On Sunday, Russia concluded its widely criticized regional and municipal elections, which also included regions annexed from Ukraine. These elections saw significant support for President Vladimir Putin, despite allegations of electoral manipulation and Ukraine’s efforts to reclaim its territories.

The Council of Europe, the prominent human rights organization in Europe, condemned the week-long voting process as a blatant breach of international law. Kyiv and its allies asserted that the elections constituted an unlawful attempt by Moscow to tighten its control over regions in Ukraine’s southern and eastern territories.

The resounding support for Putin’s United Russia party in both Russia and the annexed regions reinforced the Kremlin’s consistent domestic message that Putin is the foremost guarantor of stability. However, electoral competition in these regions was severely limited, as authorities blocked strong candidates, including those from Russia’s main opposition Communist Party, from participating.

Also Read: Brussels Warns Georgia: More Efforts Needed for EU Membership

Stanislav Andreychuk, co-chair of Golos, a voter rights group labeled a “foreign agent” by the Russian government, highlighted instances of electoral irregularities across the country, emphasizing that these elections lacked authenticity. He reported cases of opposition candidates facing detentions, vandalism of their vehicles, and even military draft notices being served to election observers, describing these actions as “unthinkable.”

The Kremlin’s stance, on the other hand, is that opinion polls and numerous election victories demonstrate Putin’s overwhelming popularity in Russia, affirming the fairness and freedom of the electoral process.

MAJOR PARTIES LOYAL TO PUTIN

All significant and legally recognized political forces in Russia, including a variety of opposition parties that offer a semblance of competition during elections, exhibit broad loyalty to President Putin and his 18-month-long involvement in the conflict in Ukraine.

Throughout the nation, United Russia emerged victorious in every contested provincial governor’s race. Among the re-elected regional leaders was the influential Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, a close ally of Putin. In a virtually uncontested race, preliminary results indicated that Sobyanin secured over 75% of the vote in the Russian capital, despite it being considered one of the areas in the country with a stronger opposition presence.

Critics of the Kremlin have alleged that Moscow’s elections are susceptible to manipulation, primarily due to the capital’s electronic voting system, which they claim lacks transparency and auditability. Similar electronic voting systems have been implemented in numerous other regions across Russia.

Kremlin-supported candidates were also prevailing in four war-torn Ukrainian regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—which Moscow unilaterally declared as its territory last year, a move vehemently denounced as illegal by Kyiv and its international allies.

Japan’s Foreign Minister, Yoshimasa Hayashi, expressed strong disapproval, stating that it was “totally unacceptable” for Russia to conduct such “elections” in these regions based on an illegal “annexation.” Virtually all of Russia’s allies continue to recognize these regions as part of Ukraine.

Russian officials reported that United Russia received substantial majorities in these regions, securing at least 70% of the vote in each. Detailed voting data was not immediately disclosed.

As a result of these election outcomes, Moscow’s appointed governors in these territories, comprising a mix of long-standing separatist leaders and local pro-Russian politicians, have secured full terms in office. It’s important to note that none of the four regions are under full control of the Russian army.

Ukraine, which initiated a strenuous counteroffensive in June to reclaim these territories, has been gradually regaining control in the Zaporizhzhia region and has also claimed some territorial advancements in Donetsk, particularly around the city of Bakhmut.

In a shocking incident, Joseph Ruddy, a prominent federal narcotics prosecutor, found himself at the center of controversy when police arrived at his home to investigate a hit-and-run accident. Ruddy, known for his role in targeting cocaine smuggling at sea, faced allegations of driving under the influence and leaving the scene of the accident. This article delves into the details of the incident, the subsequent fallout, and the implications for Ruddy’s career and reputation.

The Night of the Incident

On that fateful night, Joseph Ruddy was discovered by police officers outside his residence, barely able to stand due to intoxication. Leaning on the tailgate of his pickup truck for support, Ruddy’s inebriated state was evident. However, what surprised the officers even more was Ruddy’s attempt to hand them his U.S. Justice Department business card.

One officer questioned him, “What are you trying to hand me? You realize when they pull my body-worn camera footage and they see this, this is going to go really bad.”

Leveraging His Position

The footage obtained by The Associated Press exposed Ruddy’s apparent attempt to use his position to mitigate the consequences of the Fourth of July crash. It raised questions about whether he was trying to leverage his role as a federal prosecutor to influence the situation.

Despite facing charges related to driving under the influence with property damage, Ruddy continued to work for two months, representing the United States in court. This raised concerns about the integrity of his role within the justice system.

