Texas Weekly Online

Menu
Menu
Facebook Twitter Youtube

Author:

Military chiefs to thrash out Ukraine peacekeeping proposal amid Russia war

Military chiefs to thrash out Ukraine peacekeeping proposal amid Russia war

Military personnel from more than 30 countries convening in the United Kingdom this week plan to thrash out the scope and scale of a ceasefire enforcement mission to Ukraine, military sources have told Al Jazeera. The meeting comes two weeks after UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that a “coalition of the willing” would work on a peace plan to present to United States President Donald Trump, who has put Washington’s support of the war-torn country into doubt. “They’re looking very seriously… at what is required, what countries can contribute,” said a senior military source with knowledge of the discussion, insisting on anonymity to speak freely. “It needs to be a maximalist approach, so then we can see whether the US can provide any enablers,” the source said. “This is an opportunity for the Europeans to step up. This is quite exciting… We can still do this quite quickly.” Enablers include air, land and sea transport, long-range fires, drones, counter-drones and air missile defence, where the US excels and Europe still lags behind. Advertisement A Ukraine peacekeeping implementation force would require many “tens of thousands” of troops, military analysts told Al Jazeera, if it is to sit between Ukraine’s standing army, about a million-strong, and Russia’s invading armies, now believed to number about 650,000, backed by a government in Moscow hostile to the idea of multinational peacekeepers. In addition, the US may be there only in a supporting capacity. Trump told reporters last month he expected Europe to take the lead on securing Ukraine. “I’m not going to make security guarantees beyond very much,” he said on February 26. “We’re going to have Europe do that.” That onerous burden seems well beyond the requirements of the so-called “Ceasefire Toolkit” drafted in secret by US, Russian and Ukrainian military experts and published this month. It suggested that 5,000 police and 10,000 supporting military personnel would be enough to monitor a 5km-wide (3-mile) buffer zone along the entire front. However, this was based on Russia consenting to a pullback of heavy military equipment, the creation of humanitarian corridors and joint military coordination. The majority of countries volunteering forces are from the European Union, but non-EU countries, such as Norway and Turkey, as well as countries in the Asia Pacific, have also expressed an interest. “If you fail to get a peace in Europe, elsewhere in the world you could have implications, and there could be repercussions in the Pacific,” said the military source, explaining the interest of non-Europeans. Advertisement One idea does seem to be agreed upon – that a ceasefire has to come first. “I can’t see any circumstances under which a European country would put forces in Ukraine while there’s still a war going on,” said the source. European casualties could trigger NATO’s Article 5 mutual defence clause without Russia having attacked a NATO member, said the source. “Article 5 is sacrosanct. It is the one thing that Putin respects. It is the one thing that deters him from attacking a NATO country. We need to safeguard that.” What would the force do? General Ben Hodges, a former commander of US forces in Europe, said, “With peacekeeping, you think of blue helmets, a UN mandate… which the Russians never respect and will not have a prayer of being successful in this case,” adding that the force has to have “real deterrent capabilities”. Apart from armour, firepower and enablers, the force must have “the authority to use them immediately”, Hodges told Al Jazeera. “If a Russian drone comes flying overhead, then they need to be able to shoot it down immediately, not have to call Brussels or some capital to ask permission,” he said. “The Russians will of course test all this in the first few hours.” Contributing countries have not yet agreed on this authority. “I don’t think there is any consensus yet,” said the military source. Russia has made clear it is hostile to the idea of a multinational force in Ukraine. In an interview last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the initiative an “audacious stance”, amounting to “a continuation of provoking the Kyiv regime into war with us”. Advertisement The positioning of the force is also a key decision. “If it is a force that is intended to be in the zone of separation between the Russians and Ukrainians, that could be a substantially large number,” said Hodges, because the line of contact is currently 1,000km (621 miles) long, and because troops would have to be rotated in and out over a long period – perhaps years. The other possibility would be to install a reaction force stationed behind Ukrainians, “where if Russia did something, these guys would be deployed forward to deal with it”, said Hodges. This would be safer for the troops, he said, but “probably initially less effective, because the Russians would be testing how long it takes them to react”. Can Europe do it? The UK and France are leading the effort to glue this multinational force together. They are old hands at this, having led the formation of victorious coalitions in two world wars. Their more recent history has been patchy. France’s last major overseas operations to push armed groups out of Mali and the Sahel ended in failure. The last time the UK mobilised was for the second Gulf War in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2009. Today, their standing armies are 140,000 (UK) and 202,000 (France) according to the Military Balance published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. French President Emmanuel Macron first raised the possibility of French troops in Ukraine in February last year, but his lieutenants quickly spun that into a peacekeeping force, not a combat force aligned with Ukraine. Advertisement Starmer announced that the UK was willing to send troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force ahead of a Paris summit on February 17. European purse strings were loosened when Europe’s leaders agreed earlier this month to keep defence spending increases

