US, Russia secure largest prisoner swap deal since fall of Soviet Union
The United States announced a prisoner swap with Moscow on Thursday, Aug. 1, that freed Wall Street Journalist Evan Gershkovich, former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan and more than a dozen others from prison in Russia. Their release is part of the largest prisoner exchange involving the United States and Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. The deal included at least 24 people.
“This deal would not have been possible without our allies: Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Norway and Turkey,” President Joe Biden said. “They all stepped up and they stood with us. They stood with us, and made bold and brave decisions, released prisoners being held in their countries, who were justifiably held and provided logistical support to get Americans home.”
The United States and its allies gave Russia a cyber hacker in the United States, alleged “sleeper agents,” who lived double lives in Slovenia and one person who was charged for the shooting death of a man in a Berlin park.
Earlier in July, a judge sentenced Gershkovich to 16 years in a high security penal colony after Russian authorities charged him with “gathering secret information.”
The U.S. State Department maintains that both men were innocent and wrongfully detained.
“Their brutal ordeal is over, and they are free,” Biden said. “Moments ago, the families and I were able to speak to them on the telephone from the Oval Office. They’re out of Russia earlier today. They were flown to Turkey and soon they’ll be wheels up on their way home to see their families.”
The multinational deal also secured the release of former regional office coordinators for the late Alexei Navalny.
Negotiations between the United States, its allies and Russia reportedly began in 2022 following the release of WNBA star Briteny Griner.
Russia frees Americans Evan Gershkovich, Paul Whelan in major prisoner swap: Reports
Russia and the United States have struck an agreement to exchange two high-profile American prisoners in a multipart deal, according to a senior official in the Biden administration cited in multiple media reports on Thursday, Aug. 1. This deal will reportedly bring home Wall Street Journal journalist Evan Gershkovich and former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan. Bloomberg reported both prisoners were already en route to destinations outside of Russia.
The Independent reported this could be the largest prisoner exchange between Russia and the U.S. in over a decade and could see the release of Kremlin assassins sent back to Moscow in exchange for American prisoners’ freedom.
Gershkovich, 32, was detained by Russian authorities in March 2023 on charges of espionage, which he and U.S. officials strongly dispute. President Joe Biden has stated that Gershkovich was targeted because of his role as a journalist and his American citizenship.
Following a swift and secretive trial, Gershkovich was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years in a high-security prison in Russia.
Whelan, 54, who holds U.S., British, Irish, and Canadian citizenship, was arrested in December 2018 while in Russia on an American passport and faced similar espionage accusations. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have rejected these allegations.
Whelan was convicted in June 2020 and also received a 16-year prison sentence, of which he has already served five years.
This story is developing and will be updated as more information is released.
How Russia and Iran are trying to trick you into spreading propaganda
United States intelligence agencies are warning that foreign adversaries are working harder than ever to sow the seeds of doubt in American voters ahead of the upcoming 2024 general election. According to The Associated Press, U.S. officials said Russia remains the greatest threat but have an eye on Iran and China as well.
Kremlin-backed groups are reportedly increasingly hiring marketing and communications firms to spread lies about the upcoming presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris — the likely Democratic nominee — and former President Donald Trump.
U.S. intelligence officials said that back in March they caught two firms who had created fake websites and social media profiles to spread Russian disinformation and sow confusion. The targets of the operations ranged from political candidates and voting to immigration and the war in Gaza.
U.S. spy agencies said that Iran is hyper focused on fueling distrust within American political institutions, especially over Israel’s war in Gaza. According to officials, Iran has created fake online personas and engaged in secret online campaigns.
U.S. intelligence said that Iran isn’t particularly fond of a second Trump presidency due to fears that his return to the Oval Office would increase tensions between Washington and Tehran. While in office, Trump ordered the killing of an Iranian commander and withdrew from the Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran.
However, U.S. officials maintain that the ultimate goal of these adversaries is to get Americans to spread disinformation. They warn people to look out for fake websites that are designed to look like U.S. news outlets.
Foreign actors are exploiting recent stories in the election cycle, such as the attempted assassination of Trump and President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the race.
For instance, Russian disinformation campaigns quickly jumped on claims that Democratic rhetoric led to the shooting of Trump and even spread conspiracy theories that Biden or Ukraine was behind the attack.
While recent information suggests that Iran may prefer Harris, U.S. intelligence said that Russia may prefer Trump, as he has expressed a desire to withdraw from NATO and shared skepticism over American funding for Ukraine.
