Max Blumenthal: Banning Protests Against Israel
Glenn Diesen | April 9, 2025
The editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
Lawmakers say RFK Jr. is spreading misinformation about psychiatric drugs
The real threat may be their attempt to silence the debate
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | April 9, 2025
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, established by Executive Order, convened its first meeting last month.
Among the topics discussed was the “threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and stimulants.”
Shortly thereafter, a group of legislators issued a strongly worded letter to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, accusing him of “promoting disproven and outright false theories” about these medications—reframing them as “behavioral health medication.”
They argued that even suggesting these drugs might pose a “threat” would “stigmatize” Americans with mental health conditions and potentially deter them from seeking medical care.
But labelling something a “threat” in a policy discussion is not a condemnation; it is an invitation to assess risk—a fundamental responsibility of medical oversight.
The letter, led by Senator Tina Smith, urged Kennedy to “adhere to the well-established and widely accepted scientific and medical consensus” on the matter.
Consensus? This is precisely the problem—they are appealing to authority to shut down inquiry rather than fostering critical examination.
The FDA itself has placed a black box warning on SSRIs, cautioning that studies have shown these drugs double the risk of suicidal ideation and behaviour in certain populations.
Should that warning be revoked for fear of discouraging treatment?
Are we now at a point where simply discussing the risks of medications is considered dangerous? What happened to informed consent?
And if we are to insist on evidence – as the legislators say – where is their study that suggests educating people about the harms and benefits of medication prevents them from seeking treatment?
It does not exist.
In many cases, psychotherapy should be prioritised over medication, as it is safer, more effective in the long run, and aligns with what most patients prefer.
Neither the MAHA Commission nor Kennedy has advocated for anyone to stop taking medication abruptly—a well-known risk—but rather to investigate the full scope of these drugs’ effects.
The legislators cited CDC statistics showing that “43 percent of children between the ages of 3 and 17 took medication for an emotional, concentrational, or behavioral condition,” then immediately noted that “youth mental health needs have only increased in the past five years.”
The contradiction is glaring—if these medications were the solution, why is the problem worsening? This is precisely what Kennedy seeks to investigate.
One of the most contentious points was Kennedy’s claim that SSRIs have been linked to school shootings in the U.S.
The legislators cited studies such as an analysis of FBI data on “educational shootings” from 2000-2017, which concluded that the majority of school shooters had not been previously treated with psychotropic medication.
However, these data are incomplete. Privacy laws restrict access to shooters’ full medical histories, making definitive conclusions about many of these analyses difficult.
Meanwhile, a 2015 study published in PLOS One by Moore et al. found a disproportionate association between certain psychotropic drugs and violent behaviour in the FDA’s adverse event reporting system.
The harms of antidepressants are often downplayed—even in the medical literature.
Comparisons between published studies and confidential regulatory documents have revealed significant discrepancies, including underreporting of suicide attempts and aggressive behaviour.
My point is, Kennedy is not asserting causation—he is calling for more research. The legislators’ dismissal of his concerns as “disproven” serves only to suppress an important discussion that demands further scrutiny.
At his confirmation hearing, Kennedy remarked, “I know people, including members of my family, who’ve had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than getting off of heroin.”
Legislators strongly objected to the comparison in the letter, but Kennedy was referring to the well-documented difficulties of SSRI discontinuation—affecting about half of those who take them, even though their dependency profile differs from that of opioids.
What most people don’t realise is that psychiatrists who specialise in tapering patients off antidepressants report that SSRI-withdrawal can last far longer than withdrawal from heroin.
In fact, some patients remain on SSRIs indefinitely—not by choice, but because withdrawal symptoms are so severe that stopping is unbearable. The legislators’ letter conveniently ignores this reality.
Instead of engaging with the substance of his arguments, Kennedy’s critics attacked his qualifications, claiming he was “unqualified” to weigh in on mental health or addiction.
True, Kennedy is not a psychiatrist—or even a physician. But as a lawyer who has spent decades exposing the failures of public health institutions, he understands where scrutiny is needed.