What’s happening in Yemen? A breakdown of the Houthi-US violence

What’s happening in Yemen? A breakdown of the Houthi-US violence

A new crisis is brewing near one of the world’s most crucial shipping lanes as Yemen’s Houthis and the United States square off. The US injured and killed more than 100 people in strikes in Yemen on Saturday night, according to Yemeni media and sources. The Houthis claimed a response on a US warship on Sunday evening, and the US bombed Yemen again after that. What led to this tit-for-tat? Who started it? And what’s the purpose? Here’s what we know. What happened in Yemen? The US has bombed Yemen for two nights in a row now, claiming to be targeting Houthi leaders. The result on the ground has been the death of 53 people so far, including children. Nearly 100 other people have been injured in the attacks. Where were the attacks? US attacks have hit Sanaa – the capital city controlled by the Houthis – and its surrounds, as well as the northern governorate of Saada and the port of Hodeidah. (Al Jazeera) Who’s being targeted? US officials say they are targeting Houthi leaders. The Houthis, however, say children were among the killed and circulated photos of the alleged victims. Advertisement “[Trump’s] strikes were very clearly going after Houthi leadership, and didn’t seem to care if any civilians got in the way,” Nick Brumfield, an independent Yemen analyst, told Al Jazeera. “The strikes in Sanaa targeted a residential neighbourhood known to house a lot of Houthi leaders.” A man gestures as he searches in the rubble of a house hit by a US attack in Saada, Yemen, March 16, 2025 [Naif Rahma/Reuters] What does the US want? The US says it will bomb Yemen until the Houthis stop, with President Donald Trump claiming that the Houthis had “targeted our Troops and Allies”. Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have also claimed that Iran is behind the Houthis’ actions and that it was now “on notice”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he had coordinated the attacks on Yemen with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. Did the Houthis hit back? The Houthis claimed two attacks on the US aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman and its warships. The US has not commented. The Houthis denounced the attacks by the US and the United Kingdom, which did not partake in the actual bombing but helped with refuelling, according to the BBC. Houthi spokespeople pledged retaliation for the US attacks. Trump administration officials coordinate with Russia and put Iran ‘on notice’ [File: White House/Handout via Reuters] Why is Iran catching heat? US officials claim Iran is heavily backing the Houthi activities in the Red Sea. Some claim the group is an Iranian proxy, though many analysts and think tanks such as Brookings and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) instead consider them a willing partner. Advertisement Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US government “has no authority, or business, dictating Iranian foreign policy”. “End support for Israeli genocide and terrorism,” he posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday. “Stop killing of Yemeni people.” What started this? On March 2, Israel blocked all aid from entering Gaza, renewing the starvation of an enclave in desperate need of food and medicine. Five days later, Houthi chief Abdelmalak al-Houthi set a four-day deadline – if Israel did not reopen the crossings and allow aid in, the Houthis would resume attacking Israel-linked ships passing through Bab al-Mandeb Strait on their way to the Suez Canal. On March 11, spokesperson Yahya Saree announced the resumption of the Houthis’ Red Sea operations against Israeli ships in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, as well as Bab al-Mandeb. The Houthis have been attacking ships connected to Israel since November 2023 to pressure Israel to end its war on Gaza. The attacks stopped when a ceasefire was declared in Gaza on January 19, and the Houthis complied. “They did shoot at an F-16 a few weeks back after the FTO [designation] and downed an MQ-9 saying it was in Hodeidah airspace; but in terms of shipping, they’ve abided by what they said they were going to do,” Brumfield said. On March 4, the Trump administration reapplied the “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO) designation to the Houthis about four years after his predecessor, Joe Biden, removed it. What effect have the Houthi attacks had to date? The Red Sea receives almost 15 percent of global sea trade. Advertisement The Houthi attacks have forced much of that trade to take a much longer, more expensive route around the southern coast of Africa, raising insurance costs and affecting inflation rates globally. The Houthis’ attacks have reportedly killed eight people and wounded others. Most of their attacks have not resulted in casualties. Will the Houthis be deterred by the US attacks? If their spokesmen are to be believed, probably not. The Houthis’ Supreme Political Council said they would not be deterred but would “escalate the situation to a more severe and dire level”. “Targeting civilians demonstrates America’s inability to confront the situation,” the statement added. In the past, the Houthis’ Red Sea attacks and the subsequent US attacks on Yemen only helped the group’s ability to recruit fighters. While these attacks may be bigger than what the Houthis previously experienced, there is little sign they are willing to give in. Nassrudin Amer, a Houthi spokesman, wrote on X: “Our position is clear and our demand is simple: lifting the siege on Gaza and saving the people of Gaza from starvation.” Adblock test (Why?)