Meanwhile, China is exclusively expected to focus on congressional races — particularly on candidates who voice strong opinions about Beijing.
The chances of the United States military getting involved in a major war with a near-peer competitor are the highest they have been in 80 years. At the same time, the U.S. military is the smallest and most unprepared it has been to fight in a major conflict since the end of the Cold War, according to a bipartisan panel appointed by Congress.
The eight-member Commission on the National Defense Strategy just released an analysis on America’s National Defense Strategy from 2022. According to the report, the U.S. public is largely unaware of the dangers the country faces or the costs required to prepare for a global conflict.
The report said a bipartisan call to arms is necessary in order for the United States to make the changes and investments to adequately prepare.
Former California Rep. Jane Harman, D, chaired the commission. According to Harman, the country’s most recent National Defense Strategy was written before the war in Ukraine began. That means it doesn’t account for Russia’s growing relationships with China, North Korea and Iran. Now, instead of calling Russia an “acute threat,” the commission said Moscow poses a chronic threat to global peace and stability.
The commission also said China is the top pacing threat for the U.S. military, criticizing current and past administrations and congressional bodies for letting the U.S. military advantage in the Pacific slip away.
The report also offers descriptions of the current global climate and offers some solutions.
For starters, the report said the Pentagon needs to leave behind the Cold War-era construct of being ready to fight two wars against less-capable adversaries. Instead, the commission said the U.S. military should embrace the idea of a multiple theater force construct.
According to the commission, the threats posted by adversary nations are changing. For example, Russia is giving Iran nuclear know-how in exchange for drones.
Adversaries are working together in ways that they have not previously and the U.S. needs to adapt accordingly.
The commission recommends the Pentagon and lawmakers take an aggressive “more of everything” approach. In theory, combining the might of the U.S. military with the ingenuity of the tech sector will increase force readiness.
One example mentioned in the report was the Department of Defense’s Replicator initiative. Started by Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, the program fields thousands of low-cost attritable drones.
Some other straightforward recommendations include investing in U.S. shipbuilding, putting more submarines and uncrewed vessels in the Indo-Pacific, and building up more military facilities to reinforce ones already in the Indo-Pacific.
The commission called for a boost to the U.S. forward presence in Eastern Europe, complete with new headquarters and facilities able to support air defense, aviation units and more.
The report also calls out weakness in the U.S. Defense Industrial Base, saying the Pentagon needs to get rid of its outdated procurement process. In its place, the commission suggests that the Pentagon works more closely with non-traditional defense contractors and lessen the barriers to entry for many allied nations. The DOD would also need to fund the recapitalization of armories and invest in advanced manufacturing and further stockpiling of munitions.
Ambassador Eric Edelman — the vice chair on the commission — said the United States can’t confront the biggest threats with the smallest military in a generation, historically low defense spending and an atrophied industrial base.
According to Edelman “deterring [the United States’] adversaries from launching a disastrous war requires investment and demonstrating the ability to mobilize at wartime speed, not the pace of bureaucracy.”
US will arm Ukraine’s F-16s, boosting air defense capabilities
The U.S. is boosting support for Ukraine by arming F-16 fighter jets with American-made missiles and other advanced weaponry as they prepare for combat, The Wall Street Journal reported. The Pentagon has initiated the “Jumpstart” initiative, which allows European countries to pool their resources to purchase necessary air-launched weapons from the U.S., preserving their own defense inventories while bolstering Ukraine’s military capabilities.
Denmark and the Netherlands are scheduled to deliver the first batch of these American-made jets this summer. Belgium and Norway expected to follow shortly after.
However, supplying and deploying these jets is only the beginning. A significant challenge remains in training Ukrainian pilots to operate the F-16s and maintaining the jets in a combat-ready state. With the ongoing need for experienced pilots at the frontlines, the extensive training required poses a problem.
Pilot training demands a year-long commitment, starting with four months of intensive English lessons in Britain to master key aviation terminology, followed by hands-on aircraft training.
It remains uncertain how Ukraine will use the F-16 fighter jets against Russian forces. Although Washington restricts the use of these weapons within Russian territory, recommending their use for close-air support to combat ground threats at the frontlines, European officials argue the jets could significantly enhance air defense by pushing back the Russian air force, which frequently launches glide bombs with devastating effects.
Russia and China patrolling together is ‘eyebrow raising’
For the first time, a pair of H-6 bombers from China were observed flying near Alaska, in a part of the skies known as the Air Defense Identification Zone, or ADIZ. An ADIZ is not sovereign airspace, but all craft are required to identify themselves in the interest of international security.