Moreover, Kennedy is not issuing medical directives—he is demanding accountability in a system that too often fails to critically examine the long-term effects of the medications it prescribes.
As Danish physician Peter Gøtzsche has shown, prescription drugs are a leading cause of death, surpassing even heart disease and cancer—and psychiatric medications alone are the third leading cause of death.
Why are these legislators so adamantly defending what is widely acknowledged as the rampant over-prescription of psychiatric drugs? Could it have anything to do with their deep ties to Big Pharma lobbyists?
Their eagerness to silence dissent suggests that the interests being protected may not be those of the public, but rather those of the industry that funds their campaigns.
I have been writing about this issue for years, exposing the pharmaceutical industry’s role in shaping narratives around psychiatric drugs while downplaying their harms.
The pattern is always the same — suppress uncomfortable discussions, attack those who raise legitimate concerns, and protect the status quo.
How fragile do these legislators think people are, that they shouldn’t be trusted with the full truth about the medications they take? And more disturbingly, what gives them the authority to control what information the public is allowed to access?
Kennedy pledged that “nothing is going to be off limits” in his effort to Make America Healthy Again—this is what he meant.
Raising questions is not misinformation. And shutting down debate is not science.
If policymakers are confident in the safety and efficacy of these drugs, they should welcome scrutiny—not suppress it.
Below is a letter from Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate – addressed to Senator Tina Smith. It requests a meeting to discuss mental health and antidepressant safety concerns, referencing Witczak’s personal experience, attaching 15 studies highlighting issues like clinical trial misconduct and regulatory failures


AIPAC leader boasts of special ‘access’ to top Trump natsec officials in leaked audio
By Max Blumenthal | The Grayzone | April 9, 2025
During an off-the-record panel, AIPAC’s CEO detailed his organization’s grooming of Trump’s top national security officials, and how his group’s “access” ensures they continue to follow Israel’s agenda.
The Grayzone has obtained audio of an off-the-record session from the 2025 Congressional Summit of AIPAC, the main US lobbying arm of the state of Israel. Recorded by an attendee of the panel discussion, the audio features AIPAC’s new CEO, Elliott Brandt, describing how his organization has cultivated influence with three top national security officials in the Trump administration – Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Director Mike Waltz, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe – and how it believes it can gain “access” to their internal discussions.
Joining Brandt on the panel was Dana Stroul, formerly the highest ranking civilian overseeing Middle East issues in the Biden administration’s Department of Defense. Stroul made it clear that defending Israel’s strategic imperatives from within the US government was a top priority, arguing that Washington should deepen its “mutually beneficial” special relationship with its “strong partner” in Tel Aviv.
Stroul dismissed the bloodbath in Gaza as the result of supposed Hamas tactics which supposedly aim to maximize the amount of children killed by Israel. At the same time, she and her fellow Israel lobbyists fretted about the impact of the post-October 7 war on public support for the self-proclaimed Jewish state. She was particularly troubled by Sen. Bernie Sanders’ attempts to force votes on military aid packages to Israel which, in her view, should never be debated in the open. Another unidentified AIPAC panelist worried that pro-Palestinian academics could eventually influence AI knowledge systems, leading to a dangerous shift in national security policy unless they were decisively suppressed.
The Congressional Summit was permeated with anxiety, as AIPAC leaders told rank-and-file members to hide their badges when they left the Marriott Hotel for fear they would be confronted by anti-genocide protesters. Other than a handful of sessions, such as a keynote address by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, the conference was strictly off-the-record.
With the cameras off, AIPAC leadership provided unusually candid details of their activities. In one revealing admission, Brandt explained how he and his lobbying organization groomed the future CIA director and other top Trump officials as pro-Israel assets.
AIPAC’s “lifelines” on the Trump national security team
Elliot Brandt was promoted to Executive Director of AIPAC in 2024, making him one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington. Though he is largely unknown to the American public, Brandt has spent around three decades building relationships on Capitol Hill. This was the key, he suggested, to cultivating the future leaders of America’s national security state as loyal servants of Israel.
