Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump is “Thankful” to Putin for Expelling U.S. Diplomats From Russia

Late last month, President Vladimir Putin decided to expel 775 U.S. diplomats and staffers from the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Russia. Yesterday, President Donald Trump commented on that decision for the first time. Trump said that he is very thankful to Putin for helping him cut down the payroll and that it was great that he let “a large number of people” go. “There’s no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We’re going to save a lot of money,” he said. Some people thought it was a way to troll Putin.

I get it! Trump’s using reverse psychology on Putin … as some 2nd grade teachers do. Certain to work on a KGB trained killler/dictator. https://t.co/J6v5HY3h06

— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) August 11, 2017

But Trump was not clear on whether he was actually joking, and a lot of people were baffled that the president took the increased tensions with Russia so lightly, as well as hundreds of people losing their jobs. Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was not entertained and pointed out that the diplomatic staff in Russia provides the U.S. with invaluable information about the country, which is an incredibly important function.

Imagine wanting to know less about Russia’s military modernization! That’s what Trump praised today. https://t.co/qMorkknjhU

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 10, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Putin Reacts to New American Sanctions

At the end of last week, Congress passed a bill that would levy sanctions on Russia for its involvement in the 2016 election-related hacking, as well as its annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Donald Trump has indicated he will sign it–although even if he chose to veto it, it appears that Congress has the votes to override his veto. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded to the measures yesterday, ordering a reduction of U.S. diplomatic staff by 755. That would bring American staff to 455 at all the diplomatic missions across Russia. Russia is also seizing some American property in the country.

The Russian government says that the affected diplomats must leave the country by September 1, although State Department numbers indicate that many of the people working at diplomatic missions in Russia are local hires, meaning they’ll likely just be let go. Tensions with Russia have been on a bit of a roller coaster of late–Trump’s staff has been accused of colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. But, Putin has said that he doesn’t see relations changing “anytime soon.”

Putin said Russia had run out of patience waiting for relations with the United States to improve https://t.co/pUzx6nZZYb

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 31, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Russia is all over the news right now, and given that art imitates life, you’d think that we’d start to see this national concern spill over into our box offices any day. But the opposite phenomenon may be taking place–studios are reportedly writing Vladimir Putin storylines out of their movies. The studios are apparently concerned that they will fall victim to hacking if they insert the Russian leader into their films.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, two movies in particular have gotten this type of editing. “Red Sparrow,” which stars Jennifer Lawrence and is slated to come out next March, is based on a book that features Putin quite heavily. Although the screenplay went through a number of revisions, the Putin character was dropped and never brought back. There’s also “Kursk,” which tells the true story of a Russian submarine that sank in 2000. Despite the fact that Putin appeared in the book on which the movie will be based, and earlier drafts of the screenplay, he’s missing from the movie itself.

The fears of hacking are by no means unfounded. In 2014, Sony released “The Interview,” which poked quite a bit of fun at North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Sony was hacked, and in the months that followed, thousands of emails and other files containing confidential information were leaked. North Korea is widely believed to have been behind the attack. It’s safe to assume that Russia has hacking capabilities that are the very least on par with those of North Korea.

Of course, Russia claims that the whole controversy is silly. According to the Russian-government controlled Sputnik News, the Kremlin doesn’t care about Hollywood depictions of Putin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the news service, “We do not know anything about these movies. We do not know, who is filming them and what they are about. It is not our topic.” Since that’s pretty tough to believe, it makes sense that movie studios aren’t taking any chances.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Putin Storylines Cut from Movies Out of Hacking Fears appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump tweeted that apparently “everyone” is talking about John Podesta and why he “refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and CIA” at the G-20 summit in Hamburg. His comment seemed peculiar, given that the world’s leaders probably had more pressing issues to discuss, like climate change and international terrorism.

It’s not clear whether any G-20 leaders actually did talk about John Podesta. But later in the day, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman hit back on Twitter and called the president a “whack job.”

1/ On a x-country road trip with my wife;

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

3/ Get a grip man, the Russians committed a crime when they stole my emails to help get you elected President.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

Podesta wrote that the Russians hacked his email to get Trump elected. It seemed like Trump conflated that hack with the DNC one, although they were two separate incidents. Podesta also pointed out to Trump that he didn’t even work for the DNC.

5/ BTW, I had nothing to do with the DNC.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

7/7 Dude, get your head in the game. You’re representing the US at the G20.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

Other lawmakers commented on the president’s tweet as well. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote, “Yes, I’m sure that’s the big talk at G-20. Not climate change or trade, but why didn’t John Podesta give a server that wasn’t his to the CIA.”

Others said it was a diversionary tactic, so people wouldn’t talk about his meeting with Putin. And some just thought it was a “very 2017” moment.

2017 got Podesta saying dude on the internet https://t.co/LPYpk3OuIQ

— Rebecca Nesi (@rebecca_nesi) July 7, 2017

A lot of people on social media questioned why Trump brought up the 2016 election at all when he is at the G-20, as well as the fact that he tweeted those comments shortly before his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Exactly what Trump and Putin talked about during that meeting we don’t know, but according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Trump did bring up the hacking of the 2016 U.S. election more than once. The meeting was supposed to take 30 minutes but reportedly lasted for over two hours.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Podesta Replies to Trump’s Tweets: “Get a Grip Man” appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Claims “Everyone” is Talking About John Podesta

Today is the first day of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. And this morning President Donald Trump tweeted: “Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA. Disgraceful!” But it seems highly unlikely that world leaders gathered in Hamburg would all be talking about John Podesta, and Trump got his facts wrong. Podesta was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman; he didn’t have the authority to hand DNC files over to law enforcement. Podesta actually fully cooperated with the investigation into the Russian hacking, and the DNC did give information to the FBI that pointed to Russian interference in the election. Also, the FBI was in charge of the investigation, not the CIA. Overall, this wasn’t a particularly factual tweet from Trump.

1) This wasn’t Podesta’s decision 2) It was the FBI, not FBI and CIA 3) There is a 0% chance foreign leaders brought this up at the G20 https://t.co/zlwrnD8WOT

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) July 7, 2017

Also on the docket for the G-20: Trump will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin face to face for the first time. Expectations are high, and many hope Trump will bring up the Russian hacking into the U.S. election. The two leaders met briefly this morning for a handshake, and the proper meeting will take place later today.

First handshake between Trump and Putin is posted by Angela Merkel on Facebook https://t.co/woi4FuDoHz pic.twitter.com/oS7Pxqm9er

— Gizmodo (@Gizmodo) July 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News Founder Roger Ailes Has Died

Roger Ailes, one of the founders of Fox News, passed away this morning at 77. His cause of death has yet to be released. Fox announced the news and aired a statement from his wife Elizabeth, which read, “I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband, Roger Ailes, passed away this morning. Roger was a loving husband to me, to his son Zachary, and a loyal friend to many.”

Ailes was a prominent figure in American media as well as a powerful force in conservative politics, and many expressed their condolences. But many also referenced the sexual harassment controversy that led to his removal from the network he created last summer.

Former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson sued him for sexual harassment and at least six other women came forward with similar claims. After Ailes’ ouster, news broke about similar allegations against Bill O’Reilly, who lost his job in April. A lot of people were really not that sorry to hear the news of Ailes’ passing.

Roger Ailes behaved egregiously toward women in his organization and changed our culture for the worse, making people dumber and angrier.

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) May 18, 2017

To all of the women that Roger Ailes hurt, today is going to hurt. We will never forget you and your untold stories.

— Xeni Jardin (@xeni) May 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said, in a press conference on Capitol Hill and later at the White House on Wednesday, that President Donald Trump and his associates were compromised during the campaign as the result of surveillance in Trump Tower. Trump’s associates, Nunes said, were “unmasked” by the surveillance, and some of Trump’s communications were swept up in “incidental collection” as a result. He cited a classified report as the source of his claims, but did not divulge who provided him with the information.

“I don’t want to get too much into the details, but these were intelligence reports, and it brings up a lot of concern about whether things were properly minimized or not,” Nunes said. “What I have read bothers me, and I think it should bother the president himself and his team, because I think some of it seems to be inappropriate.”

This behavior by Nunes, head of the House investigation into Trump and his associates’ communications with Russia, brings up a host of questions: Can Nunes continue to lead an impartial investigation? Did he reveal any new information? What is “unmasking” and “incidental collection”? And was the surveillance that Nunes described lawful?

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said that Nunes apologized Thursday morning for going straight to the White House with his concerns, and circumventing the House Intelligence Committee. But many House Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said Nunes could no longer be expected to be an impartial voice in the Trump-Russia investigation.

The White House, in contrast, warmly embraced Nunes’s direct approach. “I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found,” Trump said, adding that he feels “somewhat” vindicated for his accusations that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said Nunes provided “startling information.” But what exactly did Nunes reveal that was previously unknown?

The FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which are leading separate investigations into Russia’s communications with Trump and his associates, both concluded there is no evidence Trump Tower was wiretapped–by Obama or any other intelligence agency. And Nunes on Wednesday admitted as much. It is the “unmasking” of Trump’s associates that has Nunes concerned. Americans are often surveilled for communicating with foreign actors that might concern the U.S. But their identities are commonly masked, hidden from U.S. authorities who are tracking them.

Not so in the case of Trump’s associates, Nunes claims. He said the identity of those who were surveilled–Nunes said it was multiple associates, Schiff said it was one–was revealed to U.S. officials. Given the unusual nature of the investigation into people close to Trump who had ties to Russia (a common target of U.S. surveillance), it is hardly surprising that U.S. officials might not have conducted business as usual.