The Chinese H-6s flew alongside a pair of Russian Tu-95 bombers. These types of patrol flights aren’t uncommon, but what is noteworthy is the fact the Chinese and Russian bombers were seen together.
This is just the sort of topic tackled on Straight Arrow News’ Weapons and Warfare podcast. The show’s host, Ryan Robertson, spoke with Matt Shoemaker, a friend of the show and a former U.S. intelligence officer what he thought about the situation.
This interview has been edited for clarity.
Ryan Robertson: These kinds of things aren’t necessarily new. America does this, I mean, every country with a military does patrol missions, yeah?
Matt Shoemaker: Absolutely. Yeah. So the way that I saw this, the interesting side of things was not so much the Russians were doing it, as you mentioned that the Russians do this all the time. Actually, it’s almost on a weekly basis that they fly Tu-16s over the Pacific, somewhat close to Alaska, or sometimes all the way down to near California. Interestingly enough. The really interesting thing was the fact that the Chinese accompanied them this time. That was the thing that we have not seen before. And the Chinese, were using what’s called an H-6, which is just their knockoff version of the Tu-16. Interestingly enough, they reverse-engineered it, and pretty much just made a carbon copy of it on a lower quality basis. So yeah, the interesting thing is that the Chinese actually were working with the Russians for this.
Robertson: So the Chinese government said this is the ninth mission that the Chinese and the Russians have done together. Like you mentioned, it’s the first time we’ve seen it close to our borders. In your mind, what does that signify? Is this a turning point in the Chinese, the PLA Air Force?
Shoemaker: Yeah, the PLAAF. PLA-AF. Yeah, lots of fun. The best one is the PLAARF, the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force, the PLAARF. In terms of what this means, the way that I see this is that military exercises are oftentimes a form of communication between leaders, that’s one element to it. So in some sense, it’s the leaders of countries talking to other leaders. And you can do multiple things at once. With regards to this, you can send multiple messages all at the same time. So that’s certainly one element: that the Russians and the Chinese leadership are signaling to the Americans, and to the American leadership, that they are cooperating in this regard.
It’s hard to tell right now if this is significant for the long term, because from one perspective, the Chinese and the Russians are very much at odds with each other. They tend to not like each other, you know? They went to war with each other 50 years ago, between the Soviets and the Communist Chinese. So even two communist countries went to war with each other. The Chinese certainly want what they call Greater Manchuria, what would be essentially the Kamchatka region of Russia, and giving them access to the Arctic and all that sort of stuff. They see that as historically theirs, so from that perspective, they certainly are at odds with each other. So it’s a little weird. From that perspective, to see the Russians and the Chinese working together. I think over the short to medium term it is somewhat concerning. And it’s going to require, I think, a much more robust response, from the American leadership in particular, that I don’t think has been there over the past few years. Yeah.
Robertson: Why do you feel that way? Why do you think that? Is it like a changing of the guard? Russia has always been the Boogeyman and now China’s taking over that role for America?
Shoemaker: Not so much that, it’s more that the Russian culture and to a certain extent, the Chinese culture themselves, respond to force. They respond to strength actually, is probably a better way of putting it. If they can take an inch, they’ll take a mile type mentality. And that’s just part of the cultures that are there. It’s certainly very opportunistic, to a certain extent.
So, when they interpret American diplomacy, oftentimes, they see a diplomatic sort of response as weakness more than anything. it is seen – if the Americans are intending it to be an olive branch, they’re going to more than likely interpret it as weakness if we’re not careful. And I think that’s what I’ve seen over the past two to three years in particular, if not longer. That’s the way that they’re interpreting these things. And we can go into greater discussion in terms of how that relates to something like Ukraine. That certainly has knock-on effects, but that’s why I see the leadership from the American side needs to be much more robust in this.
Robertson: You bet. Sort of a ‘Teddy Roosevelt speak softly, carry a big stick’ kind of mentality?
Shoemaker: Yes! Except for the Americans never speak softly. And we always speak in a loud voice and will wield that big stick.
Robertson: You kind of mentioned the fact that it’s surprising that the Chinese participated in this. It is the new thing, right? Are we in the U.S., with the level of our ISR capabilities… I mean, with the balloons last year, the spy balloons, we knew the spy balloons were being launched, we tracked it across the oceans, right? Can we ever really be surprised if China or Russia launches bombers at us? Because we have satellites over every part of their country, we monitor everything. Can America ever really be surprised when another country flies planes near us?