Yemen’s Houthis and US launch new attacks amid Red Sea shipping threat

Yemen’s Houthis and US launch new attacks amid Red Sea shipping threat

US insists it will target Houthis until Yemeni group withdraws threat to Red Sea shipping. Houthi rebels have claimed another attack on a United States naval vessel, calling it “retaliation” for US strikes on Yemen. A Houthi spokesperson said on Monday that fighters had launched 18 missiles and a drone at the “aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman and its accompanying warships”. The US military said it had continued targeting the group overnight. It was the second strike on the US navy claimed by the Iran-aligned group over the last 24 hours, amid a sudden surge in hostilities. After the Houthis said last week they would resume targeting Israeli-linked shipping in the Red Sea due to Israel’s ongoing blockade of Gaza, the US launched a series of large-scale attacks on Yemen over the weekend, killing dozens of people and wounding many more. In a statement posted on Telegram, the Houthi spokesperson said the attack was “in retaliation to the continued American aggression against our country”. The US has not responded to the claimed strike. However, US Central Command posted a video on X saying its “forces continue operations against Iran-backed Houthi terrorists”. Advertisement The Houthi-backed SABA news agency reported two new air raids early on Monday around the port city of Hodeidah, about 230km (143 miles) from the capital Sanaa. Citing local authorities, SABA also reported that US forces carried out strikes on a cancer facility being built in the city of Saada on Sunday, causing “widespread destruction”. The Houthis, who control much of the Arabian Peninsula’s poorest country, maintained a campaign targeting the busy sea route off the coast of Yemen as Israel bombarded Gaza over the past 18 months. The attacks affected global trade, forcing a significant volume of maritime traffic between Asia and Europe away from the Suez Canal to take the far longer journey around Africa. The group halted its drone and missile attacks, which had targeted vessels with tenuous Israeli links, when the Gaza ceasefire was declared in January. However, the Yemeni group said last week it was “resuming the ban on the passage of all Israeli ships” in the Red Sea due to Israel’s renewed blockade of the Palestinian enclave. On Saturday, President Donald Trump ordered the US military to strike at the Houthis. The attacks killed at least 53 people and injured many more, most of them women and children, according to the Reuters news agency. Most of the 40 raids targeted the Houthi-controlled Saada province, north of Sanaa. Oil prices have been trading higher on news of the Red Sea attacks. Brent futures – the global international benchmark – rose 41 cents or 0.6% on Monday, to $70.99 a barrel. Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)

Minnesota Republicans to introduce bill defining ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ as mental illness

Minnesota Republicans to introduce bill defining ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ as mental illness

A group of Minnesota Republican lawmakers plan to propose legislation requiring the state to include “Trump derangement syndrome” under its definition of mental illness. Five GOP lawmakers are set to introduce the bill in the state’s Senate on Monday and refer it to the Health and Human Services committee, according to Fox 9. The bill aims to specifically add “Trump derangement syndrome” to the state’s definition of mental illness. “Trump derangement syndrome” is defined as “acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons that is in reaction to the policies and presidencies of President Donald J. Trump,” according to the bill. BILL MAHER SAYS TRUMP DOESN’T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON REGARDING FREE SPEECH AFTER MAHMOUND KHALIL ARREST “Symptoms may include Trump-induced general hysteria, which produces an inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and signs of psychic pathology in President Donald J. Trump’s behavior,” the proposal reads. With a split state legislature, the bill is unlikely to be approved. Mental illness is defined as a disorder or other issue that is included in a diagnostic codes list. “Trump derangement syndrome” is not recognized as a mental illness anywhere. President Donald Trump and his supporters have used the term “Trump derangement syndrome” to criticize political opponents who they believe have a biased obsession against the president and his policies. While the “derangement syndrome” as a political phrase has been made popular in recent years to mock critics of Trump, the term was actually coined in 2003 by the late political commentator Charles Krauthammer to describe critics of then-President George W. Bush. DEMOCRATS LASH OUT AT SCHUMER FOR ‘BETRAYAL’ OF SIDING WITH TRUMP The Minnesota proposal features the same phrasing Krauthammer used to describe “Bush derangement syndrome,” which was defined as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush.”