And according to Schiff, “unmasking” in and of itself “does not indicate that there was any flaw in the procedures followed by the intelligence agencies,” and “is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the context of collected foreign intelligence information.”

The “incidental collection” Nunes mentioned refers to Trump’s communications that might have been collected due to the surveillance of his associates. Again, there is nothing illegal about that. As to who might have been the subject of the surveillance, Nunes provided no specifics. Here’s a good bet though: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman who resigned last August after his name was included on a ledger of cash payments made by Ukraine’s former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Devin Nunes Reveal Any New Information About Trump’s Wiretap Claim? appeared first on Law Street.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State and former CEO of oil giant Exxon Mobil, will not attend a meeting with NATO representatives next month in Brussels, a spokeswoman said on Monday. Instead, Tillerson will travel to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping. Tillerson will then travel to the G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, followed by a jaunt to Moscow to meet with Russian officials.

In forgoing the NATO meeting in favor of a trip to meet with Kremlin officials, Tillerson is only compounding the dim view some have of his personal ties to Russia, and the Trump Administration’s connections as well. Tillerson steered Exxon through lucrative drilling contracts with Russia, and President Vladimir Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship in 2013.

And Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” though members of his cabinet–and Vice President Mike Pence–have since tried to walk back those remarks. Then of course, there are Trump’s murky relations with Russia: FBI Director James Comey said on Monday that Trump’s associates are currently under investigation for communications with Russia during the campaign.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said Tillerson’s decision to skip the NATO meeting would do little to alleviate the defense alliance’s concerns about U.S. support. “Donald Trump’s Administration is making a grave error that will shake the confidence of America’s most important alliance and feed the concern that this Administration [is] simply too cozy with Vladimir Putin,” Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

The State Department spokeswoman said in lieu of Tillerson, Under Secretary of State for Political Affair Tom Shannon will represent the U.S. in Brussels. Tillerson will, however, be meeting with NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday in Washington. The meeting will focus on defeating Islamic State, or ISIS, the spokeswoman said.

A former U.S. official and former NATO diplomat told Reuters that the alliance offered to change the date of the Brussels meeting so that Tillerson could attend, but that the department declined the offer. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the former diplomat said engagement with NATO is vital given the growing Russian threat. “Given the challenge that Russia poses, not just to the United States but to Europe, it’s critical to engage on the basis of a united front if at all possible,” the diplomat said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rex Tillerson to Skip NATO Meeting, Meet with Chinese and Russian Leaders Instead appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: everyone’s talking about the #SuperBowl: the New England Patriot’s dramatic comeback, the first overtime in Super Bowl history, Lady Gaga’s Spiderman-like halftime show, and the many ads with political messages about diversity and acceptance. When you’re ready to tackle Monday, read on for today’s news and rants:

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

What’s New with the Travel Ban?

Things are moving quickly; on Friday, federal Judge James Robart in Seattle temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s travel ban on people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Trump responded by calling Judge Robart a “so-called judge” on Twitter and pledged to work to overturn the ruling. Trump claims that letting travelers in will put national security at risk and that we should all blame Judge Robart if there’s a terrorist attack–drawing criticism from many Democrats and quite a few Republicans.

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

On Saturday afternoon, Trump’s Administration filed a notice of appeal. But on Sunday a federal appeals court said “nope” and that Judge Robart’s ruling stands. Both sides have until close of business today to file briefs before the 9th Circuit makes a final ruling.

The states of Minnesota and Washington, which filed the lawsuit in the first place, are now joined by close to 100 tech companies that are arguing that the ban would harm their businesses. Apple, Google, Airbnb, eBay, Lyft, Microsoft, Uber, and many others filed briefs last night, claiming that a travel ban would make it difficult to hire employees and that “immigrants make many of the Nation’s greatest discoveries.” The case continues today and the end of this long road is likely the Supreme Court.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Monday and we have a new POTUS. It was a long weekend, and a lot of us would love a sunny vacation right now. But for Mark Zuckerberg, that might be a little more complicated than he expected. Check out our piece on why he is suing hundreds of Hawaiians. Have a great, rant-y day!

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Kellyanne Conway: Sean Spicer Used “Alternative Facts”

On his first full day in office, President Donald Trump said during a speech at the CIA headquarters that the media has published false information and “invented” a feud between his team and the intelligence community. That narrative is debatable–Trump himself criticized the CIA and other intelligence agencies just a few weeks ago, calling them “Nazis.”

Trump also claimed that about 1.5 million people attended his inauguration, though aerial photos clearly show it was way less crowded than Obama’s inauguration in 2009. Sean Spicer went so far as to say that Trump’s inauguration had the largest audience ever, “both in person and around the globe.” That claim has also been debunked. But when NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Kellyanne Conway on Sunday why the new president and his press secretary made false statements on their first day in office, her answer was even more baffling. “Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts,” she said.

“Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods,” Chuck Todd tells Pres. Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway this morning. WATCH: pic.twitter.com/Ao005dQ13r

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) January 22, 2017

Todd pointed out that “alternative facts” really means claims that are “not true.” But that didn’t stop the people of Twitter from coming up with some of their own “alternative facts.”

Me: Hi, SAT Board, I need you to change my test scores. I didn’t get the questions wrong. I provided #alternativefacts @MeetThePress

— Jenni Tilton-Flood (@jtiltonflood) January 22, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s inauguration week, but there are a lot of other things going on too. For example, the Air Force just relaxed its rules for recruits who have used marijuana before enlisting. Read more about that here. And that’s good news! Now check out some rant-worthy news. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Just Days Before his Inauguration, Trump is Sued for Defamation

With only a few days left until his inauguration, President-elect Donald Trump is facing a lawsuit by a former contestant on his TV show “The Apprentice.” Last year, Summer Zervos, who participated in the reality show in 2006, accused Trump of aggressively kissing and groping her when he met with her a year after she was on the show. In response, Trump claimed that she was a liar and made the whole thing up. Zervos is now saying that Trump defamed her by doing so. She says that she will retract her lawsuit and not seek any monetary damages if Trump takes his statement back and admits that what she said was true.

BREAKING: Former ‘Apprentice’ candidate Summer Zervos files defamation lawsuit against Donald Trumphttps://t.co/S3vTcKPB9P pic.twitter.com/XUHXCFiEDR

— Globalnews.ca (@globalnews) January 17, 2017

Gloria Allred took the case and is also representing three other women who have accused Trump of similar behavior. “Enough is enough,” Allred said. “Truth matters. Women matter, those who allege they were victims of sexual misconduct or sexual assault by Mr. Trump matter.” Trump has already settled several lawsuits to avoid legal issues while in office, but those settlements have not required him to admit wrongdoing. Given that this lawsuit could be resolved without money, it will be interesting to see what his response will be.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Finally! The East Coast is getting some snow and that holiday feeling is everywhere. As the year comes to a close, many of us are reflecting on what we learned and what happened this year. So, what did 2016 meme to you? Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

It’s All About Russia Right Now

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claimed that Donald Trump and the GOP have known that Russia was trying to interfere in the election for a while–possibly even before October. Earnest suggested that Trump’s repeated invitations for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails meant that he knew what was going on. “It was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack-and-leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties and to the two campaigns,” Earnest said.

Presidential Spokesman Josh Earnest: Trump may have known Russia behind hacking before Election Day https://t.co/rINAuUMEGp

— Peter Eisner (@PeterEisner) December 14, 2016

It is now believed that Vladimir Putin himself was directly involved in the data breach because of a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. But Putin may have also wanted to undermine America’s rep as a global leader. And according to investigators, he’s likely a fan of the way that Trump views Russia.

After all these revelations, Trump, instead of demanding an investigation into why a foreign nation would interfere with our election, questioned why the White House only mentioned this issue after Hillary Clinton lost.

If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Though he has toyed with a number of candidates with various levels of government experience in choosing the next secretary of state, in the end President-elect Donald Trump selected a man with a résumé more in line with his own. His pick is Rex Tillerson, the CEO of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil. Tillerson, 64, has no experience in public service–he is the model “outsider” that Trump has sought out in assembling his cabinet–and has spent his entire four-decade career with Exxon.

As the nation’s top diplomat, Tillerson will have to reconcile the deep business ties he has formed with Russia. Under Tillerson’s leadership, Exxon agreed to billions of dollars worth of contracts with Rosneft, a Kremlin-backed oil outfit, to drill in Siberia and the Black Sea. Those deals were frozen, however, when the U.S. slapped heavy sanctions on Russia, after it intervened in Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.

Last weekend, as Tillerson emerged as the leading candidate, a number of Republican senators expressed alarm over his extensive business dealings with Russia, whose hacks into the email servers of U.S. political operatives were done with the intention of aiding Trump, the CIA said. On Saturday, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), said Tillerson’s relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a matter of concern to me.” He added: “Vladimir Putin is a thug, bully and a murderer, and anybody else who describes him as anything else is lying.”

McCain wasn’t the only senator to question Tillerson’s relationship to Russia, and it seems the business magnate is in for a tense Senate confirmation hearing. On Sunday, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), tweeted: “Being a ‘friend of Vladimir’ is not an attribute I am hoping for from a #SecretaryOfState.” Putin awarded Tillerson with the Order of Friendship in 2013. While that is not necessarily a rare honor, or even one that indicates an unusual personal relationship with Russia or Putin, it’s Tillerson’s business dealings, specifically the ones that hinge on U.S. sanctions being lifted, that most trouble his skeptics.