Fallout and Investigations

Following inquiries by the AP, the Justice Department took action. Ruddy was removed from three pending criminal cases, and he was also relieved of his supervisory role at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tampa. The case was subsequently referred to the Office of Inspector General for further investigation.

An inspector general’s probe is expected to focus on whether Ruddy abused his public office for personal gain, as noted by Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University in St. Louis. The circumstances surrounding the incident and his attempt to hand over his U.S. Attorney’s Office business card raise suspicions of impropriety.

Legal Consequences

Ruddy’s blood-alcohol level, tested at 0.17%, was twice the legal limit when he was arrested. He faced charges of driving under the influence with property damage, a first-degree misdemeanor that carries a potential sentence of up to a year in prison. Surprisingly, despite admitting to the accident and witness testimony, he was not charged with leaving the scene of the accident.

Ruddy and his attorney did not respond to messages seeking comment on the situation, leaving many questions unanswered.

Joseph Ruddy: A Notable Career

Joseph Ruddy had made a name for himself in law enforcement circles as one of the architects of Operation Panama Express (PANEX), a task force aimed at combating cocaine smuggling at sea. PANEX, launched in 2000, combined resources from various agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard, FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Historically, PANEX-generated intelligence has contributed to over 90% of U.S. Coast Guard drug interdictions at sea. Between 2018 and 2022, the Coast Guard removed or destroyed 888 metric tons of cocaine valued at approximately $26 billion and detained 2,776 suspected smugglers. Much of this success was attributed to the efforts of Ruddy and his team in Tampa, where PANEX is headquartered.

A Complex Legacy

While Ruddy enjoyed a reputation for hard work and toughness in the courtroom, the majority of cases handled by his office involved impoverished fishermen from Central and South America, often at the lowest rungs of the drug trade. In many instances, the drugs they transported were not destined for American shores, and the usual constitutional guarantees of due process were loosely applied.

Kendra McSweeney, a geographer at Ohio State University, remarked that Ruddy was central to a prosecutor-led effort that incarcerated hundreds of low-level cocaine traffickers every year.

Research conducted by Ohio State’s Interdiction Lab revealed that between 2014 and 2020, the median sentence for smugglers picked up at sea and prosecuted in Tampa was 10 years—longer than any other court in the country. This was in stark contrast to the seven years and six months typical of cases handled in Miami, the second-largest hub for such cases.

Conclusion

The case of Joseph Ruddy, the federal narcotics prosecutor involved in a drunken hit-and-run incident, raises important questions about the conduct of those in positions of authority. The alleged attempt to use his office for personal advantage has brought scrutiny and potential legal consequences.

Ruddy’s career, which included significant contributions to combating cocaine smuggling at sea, now faces uncertainty as investigations unfold. The fallout from this incident serves as a stark reminder of the need for transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct within the justice system.

Amid growing concerns about increasing Russian influence in the country and ongoing disputes in Brussels over accession deadlines, Josep Borrell’s high-profile visit to Georgia takes place.

In Kazbegi, Georgia, Ukrainian flags proudly wave from the houses lining the highway leading to the Georgian border. Meanwhile, below on the road, numerous tow-trucks transport brand-new luxury Porsches and Land Rovers over the mountain pass and into Russia, as the super-wealthy seek to evade Western sanctions.

If Georgian politicians have their way, this could soon become the easternmost frontier of the European Union.

However, Georgia has chosen not to impose sanctions on Russia and faces accusations of assisting in their circumvention by exporting consumer goods and luxury items, such as the cars queued up at the Kazbegi border.

For years, this South Caucasus nation has openly expressed its desire to join the EU, despite being over a thousand kilometers away from the nearest member state across the Black Sea. The former Soviet Republic has even enshrined its aspirations to become part of both the EU and NATO in its constitution.

During his long-awaited visit to Georgia on Thursday, the EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell, cautioned that Brussels would require more evidence of progress on crucial reforms before granting approval for the country’s application in an enlargement update expected in October.

Borrell, in an article written for the Civil Georgia news site to coincide with his visit, stated, “Georgia’s efforts have been recognized, but further actions are necessary. There is limited time remaining until these critical decisions regarding Georgia’s future are made, which is why we strongly urge Georgian authorities to seize this opportunity.”

A year ago, the European Union granted candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova, both hopefuls for EU membership. However, Georgia was only acknowledged for its “European perspective” and received a list of 12 reforms to implement, including “de-oligarchization,” addressing political polarization, strengthening institutions, and fostering ties with civil society.