Referring to Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his National Security Director Mike Waltz, and Elise Stefanik, whose nomination to serve as the US ambassador to the United Nations was suddenly withdrawn to preserve the GOP’s majority in the House of Representatives, Brandt explained to AIPAC members, “Those three people have something in common: they all served in Congress.”
After relying heavily on pro-Israel donors to fuel their campaigns for office, “they all have relationships with key AIPAC leaders from their communities,” said the AIPAC CEO. “So the lines of communication are good should there be something questionable or curious, and we need access on the conversation.”
Brandt’s comments corroborate Representative Thomas Massie’s claim that each member of Congress is expected to answer to an “AIPAC person.”
The AIPAC director’s reference to his organization’s “access” to presumably internal national security discussions contains ominous echoes of past espionage scandals in which AIPAC employees were accused of forking classified information over to Israeli intelligence. In 2004, for example, the FBI arrested a Pentagon researcher named Larry Franklin, who had provided classified documents related to Iran to two AIPAC staffers, Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen, who then delivered the information to Israeli intelligence. That December, the FBI raided AIPAC’s offices and seized a computer belonging to Brandt’s predecessor, Howard Kohr. (In the end, Franklin received a slap on the wrist from the government while Weissman and Rosen were fired by AIPAC.)
In his remarks to the AIPAC Congressional Summit, Brandt also pointed to CIA Director John Ratcliffe as an important point of contact. “You know that one of the first candidates I ever met with as an AIPAC professional in my job when he was a candidate for Congress was a guy named John Ratcliffe,” he recalled. “He was challenging a long time member of Congress in Dallas. I said, this guy looks like he could win the race, and, we go talk to him. He had a good understanding of issues, and a couple of weeks ago, he took the oath as the CIA director, for crying out loud. This is a guy that we had a chance to speak to, so there are, there are a lot – I wouldn’t call them lifelines, but there are lifelines in there.”
Top Pentagon veteran comes out as Israel lobbyist
Dana Stroul works as director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a neoconservative think tank that was originally founded as the research arm of AIPAC. Stroul previously served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in the Biden administration’s Pentagon, presiding over policy toward Iran, Syria and virtually every other issue of importance to Israel.
In a closed session at the Marriott hotel, seated before an audience of AIPAC members, Stroul sounded more like a veteran Israel lobbyist than a US national security expert, arguing at length that any and all US military aid packages to Israel provided a net benefit to American empire, while dismissing well-documented Israeli atrocities in the besieged Gaza Strip as the result of “clever” Hamas human shield tactics.
According to an attendee of the AIPAC Congressional Summit, Stroul began her remarks by recalling the frantic hours after she received word of the October 7, 2023 attacks. Personally summoned to work by then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Stroul described how she rushed her child to the Pentagon’s in-house daycare center so she could get to the work of surging munitions to the Israeli military. She said she worked continuously for the next 48 hours, helping the Pentagon transfer weapons from its own stockpiles to Israeli bases. (The AIPAC attendee was unable to capture audio of these comments by Stroul).
Even as she worked to ensure that Israel had all it needed to transform Gaza into a moonscape, Stroul privately acknowledged that the Israeli military might be committing war crimes, according to a series of emails leaked to Reuters. On October 13, 2023, Stroul fired off an email to top White House, State Department, and Pentagon officials about a phone call she had just held with the International Red Cross Committee’s (ICRC) Middle East director, Fabrizio Carboni. “ICRC is not ready to say this in public, but is raising private alarm that Israel is close to committing war crimes,” Stroul wrote. “Their main line is that it is impossible for one million civilians to move this fast.”