But for Trump, those same dealings seem to have attracted him to Tillerson. “He’s much more than a business executive; he’s a world-class player,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday. “He knows many of the players, and he knows them well. He does massive deals in Russia — for the company, not for himself.” Tweeting on Tuesday morning, Trump doubled down on his support of Tillerson’s massive network of business deals, which span six continents and 50 countries, including the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan and Qatar:

The thing I like best about Rex Tillerson is that he has vast experience at dealing successfully with all types of foreign governments.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2016

Tillerson, a native of Wichita Falls, Texas, has been at the fore of Exxon’s shift from being a company that denied climate change to one that cleaned up its practices and even advocated for a carbon tax. He also helped the company reduce its emissions. And in 2012, Tillerson played a key role in allowing openly gay children to join the Boy Scouts, an organization which he was a member of and remains actively engaged in.

Though he beat out Mitt Romney, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) for the position, Tillerson will likely face tough questioning from the Senate, and will have trouble getting confirmed if three or more Republicans vote to block him. Aside from Rubio and McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also expressed concern about Trump’s appointee: “I expect the US-Russian relationship to be front and center in his confirmation process,” he said, adding that his Order of Friendship from Putin is “unnerving.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is Rex Tillerson? appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, Monday! If you’re on the East Coast like me it’s foggy and bleak out there, and the news about the Russian hackers is enough to make anyone want to crawl back into bed. But our last story for today is hopefully enough to cheer you up, so read on and have a good start to your week! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Doesn’t Believe that Russia Tried to Influence the Election

On Saturday, the CIA concluded that many Democrats’ suspicions were true: Russian authorities did attempt to influence the U.S. election. More specifically, they wanted to help Donald Trump win. Several U.S. intelligence agencies found that the Kremlin provided Wikileaks with thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton and the DNC. And when Wikileaks published them online, the negative media attention helped propel Trump to victory.

Don’t let Trumps twitter rants distract from the real news: THE RUSSIANS INTERVENED IN OUR ELECTION TO HELP TRUMP WIN. #russianhacking

— Laura Benanti (@LauraBenanti) December 10, 2016

But on Sunday, Trump said that he simply didn’t believe the news and that the Democrats are just angry because he won. His team also called his victory “one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history,” when in fact, it was one of the closest elections ever.

Also on Sunday, Trump said he would not be getting the daily intelligence briefing that most presidents receive just, you know, to keep track of the world. But Trump doesn’t love the briefings–in fact, he thinks they’re too repetitive. “You know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years,” he said.

Even some Republicans are shocked:

So wait…the CIA says Russia messed with our election to help Trump win and Trump attacks…the CIA?

Not Russia? He goes after the CIA?

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) December 10, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Obama’s European Trip is all About Trump

This morning, Obama arrived in Europe for his last visit as president. And he has a tough job while he’s there—-to try to convince European politicians that Trump isn’t as bad as everyone thinks. Many leaders in European countries are very worried about what could happen during a Trump presidency, especially since nationalist movements using similar language have gained ground in a few different countries.

We warmly welcome in Athens @POTUS Barack Obama. A meeting of great importance for our country and Europe. pic.twitter.com/M0pe0sPr3O

— Alexis Tsipras (@tsipras_eu) November 15, 2016

Obama is starting off in Greece today and will head to Germany tomorrow. “I believe that European integration is one of the greatest political and economic achievements of modern times, with benefits for EU members, the United States and the entire world,” he said to a Greek newspaper.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader and retiring Democratic Senator of Nevada, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey calling on him and his team to release to the public the “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government” that Comey allegedly possesses. But does the FBI possess any “explosive information” regarding Trump’s ties to Russia? And what about those recent claims by a former spy that Trump’s allies maintain a backchannel to a Russian bank?

First, a bit of background:

Comey and the FBI find themselves at the center of an extraordinarily divisive presidential campaign that cannot end soon enough for all parties (and voters). It started with an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, which concluded without an indictment. Last week, however, Comey’s team stumbled upon some emails that were pertinent to the Clinton case while reviewing Anthony Weiner’s sexting case. Comey sent a letter to Congress alerting them of the new development, which in turn sparked claims of Comey’s anti-Clinton bias by Democrats and a new round of Clinton attacks by Republicans.

A story published Monday by the website Mother Jones featured a “former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence” as a source. He said that “in recent months he provided the [FBI] with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump.”

The FBI has in fact investigated Trump’s ties to any Kremlin entities, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader who Trump has profusely praised. They also investigated, and continue to investigate, the hacks involving Democratic emails released by Wikileaks in recent weeks. FBI officials, speaking under the condition of anonymity, told The New York Times on Monday that “no clear link” has been discovered between Trump and Russia, and that the hacks are intent on undermining American democracy rather than electing Trump, as many Democrats have implied.

“It isn’t about the election,” a senior official told the Times. “It’s about a threat to democracy.” And then there are the accusations by the former spy who spoke with Mother Jones that Trump and his team maintains a back channel to Russia’s Alfa Bank, which the Clinton campaign–which seesawed between attacking Comey for his renewed probe into her emails and remaining silent on the matter–called “the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.”

The FBI investigated the Trump-Alfa Bank connection, and found “there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.” Trump’s Press Secretary Hope Hicks responded to the allegations regarding the server: “First of all, it’s not a secret server. The email server, set up for marketing purposes and operated by a third-party, has not been used since 2010,” she said. “The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.”

Alfa Bank, the largest private commercial bank in Russia, responded to the claims as well. A spokesman for the bank said rumors that the bank is involved in a shadowy connection with Trump or his campaign is  “patently false.” He said the activity between the two servers were “caused by a spam attack.” He added: “Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr Trump or his entities.” 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Credible are the Claims That Trump Has Deep Ties with Russia? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Female Officer Investigating Derrick Rose Rape Case Found Dead

LAPD detective Nadine Hernandez, who was part of the team investigating the rape allegations against NBA star Derrick Rose, died yesterday. Authorities in Los Angeles say she was found with a single gunshot wound to her chest, in an apparent suicide.

Breaking: After the judge denied Derrick Rose’s mistrial motion, the LAPD detective on the case is found, dead pic.twitter.com/qpCUA5Yjpt

— Spark Sports (@Spark_Sports_) October 12, 2016

Last year, Rose’s ex-girlfriend accused him of gang raping her with two friends, and the trial started last week. The timing seems peculiar and had many people speculating.

This Derrick Rose case is turning into an SVU episode

— Iesha ✨ (@ieshaax3) October 12, 2016

But authorities say there are no signs that Hernandez’s work on the Rose case had anything to do with her death.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Maskirovka is Russian for “something masked,” and it’s also the name of the number one strategy for psychological warfare used by Russia. Recently workers constructed a new piece in the maskirovka collection in a field outside of Moscow–an inflatable fighter jet that looks completely genuine from as close as 300 yards. According to Maria A. Oparina, the director of the company that produces the inflatable decoys, the demand has been growing quickly during the past year. Exactly how many they make is classified, but 80 people are employed full-time and most of them work making inflatable planes or weapons. These decoys are made to confuse and distract enemies, who have to spend valuable time figuring out whether the threat is real or not.

“Nobody ever wins honestly.” On Russia’s inflatable tanks, jets and missile launchers: https://t.co/Aovfj7JxFH pic.twitter.com/Is1VJIJ1k5

— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 12, 2016

The relationship between Russia and the U.S. has deteriorated fast over the past couple of months with the failed ceasefire with Syria, accusations that Russian hackers have tried affecting the election by hacking voter databases, the release of Hillary Clinton emails from Wikileaks, and a cancelled visit from Putin to France.

And on Wednesday, Russian officials said they received an order from Putin to fly home any family members living abroad. They were told to take their kids out of foreign schools immediately, according to local media. This move has people discussing if we’re on the brink of another global war. “This is all part of the package of measures to prepare elites to some ‘big war,’” said political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky.

First Putin Orders Nation Wide Civil Defense Exercise & Now this. What’s Putin Planning & Preparing? https://t.co/UDJEY0M4a1 via @MailOnline

— Bharatavarsha (@T_deserteagle) October 12, 2016

Last month Russia was accused of attacking a humanitarian convoy in Syria, but denied it and blamed terrorists. “Just when we think it cannot get any worse, the power of depravity sinks lower,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said about the attack. Russia’s denial did not seem very genuine as it, after blaming terrorists, blamed the U.S. and then said the convoy must have caught on fire by itself.

According to Major General Alexander Vladimirov, an authority on maskirovka, the practice is as old as time. We have had to disguise ourselves when hunting ever since the Stone Age. “All human history can be portrayed as the history of deception,” he said. And in Russia, it is common that maps are inaccurate, in case they end up in the hands of a spy. But is that really the same thing as sending fake convoys to take over a territory by scaring opponents off?

Greenwald: In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots #Newsweek #KurtEichenwaldhttps://t.co/xfv8YqyauU

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 11, 2016

One of the most recent occasions when Russia used this tactic was in Crimea two years ago, when masked soldiers were sent there in military vehicles to “volunteer” and do “humanitarian” work. Later it was revealed that most of the trucks were empty. When asked about it on TV, President Vladimir Putin denied that the soldiers were Russian and said that the men could have bought fake uniforms in any ordinary store. But five weeks later when the Russian annexation of Crimea was a fact he admitted that they had indeed been Russian forces.

The concept of maskirovka is to keep the enemy guessing and wondering, and also to include an element of surprise. Examples of Russia’s use of it are easy to find: when soldiers looking like tourists sailed to Syria in 1983 to aid the country in the Lebanese civil war, when a big group of young men flew on a normal Aeroflot flight to Prague but then seized the airport, or when Russia crashed drones over Georgia on purpose in 2008, pretending they were poorly built, until one of them exploded when Georgian officers tried to remove them.

