of its frontline troops – and that’s according to the glossy assessment voiced by Putin. It is struggling for munitions, and seeing regular open, internal criticism of its winter supply chain.

 

Ukraine is on home territory, with morale still high, and Western weapons still arriving. Since the collapse of Moscow’s patchwork of forces around the northeastern city of Kharkiv in September – where their supply lines were cut by a smarter Ukrainian force – the dynamic has all been against Moscow.

 

The prospect of a Russian defeat is in the broader picture: that it did not win quickly against an inferior adversary. Mouthpieces on state TV talked about the need to “take the gloves off” after Kharkiv, as if they would not be exposing a fist that had already withered. Revealed almost as a paper-tiger, the Russian military will struggle for decades to regain even a semblance of peer status with NATO. That is perhaps the wider damage for the Kremlin: the years of effort spent rebuilding Moscow’s reputation as a smart, asymmetrical foe with conventional forces to back it up have evaporated in about six months of mismanagement.

 

 

The question of nuclear force lingers still, chiefly because Putin likes regularly to invoke it. But even here Russia’s menace has been diminished. Firstly, NATO has been sending unequivocal signals of the conventional devastation its forces would mete out were any form of nuclear device used. Secondly, Russia’s fairweather allies, India and China, have quickly assessed its losing streak and publicly admonished Moscow’s nuclear rhetoric. (Their private messaging has likely been fiercer.)

 

And finally, Moscow is left with a question nobody ever wants to learn the answer to: if its supply chains for diesel fuel for tanks 40 miles from its border do not function, then how can they be sure The Button will work, if Putin reaches madly to press it? There is no greater danger for a nuclear power than to reveal its strategic missiles and retaliatory capability do not function.

 

Despite this palpable Russian decline, Europe is not welcoming in an era of greater security. Calls for greater defense spending are louder, and heeded, even if they come at a time when Russia, for decades the defining issue of European security, is revealing itself to be less threatening.

 

Europe is realizing it cannot depend on the United States – and its wild swings between political poles – solely for its security.

 

 

Meanwhile thousands of innocent Ukrainians have died in Putin’s egotistical and misguided bid to revive a Tsarist empire. More broadly, authoritarianism has been exposed as a disastrous system with which to wage wars of choice.

 

Yet some good has come from this debacle. Europe knows it must get off its dependence on Russian gas immediately, and hydrocarbons in general in the longer term, as economic dependence on the fossil fuels of dictators cannot bring longer-term stability.

 

So, how does the West deal with a Russia that has experienced this colossal loss of face in Ukraine and is slowly withering economically because of sanctions? Is a weak Russia something to fear, or just weak? This is the known unknown the West must wrestle with. But it is no longer such a terrifying question.

 

For over 70 years, the Russians and West held the world in the grip of mutually assured destruction. It was a peace based on fear. But fear of Moscow should be ebbing slowly, and with that comes the risk of miscalculation. It also raises a less chilling prospect: that Russia – like many autocracies before it – may be fading, undermined by its own clumsy dependence on fear domestically.

 

Europe’s challenge now is to deal with Russia in a state of chaotic denial, while hoping it evolves into a state of managed decline. One abiding comfort may be that, after underestimating Moscow’s potential for malice, the risk for Europe would be to overstate its potential as a threat.

US’ illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran violate the human rights of the Iranian people

 US’ illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran violate the human rights of the Iranian people

 

Top United Nations Experts Wrote A Letter To The United States Government.

They emphasize that the US’ illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran violate the human rights of the Iranian people and call for them to “be eased or lifted completely.”

 

Top United Nations experts have criticized US government sanctions for violating the human rights of Iranians.

 

They made it clear that the unilateral coercive measures that the United States has imposed on Iran violate international law.

 

A group of UN special rapporteurs stressed that these sanctions have a “negative impact” on “the enjoyment of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in the Islamic Republic of Iran and on the right to health and the right to life.”

 

Violating Iranians’ right to life is a roundabout diplomatic way of saying that US sanctions are killing them.

 

The UN experts sent a formal letter to the United States condemning its sanctions and requesting that it investigate and remove them.

 

The special rapporteurs expressed their “serious concerns about the U.S. sanctions as a significant contributing factor in Iran’s environmental degradation, which negatively affects Iranian people’s rights to a healthy and sustainable environment, to health, to life, and to an adequate standard of living.”

 

They added that “U.S. sanctions impede the enjoyment of the right to education” in Iran.