Unfortunately, the outlook is not particularly optimistic. Bidzina Ivanishvili, an oligarch and former prime minister whose net worth reportedly amounts to a significant portion of the country’s GDP, is said to be a major driving force behind Georgia’s recent political shift towards Moscow since the onset of Russia’s war in Ukraine, according to a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Rough road ahead

In July, a pride festival in the capital city, Tbilisi, faced an intrusion by religious rioters, all transpiring under the watchful gaze of the authorities. This incident drew condemnation from Western capitals. Moreover, just last week, the ruling Georgian Dream party initiated impeachment proceedings against the president due to her friendly visits to EU countries.

Concerns have also been voiced in Brussels about the well-being of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Ukraine alleges that he is being subjected to a slow demise while in custody, supposedly at the behest of Russia.

Also Read: North Korea Reveals Latest ‘Tactical Nuclear-Enabled Submersible

Josep Borrell’s cautionary message contradicts Georgia’s own assessment of its progress. A representative from Georgia’s diplomatic mission to the EU informed POLITICO, “We have made significant strides in addressing all the priorities.” The spokesperson further emphasized that Georgia has earned the status of a candidate for EU membership, both in terms of its technical preparedness for this step and its consistent geopolitical choices over the past 25 years.

A nationwide survey conducted in April by the International Republican Institute revealed that a remarkable 89 percent of Georgians support the idea of joining the EU, marking the highest level of support in years. However, only 38 percent of the 1,500 participants believe that the current government is pursuing a “pro-Western” direction.

The impending EU enlargement process may still hold some surprises. Hungarian Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, responsible for enlargement within the bloc, has endorsed a proposal by European Council President Charles Michel to admit new members by 2030, challenging the Commission’s official stance that there is no set deadline.

Borrell’s hastily arranged visit appears to be a signal from Brussels that the opportunity for Georgia’s EU candidacy remains open. The question now revolves around whether the Georgian Dream party is still interested in pursuing it.

According to Tom de Waal, a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, the ruling party seems “serious about candidate status—but on their own terms.” In a few months, they may either take credit for the success of their strategy or be forced to explain its failure to an irate public.

North Korea’s announcement on Friday revealed the successful launch of a newly constructed “tactical nuclear attack submarine,” capable of executing underwater nuclear assaults. Leader Kim Jong-un declared his commitment to “further enhancing the state’s nuclear deterrence,” as reported by North Korea’s state media.

This launch ceremony, held on Wednesday, took place in advance of the country’s 75th founding anniversary, occurring on the upcoming Saturday. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) provided details of the event.

According to the KCNA, the submarine’s launch signifies a pivotal moment for strengthening North Korea’s naval capabilities. It underlines the unwavering determination of the ruling Workers’ Party (WPK) and the DPRK government to augment the state’s nuclear deterrence, both in terms of quality and quantity. This development is seen as a significant contribution to regional and global peace and security.

The term DPRK represents the official name of North Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Named the “Hero Kim Kun Ok,” this tactical nuclear attack submarine, designated as No. 841 and the first of its kind, will play a crucial role as a core underwater offensive asset for North Korea’s naval forces.

During his address, Kim highlighted that the submarine, once considered a symbol of invasion against North Korea, now symbolizes the nation’s power and terrifies its adversaries. He emphasized that it represents a unique and unprecedented addition to North Korea’s arsenal, distinct from anything seen in the world. This move is regarded as a response to the presence of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines.

Kim outlined the urgency of equipping the navy with nuclear weapons and called for the swift deployment of “underwater and surface vessels equipped with tactical nuclear weapons” to the Navy. He also disclosed plans to build more submarines, including a nuclear-powered variant.

Also Read: Trump’s Latest Attacks on Special Counsel Jack Smith: Last Straw?

Kim asserted that the launching ceremony bore an immense significance, equating it to the burden faced by their enemies when constructing a nuclear-powered submarine. He stressed that rapid naval force development stands as the nation’s top defense priority, given the geopolitical context and recent aggressive actions by adversaries.

Initial images released by the KCNA suggest that the new submarine features ten missile tubes, likely capable of launching submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). However, North Korea has not provided specific details. Reports indicate that the submarine may have been modified from a Romeo-class submarine, which typically lacks an SLBM launcher.

The submarine is also believed to have the capability to deploy the “Haeil,” North Korea’s first-ever nuclear-armed unmanned underwater vehicle unveiled in March.

However, a South Korean military official expressed skepticism about the new submarine’s capabilities. They noted that while certain external features suggest missile-carrying modifications, the submarine may not be fully operational. The official added that the military is investigating potential exaggerations by North Korea.