The latest moves by the Kremlin has everyone wondering what is going on and what plans are in the making.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Russia Uses Inflatable Airplanes for Psychological Warfare appeared first on Law Street.

Comments from diplomats on Thursday, as well as developments on the ground in Aleppo, Syria signal an increasing divide between the U.S. and Russia, just one week after a ceasefire brokered by the two powers fell through. Responding to remarks made by State Department spokesman John Kirby on Wednesday, a Russian diplomat and military general echoed suspicions that the U.S. is supporting an “international terrorist alliance.” Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. is “on the verge of suspending the discussion” of cooperation with Russia in Syria.

Recent developments in Aleppo, which is in a bloody tug-of-war between rebels and the government, are bleak as well: in its intensifying campaign to retake rebel-held areas in the city’s eastern sphere, government airstrikes have killed hundreds over the past week, and took out two major hospitals on Wednesday. Access to medical supplies–and food–is all but blocked, and the city has only 30 doctors left.

The relationship between Moscow and Washington is as bad as it has been since Russia joined the fight, in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, nearly one year ago. On Wednesday, Kirby said if U.S. and Russia stop cooperating in Syria, extremist groups will carry out “attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags.”

This, two Kremlin representatives said, proved the U.S. supports “terrorists.”

“We can’t assess those statements as anything else but a call, a directive for action,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. A spokesman of Russia’s Defense Ministry said Kirby’s comments were “the most frank confession by the U.S. side so far that the whole ‘opposition’ ostensibly fighting a ‘civil war’ in Syria is a U.S.-controlled international terrorist alliance.”

Because of the dwindling possibility of a cooperative strategy with Russia in combating the Islamic State in Syria, an enemy to all sides, U.S. officials are considering alternative responses to Assad’s barrage in Aleppo. Military options are on the table, a U.S. official privy to the discussions told Reuters.

But even with the frayed relationship between the U.S. and Russia, a spokesman of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said the Kremlin is still open to co-operate with the U.S. He also blamed the U.S. for the moderate rebel groups who failed to comply with the ceasefire by distancing themselves from jihadist groups.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As the Battle for Aleppo Rages, Trust Between U.S. and Russia Reaches New Low appeared first on Law Street.

At the few remaining hospitals in Aleppo, Syria on Tuesday, men in pink gowns and nearly naked children gasped into oxygen masks, their lungs desperate for air, eyes wide with confusion. This ghastly scene followed what aid groups and witnesses say was a chemical attack by the Syrian government in the rebel-held eastern half of the city.

While reports of the attack could not be independently verified by media outlets, a handful of aid groups and hospital workers in Aleppo said helicopters flew over Sukkari, an eastern suburb, and dropped barrels of chlorine. Upwards of 100 people–including dozens of children–were hospitalized for treatment. There have been two reported deaths, and though most of the victims were discharged after a few hours, at least ten remain in intensive care.

This represents the third instance in which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dropped chlorine gas bombs on his own people. The previous two came in 2014 and 2015, a recent UN investigation concluded. All three incidents occurred after a U.S.-led 2013 deal that supposedly stripped the Syrian regime of its chemical arsenal. Chlorine was not included in the deal, however, because it is considered a dual-use chemical, as it has applications other than chemical weaponry.

The attack came while leaders of the various Syrian opposition groups met in London to discuss a political end to the five-year civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. The UN report, published in late August, also concluded that the Islamic State used chemical weapons–sulphur mustard gas–in Syria.

More than 120 people, including 10 women and 37 children, were sickened in a chlorine gas attack in Aleppo, Syria. pic.twitter.com/qgFaOBD1fl

— New York Times Video (@nytvideo) September 7, 2016

“There are more actors today in Syria with the availability of the substances and the ability to mix them and use them, if they so choose, as chemical weapons; and this is something very worrying,” said Virginia Gamba, head of the three-member UN Joint Investigative Mechanism that confirmed chemical weapons use in Syria.

First used on battlefields during World War I, chlorine can lead to shortness of breath, chest tightness, coughing, skin, and eye irritation. In extremely high doses, chlorine can be fatal. The site of Assad’s latest chemical airdrop, Aleppo, has been torn apart in recent months, its citizens trapped between rebel and government-held areas. International aid groups are calling for humanitarian corridors for people to flee the city safely.

Meanwhile, while meeting in Hangzhou, China for the G-20 summit, President Obama and Vladimir Putin of Russia–a key ally of Assad–failed to reach a cease-fire agreement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Syrian Regime Hits Aleppo with Chlorine Bombs; Dozens Hospitalized appeared first on Law Street.

With 1 million confirmed cases, Russia is experiencing an HIV/AIDS epidemic, and it seems like no one knows how to handle it. The response from the Russian government is conservative and prejudiced, and puts blame on the affected people for lacking morals.

Rising Epidemic

According to a UNAIDS report from July 2016, Eastern Europe and central Asia make up the only region in the world where AIDS continues to rise rapidly. More than 80 percent of new cases in that region were in Russia. Even though the majority of cases affect key populations, such as drug users and gay men, it also spreads quickly through the rest of the population, especially heterosexual women, because condoms are somewhat difficult to come by.

“Condoms have practically been banned because they lead to people having sex, and sex is risky,” said Dr. Orlova-Morozova, head of Moscow Regional Hospital’s AIDS department, to ABC. The hospital currently has 38,000 patients with HIV or AIDS. He said that there is not enough money for medicine, so they have to choose who to treat and turn away many.

Rejected by Society

This view on HIV/AIDS is so conservative and biased it is hard to believe. A poster on the hospital wall where Dr. Orlova-Morozova works says: “The majority of cases of HIV/AIDS are due to the weaknesses and improper behavior on behalf of the infected person.” People who are HIV positive often lose their jobs, their friends, and are pushed out from society.

Under President Putin’s rule, life in Russia has shifted back toward a moral standard that was commonplace during the Soviet Union era, and religious leaders have a lot of influence. The approach commonly adopted is ‘Family, fidelity and faith.’ According to LaSky, an outreach organization for gay men in Moscow, there was a “scientific” paper at a recent AIDS convention that was called “How prayer can cure HIV.”

The government has banned sex education in schools and it is punishable by law to even mention sex or AIDS to children under 15 years of age if you’re a teacher. It is estimated that over half of the HIV cases in Russia are spread via intravenous drug use. But despite the fact that methadone treatment is the most successful way of treating drug addiction according to WHO, methadone therapy has been illegal since Putin came to power. There is also no way to hand out sterile needles.

Distrust of the Government

The hospitals can’t even help everyone they would want to–people with foreign citizenships living in Russia are not entitled to free medical help. A man that ABC talked to, called Sasha, was born in Uzbekistan but lived in Moscow when he discovered he was HIV positive. To get free care he would have to go back home, where homosexuality is illegal. He can’t even work to make his own money for treatment, since he would have to prove he’s HIV-free to get a job in Russia.

Social worker Maksim Malyshev thinks it is the government’s attitude that is the problem.

In my view, the problem of HIV infection in Russia exists because the people whose job it is to find ways of preventing HIV in Russia are doing a crap job. They are living in some kind of fantasy world of their own, and they have no desire to listen about science-based methods and to the specialists who are working on this problem.

Evgeny Sorokoumov, project manager for LaSky, agrees, saying, “Putin wants to show the world that our country is strong. No one needs us. We can just die.”

The UNAIDS report concludes by stating that changes in behavior, comprehensive sex education, and distribution of condoms are important measures to prevent any further spread of HIV. But in Russia’s case, it seems to be the will that is lacking, not just the way.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Faces AIDS Epidemic, Government Blames Moral Lapses appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Burning Man Bourgeoisie Raided By Revolutionaries

Burning Man, an annual music festival focused on peace and love has been certifiably ruined after some Burners claim “hooligans” sabotaged their experience by cutting power lines and raiding their camp of luxury goods.

Traditionally, Burning Man, founded in 1986, was intended to be in the spirit of “radical self-reliance,” living off the land, and finding harmony with strangers. However, the event has become overrun with the spawn of the megarich who have come to enjoy Burning Man as some sort of elitist, exclusive desert resort. They glamp their way in and out of the place.

Revolution against ‘rich parasites’ at utopian Burning Man Festival as ‘hooligans’ attack luxury camp https://t.co/wAiuRCKt6n

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 4, 2016

A lot of traditionalists believe those campers who were attacked deserved it because they are erasing the core of what Burning Man was supposed to be.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

First it was Dennis Rodman who won North Korea’s admiration and now it’s a U.S. presidential candidate. Republican candidate (and presumptive nominee) Donald Trump has a strange list of endorsements, from a KKK leader, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and now a North Korean state-run media outlet.

A DPRK Today editorial published Tuesday complimented the businessman, calling him a “wise politician” and a “far-sighted candidate” who will be instrumental in reuniting the Korean Peninsula.

Trump, “the Dennis Rodman of American politics,” gets a critical North Korean endorsement. Should I laugh or cry? https://t.co/6d1RzNI4gR

— Sean Watson (@seanwatson24) June 1, 2016

The editorial referenced foreign policy proposals Trump discussed during a speech regarding U.S. troops in South Korea. Trump floated the idea of withdrawing troops from Japan and South Korea if those nations do not provide more compensation to pay for the costs of housing and feeding U.S. troops.

The North Korean editorial welcomed this idea. “Yes do it, now … Who knew that the slogan ‘Yankee Go Home’ would come true like this?” said Han Yong Mook, who described himself as a Chinese North Korean scholar, in the editorial. “The day when the ‘Yankee Go Home’ slogan becomes real would be the day of Korean Unification.”