Shoemaker: Well on the one hand, the question somewhat assumes that we are always at the top of our game, and the information always makes its way up to the leadership and then leadership makes the best decision or very good decisions based off of that information. So, I think the question is assuming maybe perhaps a little bit too much.
But I would say that from a technical perspective, it is a little bit eyebrow raising, let’s put it that way. It’s simply because the Chinese have been very clear over the course of modern Chinese history that they do not want allies. They do not have friends. They have in a certain sense, colleagues, if you will. They have been very particular to say that they will not go into an alliance with anyone. So from a technical perspective, to get the logistics working together, it’s not terribly difficult, but it is something that is usually outside of their wheelhouse.
However, we also have seen in the past about two to three weeks, I believe it was, was the Chinese sent a military cohort to Belarus, to participate in Russian and Belarusian military drills from a land-based and army-based perspective there. So, I think this might be a continuation of that, on the Air Force side of things doing patrols. So, to see the logistics starting to be hammered out is something that we haven’t really seen before. And given the fact that the Chinese have explicitly stated that they don’t want allies, that is something that is concerning.
What I’m going to be looking at, over the next probably year or two, and following is these sorts of activities and how integrated the two end up becoming? Are they kind of just talking to each other when they both just, you know, send off these planes on a mission? Or is there some sort of streamlined sort of leadership role where one of them is playing second fiddle to the other for one mission, and you know, they kind of flip flop back and forth. Is there an integration there? Or are they kind of just working together sort of thing? So that’s what I’m really going to be looking at.
And the difference between the two, of course, if they’re just kind of working together, and they all have their own leaderships telling them what to do, but they’re in constant communication, that is certainly more than we’ve seen in the past. However, it does create some logistical problems if they ever tried to get into a hot war, because now you’re adding an extra layer of communication that could break down.
If they start integrating, then that would certainly be very much a concern for the Americans, because then the integration side of things, which the Americans tend to be much better at with regards to – especially to European allies, and all the training we’ve done through NATO with regards to that. Integration between the Russian and the Chinese would be very much a problem. I’m highly skeptical of that simply because neither of them really wants to start playing second fiddle to either of them. So yeah, that’s what I’m looking at over the course of the next probably year or so.
So, while China flying a pair of its knock-off Russian bombers near U.S. airspace isn’t all that concerning or unexpected on its own, the real risk factor lies in just how cozy Russia and China decide to get.
Putin threatens to deploy nuclear-capable missiles if US does the same
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is known for saber-rattling, said he’ll deploy nuclear capable missiles if the United States stations hypersonic and long-range weapons in Germany. At the NATO summit in July, the U.S. and Germany announced the American military will deploy weapons capable of hitting Russian territory to Germany starting in 2026.
A joint statement from the two nations said the deployment will demonstrate the United States’ commitment to NATO and European integrated deterrence.
According to Putin, it would take 10 minutes for those missiles to reach Russia, and he is now threatening “mirror measures” if the plans come to fruition.
“This situation recalls the events of the Cold War era, associated with the deployment of American Pershing medium-range missiles in Europe,” Putin said at a recent naval demonstration. “If the U.S. implements such plans, we will consider ourselves free from the previously imposed one-sided moratorium on the deployment of medium and shorter-range strike systems, including increasing the capabilities of our Navy’s coastal forces.”
Putin was referring to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987. The U.S. pulled out of the agreement in 2019 after accusing Russia of conducting missile tests that violated its terms.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the American weapons would act as a necessary deterrent to prevent war. He also said the best way for Putin to prevent the missile deployment is to pull out of Ukraine.
“Not everything can be achieved through defense,” Scholz said at a recent news conference. “You must prevent others from attacking you. I’m a determined opponent of the view that Germany needs nuclear weapons. That won’t happen with me and I view this as totally absurd. But that means we need to be in a position to have conventional means which prevent others from attacking us.”
The U.S. plans to put three different missiles in Germany.
The first missile is the SM-6, which is capable of antiair warfare, ballistic missile defense and anti-ship strikes. The U.S. will also send Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can make precision strikes from 1,000 miles away, and “developmental hypersonic weapons”
Russian warships dock in Cuba for second visit in two months
Havana greeted three Russian warships with cannon fire on Saturday, July 27, marking their second visit to Cuban waters in recent months. The ongoing military collaboration highlights the deepening ties between Russia and Cuba, with the fleet, including a training ship, a patrol frigate and a refueling tanker, scheduled to remain docked until Tuesday.