In light of North Korea’s expanding military cooperation with Russia and China, particularly in response to trilateral security developments involving Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo, this launch ceremony holds geopolitical significance. There are also reports of Kim’s potential visit to Vladivostok, Russia, for discussions with President Vladimir Putin and potential arms-related negotiations. South Korea’s intelligence agency had previously mentioned Russia’s proposal for trilateral naval exercises involving North Korea and China in late July.

After Jack Smith submitted a motion to the federal judge regarding Trump’s threats, Trump retaliated with further menacing remarks. Earlier that day, in the DC federal criminal case, Donald Trump’s legal team filed an unconventional “Emergency Motion to Vacate Order on Government’s Motion to Seal.”

This motion sought the judge’s intervention to prevent Special Counsel Jack Smith from filing confidential documents (not for public access) until both parties engaged in an extended dialogue to determine the necessity of sealing documents before considering their substance. Trump’s legal team requested the court to annul or set aside previous orders permitting Smith to file confidentially without this procedural step.

It’s evident that Trump’s legal team’s intention was to introduce significant delays, possibly in an attempt to thwart the scheduled trial date of March 4, 2024.

Jack Smith’s response to this motion shed light on the content of the sealed document he wished to submit, triggering yet another impulsive response from Donald Trump on his social media platform.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s rebuttal to Trump’s motion highlighted the improper delay tactics employed by Trump’s lawyers and disclosed an additional detail. Smith emphasized that prompt resolution was necessary regarding Donald Trump’s extrajudicial threats, which were the subject of the motion in question. These threats targeted not only the federal judge, Tanya Chutkan, but also prosecutors, witnesses, the judicial system, and the community at large.

Donald Trump promptly confirmed Jack Smith’s point by responding immediately, raising concerns about his ongoing behavior, both in person and on social media, and making further threats.

In one post, Trump labeled Jack Smith as “deranged” and accused him of possessing “unchecked and insane aggression.” He dismissed the criminal case against him as “fake” and emphatically demanded its dismissal.

Also Read: Two people Detained in China for Allegedly Damaging Great Wall with Excavator

In another post, Trump complained of being “persecuted” by “crazy Nancy Pelosi” and falsely claimed that the January 6 Committee records had been destroyed, despite over 1 million records from the committee having been provided to Trump during the discovery phase of the federal criminal case.

Donald Trump’s swift and aggressive reactions, immediately following Jack Smith’s motion, underscore the extent of his desperation. One possible scenario is that Trump is attempting to provoke federal judge Tanya Chutkan into ordering his arrest, a move that could garner more attention, allow him to continue his political maneuvering, portray himself as a martyr and victim, and potentially use it as a tactic to delay the trial. Trump seems less concerned with defending himself against the allegations and more focused on undermining the judicial system and tarnishing America’s reputation through his reprehensible behavior, with the apparent support of elements within the modern-day Republican Party.

In any case, Trump’s recent attacks seem to have pushed prosecutors and judges to their limits in ignoring his behavior, prompting Jack Smith to address this behavior urgently.

Two individuals have been apprehended in northern China on allegations of causing damage to a segment of the Great Wall using an excavator, as reported by local authorities.

Local law enforcement released a statement accusing a 38-year-old man and a 55-year-old woman from Shanxi province of excavating a passage through the Great Wall in order to establish a shortcut for their nearby construction project.

According to the statement, they expanded an existing gap in the ancient structure, creating enough space for their excavator to pass through in an attempt to “reduce travel distance.”

The police asserted that their excavation resulted in “irreversible” harm to the structural integrity and safety of that section of the wall.

Following reports of the damage on August 24, the Yuyou county police detained the two suspects, and the case is currently under further investigation, according to the statement.

Also Read: Internal Strife Threatens Syria’s Battle Against the Islamic State Group

The Great Wall, a critical defense structure for successive Chinese Empires in the north, spans over 20,000 kilometers (12,427 miles) in total length and was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1987. Its earliest portions date back more than two millennia and were expanded during China’s ancient dynasties.

The damage occurred in a section of the wall dating to the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), known as the 32nd Great Wall, which also houses a relatively well-preserved watchtower and is classified as a provincial cultural relic.

In recent years, Chinese authorities have increased their efforts to protect the Great Wall and clamp down on acts of vandalism. In 2021, police detained and fined three visitors who had defaced the famous Badaling section of the wall with a sharp object. Later that year, two foreign tourists were banned from the Great Wall for trespassing into an undeveloped portion of the Mutianyu section.