#Trump2016 endorsements growing!
• GOP Base
• KKK & white supremacist orgs
• Putin
• N. Korean dictatorhttps://t.co/9yvvz7yDtG

— TheAverageBlackMan (@TheAvgBlackMan) June 1, 2016

The editorial also urged Americans not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Han discussed the idea of Seoul cutting off payments to the U.S. in order to urge troops to move out of the country. “The president that U.S. citizens must vote for is not that dull Hillary–who claimed to adapt the Iranian model to resolve nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula–but Trump, who spoke of holding direct conversation with North Korea,” Han said.

Some have seen the back and forth between the two as propaganda, and just a stunt to help Trump gain more traction.

“He’s the Dennis Rodman of American politics — quirky, flamboyant, risk-taking. At the moment he’s also an outsider,” John Feffer, director of Foreign Policy In Focus, told NK News. “But Pyongyang is hoping that either he’ll be elected (and follows through on his pledges) or that his pronouncements will change the political game in the United States and influence how the Democratic party and mainstream Republicans view Korean issues.”

In an interview with Reuters in May, Trump suggested that if elected president, he would be willing to negotiate directly with the North Korean dictator. However, the North Korean leader declined the invitation.

“It’s for utilization of the presidential election, that’s all. A kind of a propaganda or advertisement,”So Se Pyong, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, told Reuters. “This is useless, just a gesture for the presidential election.”

It is time we all start accepting the real possibility of Dennis Rodman as Trump’s Sec. of State https://t.co/ixpJGbkY5R

— Josh McDaniel (@jmcdanielnews) June 1, 2016

Maybe next we will be hearing from Bashar al-Assad or Fidel Castro for a Trump endorsement, because it really feels like anything can happen at this point.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Korean State Media Praises Trump: Who’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories included a list of the safest and most dangerous states in the U.S., a look at Russia’s diplomatic interactions in the Middle East, and some of the best Twitter reactions to Joe Biden’s announcement that he won’t be seeking the presidency. ICYMI, check out the best stories from Law Street last week below:

1. Slideshow: America’s Safest and Most Dangerous States 2016

Alaska is the most dangerous state in the nation for the second year in a row according to the latest violent crime data from the FBI. Despite a slight decrease in its violent crime rate from 640 per 100,000 in 2013 to 635.8 per 100,000 in 2014–the most recent year for which the FBI provides data–Alaska maintains its number one spot, followed by Nevada (635.6) and Tennessee (608.4). Law Street’s third annual slideshow of the Safest and Most Dangerous States ranks all 50 states from most dangerous to safest and details the violent crime statistics for every city in the country with a reported population of 25,000 or more. Check out the slideshow here

2. Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East?

In September, Russian forces began a controversial air campaign in Syria in an attempt to increase the nation’s involvement in the Middle East. While some leaders have welcomed Russia’s increased involvement, many in the west have been skeptical of President Vladimir Putin’s motives. As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position weakens amid an ongoing civil war, Russia has stepped in and with Iran’s help is ensuring he stays in power.

The situation in Syria is becoming increasingly complex as the Islamic State seeks to expand its control in the midst of a civil war between Syrian rebels and the Assad regime. But Russia’s intervention in Syria is only part of an emerging trend for the country, as it seeks to exert its influence outside of its borders. Recent developments have caused many to ask why Russia is intervening and what it hopes to gain. Read on to see what Russia has been doing to grow its influence and expand its role in the Middle East. Read the full story here.

3. Top Twitter Reactions to Joe Biden’s Announcement He Won’t Be Running for President

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In September, Russian forces began a controversial air campaign in Syria in an attempt to increase the nation’s involvement in the Middle East. While some leaders have welcomed Russia’s increased involvement, many in the west have been skeptical of President Vladimir Putin’s motives. As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position weakens amid an ongoing civil war, Russia has stepped in and with Iran’s help is ensuring he stays in power.

The situation in Syria is becoming increasingly complex as the Islamic State seeks to expand its control in the midst of a civil war between Syrian rebels and the Assad regime. But Russia’s intervention in Syria is only part of an emerging trend for the country, as it seeks to exert its influence outside of its borders. Recent developments have caused many to ask why Russia is intervening and what it hopes to gain. Read on to see what Russia has been doing to grow its influence and expand its role in the Middle East.

History in the Middle East

Russia’s intervention in Syria is not the first time that the country has been involved in the Middle East. In fact, the country has a long history in the region. The Soviet Union was a major supplier of the Arab forces who fought against Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Yom Kuppur War. The USSR later invaded Afghanistan in 1979, occupying the country for nearly 10 years. In 1990, it lost a key ally in the region when what was then South Yemen merged with the North. Growing U.S. influence in the region further hurt the Soviet Union’s control of the region, particularly after the success of the Operation Desert Storm, a significant victory for the United States over Saddam. Shortly afterward, the Soviet Union collapsed and its influence in the Middle East largely receded.

The following video depicts Russia’s difficulties in Afghanistan:

Russia’s Return

Russia worked its way back into the region as an alternative arms supplier to the United States. Many Middle East countries saw Russia’s more lenient human rights perspective as an appealing reason to do business with the country. This shift allowed Russia to attract many Middle Eastern countries away from their traditional supplier, the United States, which was quick to abandon authoritarian leaders during the Arab Spring.

While the Arab Spring helped Russia increase its arms exports, the region was already an important market for Russia. Between 2006 and 2009 Russia’s largest arms buyers were in the Middle East. While the Arab Spring increased demand for weapons in the Middle East, Russia did not immediately expand its sales to new countries. However, its traditional customers did significantly increase their demand–most notably Syria, which increased its purchases by 600 percent.

The breakthrough for Russia came later in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, as countries who were normally loyal customers of the United States began looking to Russia. This movement started with Egypt, whose relationship with the United States soured during the Arab Spring and the subsequent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammad Morsi. Seeing an opportunity, Russia secured a deal with Egypt. A potential deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia, arguably the United States’ closest ally in the region outside of Israel, highlights Russia’s ambitions for its weapons industry. However, the Russians also supply Iran, Saudi Arabia’s most significant regional enemy.

The video below details Russia’s displacement of the US in formerly pro-Washington areas:

Current Operations

In addition to expanding its weapons exports in the Middle East, Russia recently started conducting military strikes in Syria, making the ongoing civil war even more complicated. At the end of September, Russia began a controversial airstrike campaign, which largely helped the Assad regime by targeting Syrian rebels. These actions have had an impact on the relationship between Russia and several key nations within the region as well as observers in the west.

The accompanying video provides an in-depth look at Russia’s actions in the Middle East:

Turkey

Russia’s relationship with Turkey is potentially its most complicated. Turkey relies on Russia, as well as Iran, for energy and trade, which amounted to $31 billion in 2014. The leaders of the two nations are often compared to each other, with President Erdogan reminding many of Putin based on his leadership style and his motivations to remain in office.

However, the relationship has been strained recently with Russia’s bombings of anti-Assad rebels and its repeated violations of Turkish airspace. There is also a historical legacy hanging over the two countries dating back to the time of the Ottoman Empire, which repeatedly fought the Russian Empire.

Syria

Even before Russia’s recent intervention in Syria, the two were close allies. This relationship has existed for years based, initially, on military contracts that Russian arms dealers had with Syrian buyers. Their relationship was strengthened back in 2010 after Russia’s U.N. Security Council veto–Russia, along with North Korea and China, blocked a resolution to force President Assad to step down. Since then, Russia has been Syria’s strongest backer outside of the Middle East. Russia also successfully negotiated the transfer and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons in 2014, diffusing a particularly controversial issue with the United States.

All of this serves as the backdrop for Russia’s recent incursion into Syria and its civil war. It started with Russia sending advisors and fighter planes but has continued to include ground troops, artillery, and stationing ships off Syria’s coast. Russia’s intervention in Syria has been particularly controversial because of the targets that the country has chosen to attack. While Russia initiated its air campaign with the intention to focus on ISIS and fight terrorism, many of the strikes have benefited the Assad regime.

Iran

Russia’s relationship with Iran is also particularly complex. Recently, Russia played an important role in securing the deal to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon program. But after the deal, Russia quickly unfroze an $800 million deal–previously suspended during negotiations–to give Iran a missile defense system. Additionally, it approved an oil-for-goods deal, which allows Russia to buy up large amounts of Iranian oil in exchange for food and other goods. But oil is also an area that could create conflict between the two countries. Iran’s now-unsanctioned supply of oil, when dumped on the market, could lower the international price of crude oil even further. Lately, the falling price of oil has hurt Russia’s economy, particularly in light of sanctions after its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

Since the Iranian Revolution, the two nations have been joined by their desire to keep the West at a distance. Even as sanctions are lifted on Iran, this relationship is likely to endure, allowing Iran to continue its anti-western rhetoric. Both nations are also united in strong support for the Assad regime in Syria. However, this shared sentiment flies in the face of more distant history–one that involved Russia either trying to acquire Iranian territory or intervening in the country’s affairs, as it did in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. More recently, Russia continues to arm Iran’s regional enemies and has gone along with American sanctions on the nation.

Iraq

Along with its collaboration with Iran and the Assad Regime in Syria, Russia also recently agreed to share information with Iraq in its fight against ISIS. Doing so has put the United States in a challenging situation, as it has been sceptical of Russia’s increased presence in the region, but has also advocated for international action against the Islamic State.

Russia also has a history of supporting Iraq, most notably in the form of funding during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the American invasion in 2003, it has also worked to normalize relations with the new government, especially in order to re-secure lucrative energy contracts.