 

Washington constantly accuses Tehran of violating its people’s rights. The US government also publicly claims to support the struggle against climate change and pollution, and on paper it recognizes that people have the right to a clean environment.

 

But Washington’s “sanctions against Iran contradict what seems to be a clear US position on this matter,” the UN experts said.

 

“It is time for sanctions that impede Iran’s ability to improve the environment and reduce the ill effects on health and life, to be eased or lifted completely so that Iranians can access their right to a clean environment, the right to health and to life, and other rights associated with favourable environmental conditions,” they insisted.

 

The UN special rapporteurs noted:

 

Since 1979, the United States of America has imposed a broad and complex network of stringent financial, economic, and trade sanctions against Iran, including a comprehensive trade ban, significant measures to isolate Iran from the international financial and commercial system, as well as secondary sanctions against non-U.S. parties that engage in dealings with Iran.

 

Some (but not all) of these sanctions were removed or eased in 2015, when US President Barack Obama signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement with Iran that was also joined by the other permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain, France, China, and Russia), Germany, and the European Union.

 

In 2018, US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, in violation of a UN Security Council resolution, and subsequently imposed more sanctions on Iran, in clear contravention of international law.

 

The UN experts noted that the Trump administration not only re-imposed “sanctions that had been lifted or eased under the JCPOA”; it also “introduced additional measures. These sanctions targeted Iran’s energy, shipbuilding, shipping and financial sectors, and included the listing of more than 700 individuals, entities, aircraft and vessels.”

 

US threats of secondary sanctions on foreign countries and firms that do business with Iran, as well as over compliance, make the unilateral coercive measures even more punishing, the UN special rapporteurs wrote:

 

The full impact of the U.S. sanctions in Iran is magnified by considerable over compliance on a global scale resulting from complex, time-consuming and/or costly compliance procedures; extraterritorial enforcement and fears of penalties for inadvertent breaches; and sanctions-related obstacles to financial transactions for goods and services that the sanctions do not prohibit.

 

The primary author of this letter, the top UN expert on sanctions, Alena Douhan, has previously released reports detailing the catastrophic impact that illegal US sanctions have had on civilians in Venezuela and Syria.

 

She said these “outrageous” US sanctions are “suffocating” millions of civilians and “may amount to crimes against humanity.”

 

The letter concerning US sanctions on Iran was signed by the following UN human rights experts:

 

Alena Douhan, special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights

Richard Bennett, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan

Ian Fry, special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change,

Tlaleng Mofokeng, special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

Livingstone Sewanyana, independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order

Obiora C. Okafor, independent expert on human rights and international solidarity

Fernand de Varennes, special rapporteur on minority issues

Energy conservation plan Pakistan

 

Early closure of markets on the cards as govt seeks provinces’ support for energy conservation plan

Dawn.com Published December 20, 2022   

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said on Tuesday that the government would approach the provinces for the implementation of a policy aimed at saving energy.The announcement comes a day after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif directed authorities concerned to take steps to reduce circular debt in the energy sector.

 

“The distribution companies of Sui gas should improve the system of recovery of bills and no additional burden should be put on gas and electricity consumers,” the prime minister was quoted as saying.

 

Media reports quoting the power division have said that the circular debt which stood at Rs2.253 trillion by end of September last year had now reached Rs2.437 trillion, showing an increase of Rs185bn.

 

He said that estimates had shown that if 20 per cent of the government workforce worked from home on a rotation basis, Rs56 billion could be saved. “It is mainly about the nation limiting its lifestyle,” he said.

 

He further said that the timing of wedding halls would be limited to 10pm, while restaurants, hotels and markets would close down by 8pm. He, however, said that there may be some room for the closing time for restaurants to be extended by an hour.

 

The minister said that by implementing these few steps, the country would be able to save Rs62bn.

 

Asif said that the government was slowly working on shifting to renewable energy but until that was achieved, such measures were important.

 

He went on to say that energy-efficient fans and bulbs would soon be introduced in the market, which would further help save Rs38bn. “Similarly, if street lights are used alternatively, we would be able to save Rs4bn.”

 

The minister also revealed that the government was in talks with motorcycle companies for electric bikes. “The motorcycles that run on petrol will slowly be phased out.

 

“We have begun imports for e-bikes and have started negotiations with motorcycle companies for the modification of existing motorcycles […] this will save us around Rs86bn,” he added.