The visit follows June’s deployment, which included a nuclear-powered submarine as part of planned military exercises.
The presence of Russian military vessels in the Caribbean comes amid heightened U.S. and Western support for Ukraine. Experts view these visits as symbolic gestures of power by Russia. The U.S. monitored the previous fleet’s activities closely but stated that they posed no actual threat.
Cuba’s military described the warships’ visit as routine, though specific objectives for this mission were not disclosed. The presence of these vessels has sparked significant public interest, with many locals visiting the port and participating in public tours of the Russian ship.
Both Russia and Cuba are currently facing severe U.S. sanctions. Russia is using its close ties with Cuba to strengthen its strategic position near U.S. shores and to bolster its global standing amid ongoing international tensions.
One thing Americans overwhelmingly agree on is Biden’s call to drop out: Poll
With the upcoming 2024 presidential election, it may seem like divisions have gotten worse amongst Americans. However, while there may be a lot they don’t agree on, one recent political decision is garnering widespread support. A new poll from The New York Times/Siena College on Thursday, July 25, revealed that 87% of registered voters agree with President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the race.
Democrats and Republicans likely have different reasons for supporting Biden’s decision. Democrats reportedly mostly approve of his performance in the Oval Office but see his exit as the right political move, while Republicans largely disapproved of his performance overall.
However, only a few other issues draw more consensus in polling than Biden’s decision to exit the race. So what else do Americans agree on?
According to numbers compiled by the New York Times, 89% of Americans always or sometimes tip at a sit-down restaurant. Of those polled, 91% had a negative view of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and 90% approved of former President George W. Bush’s handling of his job in the wake the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Furthermore, 89% said they believe that an affair is morally unacceptable and 88% said they think marijuana should be legalized for medicinal purposes.
Additionally, 86% of those surveyed said that they believe small businesses have a positive effect on the country, and 86% had an unfavorable view of Russia. Meanwhile, 85% of Americans said that cloning humans is morally wrong.
While these issues may be more lasting, the Biden decision consensus is an evolving one. Polling shows many Democrats did not want Biden to exit the race before his decision but eventually made peace with it.
Two weeks ago, a poll of Pennsylvania voters revealed that just 46% of Democrats thought that Biden should drop out while 48% said he should remain in the race. This week’s poll found 91% of Democrats approved of his exit while 86% of Republicans and 85% of Independents approved of his decision.
Biden was adamant three weeks ago, saying that he would only quit the race if the “the Lord Almighty told him to.”
However, it turns out that a higher number of voters supported him dropping out of the presidential race than the 81% who reportedly believe in the “Lord Almighty.”
Some NATO members turn to WWII tech as fears of Russian invasion grow
Latvia, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member, has started installing “dragon’s teeth,” which are anti-tank concrete pyramids, along its border with Russia. This is part of an effort to defend the country as tensions rise with Moscow over the war in Ukraine. A video circulating social media on Wednesday, July 24, appears to show the barriers being installed.
Anton Gerashchenko, a former adviser to Ukraine’s minister of internal affairs, shared the footage on X.
“Latvia has started installing defensive barriers on its border with Russia,” he wrote. “The so-called ‘dragon’s teeth’ were spotted near the easternmost Latvian town of Zilup.”
Dragon’s teeth were first used in WWII as a defense against approaching tanks. Latvia’s ongoing efforts to put the concrete pyramids along the border is part of a plan Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia agreed to earlier this year: to build a common defense line with “anti-mobility infrastructure elements.”
With the effort to bulk up NATO’s eastern border with Russia and Moscow’s ally Belarus now underway, Latvia’s Ministry of Defense said that it will help with NATO’s “collective defense.”
Tensions between the Kremlin and NATO were not particularly friendly before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the relationship is only getting worse. Moscow said NATO nations are directly involved in the war in Ukraine because the organization provides military aid and weapons to Kyiv. Russia has previously said it may strike NATO members who are helping Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Poland’s defense minister also expressed concerns that Moscow could attack within his country’s borders. However, he still maintained confidence in NATO’s defense capabilities.
Latvia’s move to use decades-old technology to defend its border is not unheard of, with Ukraine’s use of 50-year-old propeller-driven planes to take out Russia’s unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Kyiv also equipped advanced drones with medieval-style caltrops to disable Russian vehicles and to disrupt supply efforts.