Since recognizing the likelihood of Israeli atrocities, Stroul has apparently kept her conscience clear by blaming Hamas for the over 50,000 civilians Israel has killed in Gaza. “I think if you’re in Iran, or you are the Houthis or any of these other proxy terrorist groups, and frankly, probably the Russians and the Chinese,” she told AIPAC members at the 2025 congressional summit, “you’re looking at the ways in which the international community so quickly moved on from October 7 and what happened to Israel and why Israel is at war, and you’re probably taking away that a great tactic in wars to put as many civilians on the front lines as possible so that they can just get killed. And so, the Hamas tactic had strategic effects, because Israel finds itself isolated on the international stage. And it’s a tactic by Hamas to both terrorize on the global stage, and number two, [for] propaganda and disinformation.“
Stroul went on to suggest that the Israeli military was superior in ways to the US military. “This is a mutually beneficial relationship. This is not just about what the United States gives Israel,” the former Pentagon official declared. “This is a partner that has flipped the script on what can be accomplished with military force in a way the United States military never conceived of doing against Iran and Iran’s proxies across the Middle East. We get as much intelligence from Israel, as we give to Israel. They are using our F-35 more than we are using it…”
In her view, Israel also served as an important proxy of the US by applying violence and taking casualties against its supposed enemies: “One thing that you hear that I think is common on the far right and the far left is that they don’t want young men, American men and women, service members going to war in the Middle East, or anywhere. So the way to not have young Americans on the line anywhere is to actually invest in strong partners who can defend themselves. That’s Israel.”
One month after Stroul delivered her comments to AIPAC, President Donald Trump restarted the US military assault on Yemen’s Ansarullah movement in order to protect Israeli shipping from its blockade of the Red Sea. The war has by now cost US taxpayers at least one billion dollars, but has failed to achieve freedom of navigation.
Like the other AIPAC panelists, Stroul was consumed with anxiety about Israel’s image among the American public. She singled out Sen. Bernie Sanders’ efforts to suspend military aid to Israel as a particular source of concern, though not necessarily because she believed they would be successful.
“What do I worry about? I think everyone who’s a supporter of this relationship needs to be wary of the manner in which sometimes it’s not going to be about – Israel is going to be about congressional versus legislative tussling, but Israel is going to be caught in the crosshairs. And I’m worried about that with these executive holds,” Stroul proclaimed.
I’m worried about it with things like the [Bernie] Sanders joint resolutions of disapproval, even if he doesn’t force a vote this time, we’re not getting through four years without him forcing a vote. And it is not good for Israel and for this relationship to make members constantly have to vote on it, even if they pass. That’s not the point. The point is to not have to debate every time.”
Fear of a pro-Palestine AI system
Asked about his greatest concern, an AIPAC panelist whom The Grayzone has not been able to identify pointed to academia and social media. According to the clearly seasoned Israel lobbyist, Israel was losing “the war of ideas” to a collection of professors and influencers with outsized influence among the future generation of America’s intelligentsia.
“Imagine five years from now, a staff, a congressional staffer, types into AI Claude, GBT, at that one. GBT, 14, whatever says, ‘Is supporting Israel bad for American national security?’ The answer that they get back is going to be informed by the information that’s on the internet today, which is why punching back in the information sphere becomes so important,” the Israel lobbyist urged.
“When you disengage, you leave an open playing field for precisely that sort of information that’s going to inform national security decisions five years from now. And by the way, Congress is not immune, because if a member of Congress, if his or her elector, is increasingly being read that type of information, it will skew how they pressure him or her to vote, or even to throw him or her out of office and pick somebody else. Right?… I mean, it starts in academia, but it doesn’t end there, right?”
AIPAC did not respond to The Grayzone’s request for comment about statements made during the off-the-record panel.
Israel orders closure of UNRWA schools in Jerusalem’s Shuafat camp
MEMO | April 9, 2025
The Israeli occupation state’s police have informed all school principals working for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Shuafat refugee camp, in occupied East Jerusalem, of official orders to close their schools within 30 days, Quds Press reported.
According to Palestinian sources, the Israeli authorities have instructed UNRWA’s school administration in Shuafat to transfer all students to schools run by the Israeli municipality in Jerusalem.
This decision follows repeated incidents targeting UNRWA’s operations in occupied East Jerusalem. Just a week ago, UNRWA reported that its headquarters in the area was deliberately set on fire once again, amid what it described as a sustained and systematic campaign of incitement against the agency.