 

If all these measures were translated, Asif continued, “you will see that a lot of money can be saved”.

 

He added that the Ministry of Information would be running a media campaign to spread awareness regarding these new measures among the public.

 

Talking about water conservation, the minister said that the government had devised ways through which rain water could be harvested and used for daily household consumption. https://www.dawn.com/news/1727351/early-closure-of-markets-on-the-cards-as-govt-seeks-provinces-support-for-energy-conservation-plan

Kissinger ;Russian invasion of Ukraine and prospects of peace

 Kissinger says Ukraine should cede territory to Russia to end war

 

By Timothy Bella

May 24, 2022 at 10:47 a.m. EDT 

Former U.S. secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger said Monday that Ukraine should cede territory to Russia to help end the invasion, suggesting a position that a vast majority of Ukrainians are against as the war enters its fourth month.

Speaking at a conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Kissinger urged the United States and the West to not seek an embarrassing defeat for Russia in Ukraine, warning it could worsen Europe’s long-term stability.

After saying that Western countries should remember Russia’s importance to Europe and not get swept up “in the mood of the moment,” Kissinger also pushed for the West to force Ukraine into accepting negotiations with a “status quo ante,” which means the previous state of affairs.

“Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” said Kissinger, 98, according to the Daily Telegraph. “Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.”

The “status quo ante” mentioned by Kissinger, who was secretary of state to Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford, refers to restoring a situation in which Russia formally controlled Crimea and informally controlled Ukraine’s two easternmost regions of Luhansk and Donetsk. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has emphasized that part of his conditions for entering peace talks with Russia would include a restoration of preinvasion borders.

       

      

                       

thrown the “whole international order into question.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told global leaders in Davos that the war is not only “a matter of Ukraine’s survival” or “an issue of European security” but also “a task for the entire global community.” She lamented Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “destructive fury” but said Russia could one day recover its place in Europe if it “finds its way back to democracy, the rule of law and respect for the international rules-based order … because Russia is our neighbor.”

Putin made ‘big strategic mistake,’ NATO chief says; Donbas attacks intensify

Much of Ukraine agrees with Zelensky on not giving up land in exchange for peace. A poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology this month found that 82 percent of Ukrainians are not prepared to give up any of Ukraine’s land, even if it means the war will drag on. Only 10 percent believe that giving up land is worth it to end the invasion, while 8 percent were undecided, according to the poll conducted between May 13 and last Wednesday.

The sample did not include residents of territories that were not controlled by the Ukrainian authorities before Feb. 24 — such as Crimea, Sevastopol and some districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The survey also did not include citizens who went abroad after Feb. 24.

Kissinger’s comments follow a recent editorial from the New York Times’s editorial board that argued Ukraine would have to make “painful territorial decisions” to achieve peace.

“In the end, it is the Ukrainians who must make the hard decisions: They are the ones fighting, dying and losing their homes to Russian aggression, and it is they who must decide what an end to the war might look like,” the Times editorial board wrote Thursday. “If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand.”

The editorial was met with backlash, including from Zelensky adviser Mykhailo Podolyak, who said that “any concession to Russia is not a path to peace, but a war postponed for several years.”

In his comments Monday, Kissinger, a longtime advocate of a realpolitik approach that has nations putting their practical aims in front of morals and principles, urged European leaders to not lose sight of Russia’s place in Europe and risk the country forming a permanent alliance with China.

“I hope the Ukrainians will match the heroism they have shown with wisdom,” he said, according to the Daily Telegraph.

Critics described Kissinger’s comments as what one called “an unfortunate intervention.” Inna Sovsun, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, denounced Kissinger’s position as “truly shameful!”

“It’s a pity that the former US Secretary of State believes that giving up on part of the sovereign territory is a way to peace for any country!” Sovsun tweeted.

Podolyak returned to his refrain that Ukraine could not concede territory, even if it leads to peace, saying the country “does not trade its sovereignty for someone to fill their wallet.” He tweeted out an old photo of Kissinger shaking hands with Putin on Tuesday, with Podolyak saying he was thankful that Ukrainians fighting the war did not listen to the diplomat’s suggestion.

“As easily as Mr. #Kissinger proposes to give [Russia] part of [Ukraine] to stop the war, he would allow to take Poland or Lithuania away,” Podolyak said. “It’s good that Ukrainians in the trenches do not have time for listening to ‘Davos panickers.' They’re a little bit busy defending Freedom and Democracy.”