Conclusion

So why is Russia wading back into the Middle East, especially given its history in the region? For most, an interest in the Middle East generally relates to the wealth of oil found there, but for Russia it is more complicated than oil alone. While Russia has worked to get energy contracts there, it is also one of the leading producers of crude oil and is widely regarded as having the largest proven reserves of natural gas. Traditionally, the Middle East had been a major market for Russian weapons, but as the politics of the region changed the United States took hold of the market. But in the wake of the Arab Spring, Russia has been working to expand its weapons exports, while also strengthening ties to its regional allies, like Syria and Iran. The revenue from arms sales is even more important considering the growth of sanctions from the west and the falling price of oil, a crucial source of revenue for Russia.

While a more involved position in the region may help Russia economically, either through energy or weapons, that does still not seem to be the major impetus for its invasion in Syria. Ultimately, Russia’s growing role in the Middle East may simply be a product of its efforts to grow its influence around the world. Russia seems to be positioning itself to be an effective alternative to the United States and its recent actions best reflect that goal. This move, while viewed critically in the West, has also been welcomed by leaders in the Middle East as a counterweight to American influence. Russia’s recent involvement in Syria, combined with its important role in the Iran nuclear deal, lends it even more regional significance.

Resources

The National Post: Why is Russia further expected to increase its presence in Syria?

Washington Post: Russia’s move into Syria upends U.S. plans

BBC: Russia in the Middle East Return of the Bear

Al-Monitor: New Russian arms deals could shakeup Mideast market

New York Times: Russia’s military actions in Syria cause rift with Turkey

New York Times: For Syria, Reliant on Russia for Weapons and Food, Old Bonds Run Deep

Wall Street Journal: Removal of Chemical Weapons from Syria is completed

CNN: NATO Secretary General questions Russia’s aim in Syria

The Washington Post: Russia-Iran relationship is a marriage of opportunity

The United States Institute of Peace: Iran and Russia

Financial Times: Iraq and Russia to collaborate in fight against ISIS

World Politics Review: Russia-Iraq Relations

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East? appeared first on Law Street.

Popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia has found itself a new enemy: the Russian government. Russian internet service providers were just ordered to block the site, another interesting move by a regime that is increasingly veering into the field of internet censorship.

Russia’s grudge against the online information hub was sparked by one article regarding a marijuana product called hashish, or in Russian, “charis.” Roscomnadzor​, the section of the Russian police that has jurisdiction over the internet and media, flagged this particular page on charis because it believed it contained enough information for a reader to learn how to produce the drug. Providing information about how to produce drugs is illegal in Russia; this law was solidified by a court ruling in June that specifically pertained to instructions for making charas.

Last week, Roscomnadzor put a statement out about Wikipedia that implied that not taking down the charas page could have serious consequences:

In the event that [Wikipedia] refuses to comply with the court‘s ruling, Roskomnadzor will block the webpage on Russian territory using the registry of illegal information. In this case, insofar as Wikipedia has decided to function on the basis of https, which doesn’t allow restricting access to individual pages on its site, the entire website would be blocked.

Essentially, Roskomnadzor doesn’t want to block all of Wikipedia, but the way that Wikipedia is set up basically makes it an all-or-nothing deal. Officials have stated that if Wikipedia just takes down that one page, the rest of the site won’t be affected. But the head of Wikipedia Russia, Stanislav Kozlovsky, isn’t going down without a fight. According to RT he said on Friday:

His company was aware of the situation and that its staff had assessed the situation and decided not to comply with the authorities’ demands. He claimed that the sources of the information on the banned page were legitimate and taken from open and reputable sources, such as the United Nations’ website, and added that Wikipedia was prepared for the website’s blockage in Russia.

Wikipedia did try to change the URL of the article, but Roskomnadzor still deemed that insufficient and the site is still under threat.

It’s no secret that there are high levels of internet censorship and government oversight in Russia, particularly under current President Vladimir Putin’s leadership. For example, any blogger or website that has 3,000 or more daily readers has to register with the government. Additionally, like posting about how to produce certain types of drugs, other resources are blocked by the Russian government. Most notoriously, Russia bans “homosexual propaganda” from being posted online–essentially any positive information about LGBT rights or individuals is prohibited. Banning Wikipedia is just the latest restrictive move, and it almost certainly won’t be the last.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wikipedia Banned in Russia: Internet Censorship Continues appeared first on Law Street.

Winston Churchill famously said that “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” While the quote may be well worn, it is still surprisingly appropriate when discussing Russia today. Just a few years ago, old Cold War rivals Russia and the United States seemed to finally bond over their shared struggles against terrorism and to be on the path to real cooperation. But then, Russia changed course. Instead of trying to ingratiate itself into the international community, Russia took some steps that can be labeled as aggressive. Aside from a long-brewing conflict with Chechnya, it fought a war against the Republic of Georgia and is now slowly devouring Ukrainian territory. Those moves left many wondering: why did Russia feel the need to make such a drastic change in its global political relations. Read on to learn about Russia’s origins, historical political relationships, and foreign policy.

Russian History

Rise and Imperial History

While the area today known as Russia had been populated by steppe nomads for thousands of years, eastern European Slavs moved into the area only about 3,500 years ago. The Vikings also sailed into modern day Russia and founded the city of Kiev in the late ninth century. Early Russians adopted many of the practices of the Byzantine Empire, including the Orthodox religion. Following the fall of Constantinople, Russian leaders declared Moscow as its successor. Russia’s leaders adopted the title of tsar, similar to that of Caesar.

Russia continued to grow, but this growth was nearly undone when the Mongols conquered Russia in the thirteenth century, burning Kiev and sacking Moscow along the way. The Mongols then held sway over Russia for the next 200 years until the end of the fifteenth century when Russian rulers finally were strong enough to throw off the Mongol yoke.

Following this emancipation, the new rulers of Russia–the Romanovs–continued expanding, reaching the shores of the Pacific in 1649. Russia also attempted to gain further footholds in Europe, mainly by acquiring seaports in the Baltic to the north and Mediterranean to the south. As it did so, Russia came into greater contact with Europe and participated in a number of wars, including the defeat of Napoleon. Contact with Europe also forced Russia to confront its many backward policies. In the early twentieth century, reactionaries inspired by communism began to gain traction. During World War I, the Romanov family was overthrown and the Soviet Union was established.

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was the successor to Romanov rule in Russia, but not without a fight. It was established after the victory of the Bolshevik Red Army in the Russian Civil War. Following their ascent to power, the Soviets enacted a series of purges and five-year plans that left the country weak and starving heading into WWII. The Soviets initially allied with the Nazis in exchange for several eastern European countries and a partition of Poland; however, the truce was broken in 1941, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the Soviets were able to withstand the attack, push back the Nazis, and establish themselves as one of two superpowers along with the United States after the war ended.

Following the war, the USSR and U.S. engaged in a protracted Cold War. Both sides competed against the other in arms and space races. While they never engaged directly in wars, several times during this period their proxies faced off against one another. Following the Cuban Missile crisis, cooler heads began to prevail, the rhetoric surrounding nuclear war was reduced, and several arms control treaties were signed. Beginning in the 1980s, the USSR started to liberalize as its economy and empire began to crumble. Finally, in 1991 the USSR dissolved into a number of independent countries with Russia as its leading member.

Post-USSR

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was in disarray. Struggling to deal with the shift from communism to free market capitalism, inflation soared. The Russian economy, under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, was barely able to avoid total collapse and reached the point of needing to import food to stave off starvation. Following the resignation of Yeltsin and the rise of Putin, the country began to stabilize and the course of foreign policy began to take its present shape. The following video gives a brief summary of modern Russian history.

Current Foreign Policy

Russia’s current foreign policy can be summed up in one word: aggressive. The reason for this shift toward conquest, oppression, and authoritarianism can be linked to two things. First is the desire of many Russians to return to the prestige of the Soviet Union. Second is the man leading that change and the nation itself, Vladimir Putin.  The video below looks at Russia’s current foreign policy.

Vladmir Putin

The man who holds responsibility for many of Russia’s decisions since the fall of the USSR is its longtime leader, President Vladimir Putin. Putin was born in Stalingrad during the height of the Soviet Union’s glory; however, he was coming of age professionally just as the empire was disintegrating.   Even after the USSR collapsed around him, Putin was determined to restore Russia to its status as a global power. Below is an excerpt from a speech Putin gave when he was a candidate for Prime Minister in 1999:

Russia has been a great power for centuries, and remains so. It has always had and still has legitimate zones of interest abroad in both the former Soviet lands and elsewhere. We should not drop our guard in this respect, neither should we allow our opinion to be ignored.

Since Putin was elected prime minister and subsequently president following Yeltsin’s resignation, he has done everything in his power to live up to these words. His first order of business was finally crushing the independent state of Chechnya. Chechnya, a small area in the southwest Caucasus region of Russia, had actually defeated the Russian army in the 1990s and formed a short-lived nation of its own.

After reestablishing Russia’s military strength, Putin also moved to curb the power of the oligarchs who became fabulously wealthy when they took control of state-owned industries following the fall of the USSR. He arrested and silenced critics, such as the fallen oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. This policy has only continued as Putin’s strangle-hold on power has intensified. Along with leading the country since his ascent in 2000 as either president or prime minister, he has also engaged in further military actions including dispatching soldiers to crush Georgian troops and annexing Crimea. Recently Russian troops have also been implicated in separatists’ movements in Eastern Ukraine as well. The video below discusses Putin’s life.