UNRWA stated that “this condemnable act is part of ongoing and systematic incitement against the agency for months,” warning that UN staff and facilities across the West Bank are facing escalating threats.
The agency also recalled that, in January 2025, its staff were “forced to evacuate” its East Jerusalem premises as Israeli laws aimed at restricting UNRWA’s work came into effect after the Israeli Knesset voted to ban UNRWA’s operations within Israel in October 2024, labelling it a “terrorist group”.
Israel beats drums of war in run-up to Iran-US talks
Press TV – April 9, 2025
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has revisited threats of deployment of military force against Iran’s nuclear facilities, demanding physical destruction of the nuclear sites, a few days before the Islamic Republic and the United States are slated to engage in indirect talks.
The Israeli official made the call in a video address on Tuesday, alleging that the prospect of using military force was the only means of ensuring, what he called, Tehran’s non-pursuance of “nuclear weapons.”
He asserted that any agreement between the United States and Iran could only succeed if Iran’s nuclear facilities were “blown up” and “dismantled” under American supervision.
“We agree that Iran will not have nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said, referring to his discussions with US President Donald Trump. However, he dismissed the prospect of a purely diplomatic path, saying things would only work if the United States took direct military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
“If we go in, blow up the [nuclear] facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision and American execution — that is good,” he claimed.
“If that doesn’t happen,” he added, Iran could “drag out talks.” “Then the option is military,” Netanyahu alleged.
The Israeli premier also said he and Trump had discussed that scenario “at length.”
The remarks flew directly in the face of the Islamic Republic’s repeated assertions that it would neither pursue nor possess any such unconventional weapons as per clear moral and religious imperatives.
Netanyahu’s comments followed a tense meeting at the White House, where he appeared publicly out of step with Trump on several major issues, including Iran, regional diplomacy, and trade.
During the meeting, he found out from Trump firsthand that Iran and the US were to engage in indirect talks.
Several major Israeli media outlets later said the Israeli delegation had “shock written all over their faces” after the announcement, saying Netanyahu had returned from the meeting “empty-handed” and “humiliated.” One outlet even described the meeting as the “most failed” one to ever take place between an Israeli premier and a US president.
Nonetheless, Netanyahu tried to frame the visit positively, describing it as “very warm” and suggesting further announcements would be made in due time.
USAID paid Czech groups to ‘wage war’ against Russia – former police chief
RT | April 9, 2025
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) financed a long-running anti-Russian campaign in the Czech Republic, former Czech police chief Stanislav Novotny has told RT. In an exclusive interview on Wednesday, Novotny said Washington’s primary channel for funding political projects abroad had played a major role in shaping Czech-Russian relations.
According to the former police chief, who is now a lawyer and journalist, US billionaire George Soros has also had a significant influence on the deterioration of ties between Prague and Moscow through his Open Society Foundations.
“A lot of money was poured into civil society organizations of political nature which were waging a war against Russia,” Novotny said. “Such organizations should simply be removed,” he added, accusing the Czech government of spending taxpayers’ money on stoking anti-Russian sentiment by contributing financially to the organizations.
US President Donald Trump launched the process of dismantling USAID shortly after returning to office in January, citing high costs and limited benefits associated with its programs. He also started negotiations with Russia aimed at improving ties and resolving the Ukraine conflict.
While commenting on the developments around USAID in early February, Novotny described the agency as “the monster that has taken over the world,” alleging it “orchestrated wars, organized mass migration, broke up national cohesion and destroyed indigenous cultures.”
The Czech Republic was formed in 1993 after the Velvet Revolution of 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Prior to those events it was part of communist Czechoslovakia, a key member of the Soviet Union-led Eastern Bloc.
Prague has adopted a notably anti-Russian stance in recent years, particularly in response to the events in Ukraine, becoming one of Kiev’s staunchest supporters and labeling Russia a “terrorist state.”
Hundreds of Soviet-era monuments have been removed or modified in the EU state since the 1990s, with a renewed wave of demolitions after the 2014 armed coup in Kiev, Crimea’s decision to join Russia, and the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
The campaign to demolish the monuments was “among the policies that were aimed at provoking fear and hatred towards the Russians,” Novotny argued.