Foray into Ukraine

While outsiders may view Russia’s recent foreign expansion into Ukrainian affairs as aggressive, the majority of its citizens hold the opposite opinion for several reasons. First, to many Russians, Ukraine is part of their historical empire and thus it is only natural that it be restored to Russia.

The conflict in Ukraine started when Russian-backed Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was ousted following his unpopular decision to remain aligned with Russia instead of integrating with the European Union. In response, Russian troops invaded an area called Crimea, occupied the area, and Crimea eventually voted in a referendum to become part of Russia. After the annexation of Crimea, Russia has continued supporting ethnic Russian Separatists in Eastern Ukraine, where they are the majority. This has aroused great controversy because despite several ceasefires, Russia has continued to provide separatists with weapons and possibly soldiers.

Many Russians also believe the entire uprising in Ukraine is the result of Western actions. A common argument is that Russia has actually intervened to protect Russian speakers the same as many western countries do for other minority groups. However, the opinions of everyday Russians are heavily influenced by the Russian media, which is indiscriminately run by the state and thus broadcasts the state’s message.

Russia’s next course of action remains up in the air. Economically it would seem obvious that Russia has to stop being so aggressive and work toward appeasing its Western creditors and consumers. Economic sanctions placed on Russia following its actions in Ukraine are beginning to be felt. The main effects of the sanctions have been in denying Russia credit and access to markets. Nonetheless, as yet another breached ceasefire implies, Russia doesn’t seem content to return Eastern Ukraine–and certainly not Crimea–back to the original status quo.

Other Foreign Policy Concerns for Russia 

Along with sanctions, an even greater problem for Russia suggests it should curtail its recent aggressive maneuvering–falling oil prices. At the beginning of the year, the price of oil dropped below $50 a barrel. This is devastating to a Russian economy that is dependent on oil as its main export.

From an economic standpoint this has been disastrous to the ruble, which has dropped by 17.5 percent compared to the dollar in just the first two weeks of 2015. The economy in general is hurting, as well, as it’s projected to retract by three to five percent this year. What this means for people on the street is also troubling. Lower crude prices mean higher prices for other goods, in particular food stuffs.

All of these economic woes have negatively impacted another grand Putin endeavor, the Eurasian Union. As the name implies, it is an economic union made up of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan that is supposed to rival the EU. However, with falling prices in Russia and declining currencies at home, all of the members are already discovering the side effects of allying with a troubled Russia. The member countries are also wary of sovereignty violations by Russia as well, similar to the ones that have already occurred in Georgia, Crimea, and now Eastern Ukraine.

It seems unlikely that Russia will stop pursuing such an aggressive approach, however. As a de facto dictator, it is crucial for Putin that he keeps his people happy enough so that they will not revolt. In this regard Putin seems to have been very successful. In December 2014 he was elected Russia’s Man of the Year for the fifteenth time in a row. Putin’s popularity level in fact has hovered at around 70 percent his entire time in office, spiking even higher during the invasion of Georgia and following the annexation of Crimea. It actually seems to Putin’s benefit to maintain his strong appearance in the face of alleged western aggression. While people in the West may question the authenticity of these ratings, any western politician would love to have the same kind of popularity.

Putin has also increased spending on the military. Even with the economy in crisis, military spending actually increased for this year rising to $50 billion. The effect of this spending has been evident in increased navy patrols, air maneuvers, improved equipment and greater activity. It also included the purchase of dozens of new state-of-the-art nuclear weapons to replace obsolete models from the Cold War.

So, Russia’s policies are working, at least in part. While they have proven very costly to the average Russian and the economy overall, it has not dissuaded Putin from his desire to restore Russian prestige. Frankly it should not be surprising either, with his high approval ratings and the West’s resistance to anything more than soft power tactics. The real question going forward is how much further Russia will go down this path. Will it stop with Eastern Ukraine or go further and risk overstretching? At some point the West will likely draw a line in the sand and if Russia crosses it, what will be next for Russia and the international community it refuses to abide by?

Resources

BBC News: Vladimir Putin

History World: History of Russia

The New York Times: Why Russians Back Putin on Ukraine

Business Insider: How Do We Know Russia Economic Crisis Has Officially Arrived?

Foreign Policy: Putin’s Eurasian Dream is Over Before it Began

Atlantic: Putin’s Popularity Much Stronger Than the Ruble

PBS: What Has Been the Effect of Western Sanctions on Russia?

U.S. News & World Report: Putin Defends Actions in Ukraine.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia’s Aggressive Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of Russians marched in Moscow today mourning the death of Boris Nemtsov. The human rights activist and critic of President Vladimir Putin’s government was shot to death on the night of Friday, February 27 while walking in the capital city. It is widely believed by Putin’s opposition that the Kremlin is responsible for the act.

Boris #Nemtsov killing spurs thousands to march in Moscow, as motives debated – http://t.co/Lc7cAFUl7S pic.twitter.com/ab9t03LBib

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 1, 2015

Reports from the ground spoke to the solemn and quiet mood of the march. Participants broke into anti-Putin chants from time to time, but for the most part the “only sound was the steady thwack of police helicopters overhead or the hum of police boats patrolling the shores of the Moscow River.” Widescale marches for a variety of causes from climate change to social justice are a hallmark of American culture; many of us have likely experienced at least one in our lifetimes and can easily recall the vibrations of the crowd, the yelling and clapping, and general energy. The near-silence reported today in Moscow is difficult to imagine. Nemtsov was an outspoken critic of the Putin government, calling out its actions in Ukraine in a radio interview only hours before his death. Fellow opposition leader Ilya Yashin weighed in on Nemtsov’s killing and lent weight to the belief that it was ordered by the government:

Essentially it is an act of terror. It is a political murder aimed at frightening the population, or the part of the population that supported Nemtsov or did not agree with the government. I hope we won’t get scared, that we will continue what Boris was doing.

Secretary of State John Kerry took to the Sunday morning shows to lend the official American perspective on the killing. He asserted that the U.S. does not have any information what happened or who shot Netsov, but that he is pushing for a “thorough, transparent, real investigation, not just of who fired the shots, but who, if anyone, may have ordered or instructed [the shooting].” Members of Congress expressed their condolences and outrage over Nemtsov’s death, including Senator John McCain (R-A) via Twitter:

I am heartbroken by murder of my friend #BorisNemtsov – a voice for human rights in #Russia. My stmt: http://t.co/f1yHqEtWpj — John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) February 28, 2015

McCain also released a statement that directly addressed Nemtsov’s fight against the Kremlin and the need for continued pressure to decrease human rights abuses in Russia.

That Boris’ murder occurred in a secure part of the Russian capital raises legitimate questions about the circumstances of his killing and who was responsible. But regardless of who actually pulled the trigger, Boris is dead because of the environment of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs.

Whether or not a fair investigation will be conducted into Boris Nemtsov’s death, the fact remains that tensions in Russia are nearing a boiling point, and the international community can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the region.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russians March in Mourning of Opposition Leader’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been almost 25 years since the end of the Cold War, but still some vestiges remain. One of the most apparent is the relationship between the United States and Cuba. We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Cuba, located not even 100 miles off the coast of Florida, since 1961. That’s a long time–in the name of interesting context, for the entire duration of President Barack Obama’s life, we have not had normalized relations with Cuba. But that began to change yesterday. Those frozen relations are beginning to thaw. Diplomatic relations are being opened back up, prisoners are being released, and both travel and trade will be expanded, among other steps.

The conversation between Washington and Havana took 18 months, and eventually included both President Barack Obama, and President Raul Castro. Castro has officially been President of Cuba since 2008, although his brother, former President Fidel Castro basically handed over power in 2006. There was also a third major player–Pope Francis.

The Pope’s role does make sense. After all, he’s the first pope to hail from Latin America, and Cuba is heavily Catholic. Although exact statistics are difficult to obtain, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that a little over 50 percent of Cubans are Catholic. Since President Raul Castro took power, he’s been more flexible about allowing the Catholic Church to operate in Cuba than his brother. Pope Francis’s motives seem clear–he believed that improving relations between the United States and Cuba would help both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the two nations.

There’s a fourth player to consider though, although maybe calling him a non-player would be more accurate. This whole conversation sends an interesting message to Russian President Vladmir Putin, who most definitely wasn’t invited to the party. During the Cold War, Cuba was one of Russia’s bargaining chips. That’s pretty much what the entire Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Since the Cold War ended, Russia and Cuba have remained pretty close.

However, Russia isn’t nearly as good of a benefactor or friend as they used to be. They’ve had a rough time of it lately. Russia received quite a bit of international ire for its meddling in Ukraine; the U.S. Congress just passed new sanctions against Russia in response to the Ukraine situation. In addition, the Russian economy is very much struggling. The Russian unit of currency–the ruble–has fallen to a historic low. Putin has attempted to comfort his people, basically claiming that the Russian economy will bounce back within two years, which seems more like a bandaid than a promise. Putin also partly blamed the rough economic conditions in Russia on Western interference. Put simply, Putin is both in trouble, and pretty annoyed with the U.S. right now.

So, it becomes clear that the move to improve relations with Cuba can be seen as a diplomatic victory for the U.S.. Our relationship with Cuba will probably undermine Russia’s, and will be a symbol of Russia’s seemingly wavering international influence. Given that Russia and the U.S. haven’t been particularly friendly lately–the whole Ukraine debacle is a major reason why–it makes sense why the U.S. might want to take away some of Russia’s friends. It’s not going to majorly affect the Russian economy, or anything of the sort, but it looks really bad. It may take a lot of straws to break a camel’s back, but there’s no reason not to add straws when you can.

There were many reasons that the U.S. and Cuba took such a historic step this week–moral, diplomatic, and economic, just to name a few. Whatever reasons ended up being the most convincing, one thing is certain. It’s definitely a new era in American and Cuban relations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Left Out: United States and Cuba Thaw Relations appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s treatment of its gay citizens has long been very unforgiving. The country often systematically discriminates against LGBT citizens, has rashes of hate crimes, and has been decried by much of the international community for the human rights abuses against the LGBT community. Read on to learn about the recent history of LGBT abuse in Russia, current issues, and what the future may hold.

Recent History of LGBT Rights in Russia

Russia is extremely socially conservative when it comes to LGBT rights. The influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church plays a large part in this, as it consistently stands very strongly against homosexuality.

On June 30, 2013, the upper house of Russia’s parliament passed a bill banning propaganda involving non-traditional sexual activity from being given to minors. The law defines propaganda as:

distribution of information that is aimed at the formation among minors of nontraditional sexual attitudes, attractiveness of nontraditional sexual relations, misperceptions of the social equivalence of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or enforcing information about nontraditional sexual relations that evokes interest to such relations . . . .

The law sets the penalty for individuals distributing propaganda at 4,000-5,000 rubles ($120-$150). The penalty for groups, such as NGOs or corporations, is up to 1 million rubles ($30,000). There are also harsh penalties for non-Russian citizens who break the laws. Foreigners can be sentenced to 15 days in prison, and possibly even deported from the country.

Around the same time, a much broader blasphemy law came into effect in Russia, which allows for prison sentences of up to three years for those who attend protests that infringe on Russian citizens’ religious feelings.

Courtesy of AmnestyUK.

HBO just released a documentary entitled “Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia.” The striking documentary chronicles attacks against LGBT individuals by vigilante groups in Russia, and the consistent indifference of the authorities to the issue. The film depicts the nightmare that LGBT people in Russia face on a daily basis.

Case Study: 2014 Olympic Games

Russia’s approach toward gay rights became a strong topic of contention during last year’s Olympic Games. Yelena Kostychenko, an independent newspaper journalist, said that “this law has brought fascism to my country.” International human rights groups have indicted this law as “the worst human rights climate in the post-Soviet era.” The International Olympic Committee (IOC) heard from various sponsors expressing their concern over the new law. On SumOfUs.org there is a petition signed by 35,000 people asking for Coco-Cola to speak publicly against this law. Forbes even reported that “the safety and dignity of Russians, athletes and fans is in doubt as long as Russia’s anti-gay laws are intact.” In addition to the many activist groups, athletes, and general public against Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law, the “Open Games” has been created. Viktor Romanov’s gay-friendly Olympics in Moscow happened three days after the Sochi Winter Olympics for athletes of any orientation. Romanov has said he isn’t afraid and has taken this law and turned it into an outlet for acceptance.

Others believe that while this law may affect people’s perception of Russia, it should not affect the way athletes viewed the Olympics as an objective, unbiased event that draws on nothing except the skills of the various competitors. Alex Ovechkin stated, “I’m a hockey player and I’m not [into] politics.” Johnny Weir, who is an openly gay retired athlete was an analyst with NBC in Russia. He stated that he will not risk jail time by making a political statement. He, like Ovechkin, mentioned that he was not a politician and would respect Russia’s law. Russian athlete Ilya Kovalchuk agrees with the anti-gay propaganda law and said, “I’m Russian and we all have to respect that. It’s personal and, like I said, it’s a free world, but that’s our line. That’s our country, so everybody has to respect that.”

These athletes may or may not agree with the law, however they understood the importance of respecting Russian ideals. More than 70 human rights organizations showed support over Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law after the first week of publication, and hailed the country as guarding “genuine and universally recognized human rights” issues. Jack Hanick of Fox News supported Russia’s traditional values and banning of anything that diverts from this. The new propaganda law might have left a bad taste in certain people’s mouths, however it did not affect the competition or the actual games.

---

Conclusion

Despite the fact that Russia’s anti-gay laws didn’t end up having much effect on the 2014 Olympic Games, the conversation is far from over. Russia continues to sit by while the international community observes its many human rights violations happening on its soil. The way in which Russia moves forward on this issue could have a huge impact on its reputation within the international community.

---

Resources

The New York Times: ‘Open Games’ in Moscow to Test an Antigay Law

Forbes: Gay Rights Protesters Target Sochi Olympic Sponsors Coke, McDonald’s and Samsung

CNN: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law Could Hit Olympic Sponsors

Rawstory: Russia Passes Anti-’Gay Propaganda’ Bill

RYOT: Putin Says He Wants Gay Athletes to ‘Feel Comfortable’ at Sochi Olympics

CNN: Yelena Isinbayeva Defends Russia’s Anti-Gay Propaganda Law

Washington Post: Alex Ovechkin on Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: ‘I Just Support Everybody’

Life Site: Human Rights Groups Support Russia’s Law to Protect Children From Homosexual Propaganda

Equality Matters: Longtime Fox News Producer Testified in Support of Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws

SB Nation: Ilya Kovalchuk Supports Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws; U.S., Canadian Players Disagree

Advocate: Six U.S. Organizations Voice Support of Russia’s Antigay Law

Russia Beyond the Headlines: New Law Protecting Religious Feelings Divides Russians

Moscow Times: Putin Signs ‘Blasphemy’ and ‘Gay Propaganda’ Bills

Equality Matters: REPORT: Fox News Ignores Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown, Winter Olympics Controversy

Guardian: Russia Passes Law Banning Gay ‘Propaganda’

Policy Mic: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law, Spelled Out in Plain English

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: The Discrimination Continues appeared first on Law Street.

Brazil is hosting a major international party today and the United States is not invited. While Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — also known as the BRICS countries — socialize and chat each other up about world affairs, the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines. But don’t worry — America doesn’t feel left out.

BRICS is the acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, countries with prominent global influence and rapidly growing economies. South Africa most recently joined the group in 2010, whereas representatives from the other five began meeting in 2006. Economic experts agree on the importance of these nations’ expanding economies and the roles they will play in the future of global trade and finance.

The BRICS agenda is fascinating, but the issues that will be discussed, according to a panel of experts on the subject hosted by the Brookings Institute last week, are more pertinent to quickly growing global economies, not the already well-established U.S., which is exactly why the country isn’t feeling left out. At least not yet.

Under the glow of fluorescent lights and amid the aroma of free coffee (it always smells better this way, doesn’t it?), the five panelists discussed the upcoming conference in front of an audience ranging from eager youths to seasoned foreign policy experts.

Kenneth G. Lieberthal, an expert on China and author of an impressive 24 books, kicked off the discussion. He, along with the other panelists, explained that the major goal of the nations attending the summit will likely be to establish an alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In simpler terms, these countries no longer wish to depend solely on the United States and its allies to take care of global financial dealings and monetary crises. The panelists speculated that China’s steady growth as a world power may provoke the other countries in BRICS to downgrade its status as a member of the group because it no longer has the same concerns about which the foundation of the group was based. This parallels the group’s concerns regarding the United States’ domination of world affairs. For now, however, China is still included in the upcoming Brazil summit.

Ken Lieberthal: the BRICS aim to democratize options for emerging markets thru own bank #BRICS2014. Will they succeed? Can they find it?

— Ashley Miller (@MillerAS) July 11, 2014

Each expert panelist represented a country’s specific agenda. Fiona Hill, a frequent commentator on Russian and Eurasian affairs, emphasized the importance of the BRICS summit for Vladimir Putin. After Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea in Ukraine, an action that sparked great disapproval from a number of nations, the country was banished from the G8 summit. Hill thinks that Putin will take advantage of his invitation to the BRICS summit to reestablish Russia’s role as a world power. Hill suggested that nothing concrete will likely come of Russia attending BRICS — the summit is simply a means of “political theater” for Putin.

Tanvi Madan, the expert representative on India, touched on how the country does not agree with the United States’ idea of democracy and identifies more closely with the other countries attending BRICS. More specifically, India holds a long-standing pragmatic relationship with Russia. Madan said the BRICS summit will not affect India’s relationship with the United States. For India, the BRICS summit symbolizes India’s new voice. The summit enables India to express that it wants reform in a variety of institutions including issues, sanctionsm and sovereignty. The BRICS summit offers a way for India to form closer ties with the other countries attending.

Harold Trinkunas, an expert in Latin American politics currently studying Brazil’s emergence as a major power, spoke of Brazil as a key player in the upcoming BRICS summit. Now that the World Cup ended, Brazil passed the torch to Russia for the 2018 Cup and moved on to host the BRICS Summit, which starts today.

Sadly, South Africa was left out of the conversation. As the newest member to the group, it hasn’t yet established its own agenda for the summit. We expect to hear few details about South Africa in comparison to the other member countries.

So, why isn’t the United States concerned about BRICS’ desire to decrease their dependence on Western countries? The panelists agreed that BRICS’ wishes to create an alternative to the International Monetary Fund is not necessarily negative. As noted by Kenneth Lieberthal, the expert on Chinese affairs, the BRICS countries want to create a bank focusing on infrastructure loans. Creating an alternative to the World Bank would increase the capacity for big emerging markets to be less reliant on the United States and Europe. Theoretically, this would allow for greater financial democracy and a more efficient way for countries to solve individual financial crises.

As these alliances grow stronger, we will see if there’s any mortar in the BRICS. The United States isn’t too concerned about any of the potential outcomes from this agenda — but only time will tell.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) & Marisa Motosek (@marisaj44)

Featured image courtesy of [Natasha Paulmeno]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is There Any Mortar in These BRICS? appeared first on Law Street.