Novotny, who founded the Independent Media Association in the Czech Republic, said he came to Moscow to give the RT interview because “talking to Russian journalists is practically prohibited.” RT and other Russian media have been banned in the EU since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict.
Ukraine risks losing Odessa if ideas of European troop deployment entertained
By Ahmed Adel | April 9, 2025
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated that Europe has its eye on Odessa and Lvov and is making plans for military intervention that are “reminiscent of the military intervention by the Entente” during the 1917-1922 Russian Civil War. Despite Western plans, Russia will not allow the presence of NATO forces on Ukraine’s territory, as this would pose a direct threat to national security.
Given the strategic importance of Odessa and Lvov, the West did not accidentally target these cities. Odessa is a port that leads to the Danube, and whoever controls the historically Russian city greatly influences the Black Sea. Meanwhile, Lvov is Ukraine’s gateway to the European Union.
Although Kiev, Kharkov, and Dnipropetrovsk are also large Ukrainian cities, the West will not risk its troops there, especially in the latter two, because they are too close to the front line. This is the same issue as Odessa, which is not far from the Dnieper and Kherson, but the city has too much strategic value to surrender.
Odessa, founded in 1794 by the Russian Empress Catherine the Great as a military and trading port on the Black Sea, has always been considered a Russian city. During the Russian Empire, it was part of Novorossiya, but during the creation of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin effectively gave it to Ukraine.
Odessa, a city that was occupied for more than 900 days during World War II, was liberated from German Nazi forces by Red Army soldiers. For Russians, Odessa is a hero city, but even more than that, because it was one of the first cities where the Russian Spring began, a mass action that was a response to the coup d’état in Kiev in 2014, when pro-Western and neo-Nazi currents took power.
Mass pro-Russian protests were held in many cities in southeastern Ukraine, and the discontented people, who were facing repression from the new Kiev regime, rose up to defend the Russian language and their rights. It all culminated in early May 2014 in Odessa, where supporters of the “Anti-Maidan,” opponents of the Ukrainian putschists, were burned alive in the Odessa House of Trade Unions. Ukrainian neo-Nazis shot those who tried to escape by jumping out of the building. Almost 50 people were killed and more than 250 were injured. The Ukrainian authorities have obstructed the investigation into this crime for years, and a decade later, this crime remains unpunished.
Despite all the tribulations and trials, Odessa has remained a Russian city historically, culturally, and in its mentality and spirit.
A “Coalition of the Willing” summit was held in Paris towards the end of March and representatives of about 30 countries, without the United States’ participation, discussed possible security guarantees for Kiev after the end of the Ukrainian conflict and the potential deployment of a military contingent on Ukraine’s territory.
Zakharova specified that the summit in Paris discussed the Franco-British initiative to deploy some “reassurance forces” in Ukraine after the conclusion of a peace agreement, rather than a peacekeeping contingent. According to her, this is reminiscent of the military intervention of the Entente forces during the Russian Civil War.
The parallels between that historical event and what is happening today are quite obvious.
European countries, the US, and Japan intervened in the Russian Civil War, hoping to grab their share of the crumbling Russian Empire. They thought that while fighting was waging on the front, they could grab Russia, including Ukraine, which was then in the process of being created. Ultimately, when they realized they were losing, they fled.
In essence, this is how they plan to introduce these contingents—it is unclear what kind—into Ukraine today.
The Kremlin has repeatedly said that it will not allow the deployment of NATO forces in Ukraine, while emphasizing that it was precisely the Atlantic Alliance’s expansion to the East that was the reason for the start of the Russian special military operation in February 2022.
NATO’s entry into any city, whether Lvov, Odessa, Kiev, or Kharkov, is unacceptable for Moscow, and it is clear that they will perceive this as NATO’s conquest of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine is the “soft tissue at the bottom of Russia’s belly,” and the entry of NATO forces would be an increased threat to Russian national security.
The loss of Odessa would be fatal for the Ukrainian economy and military, as Ukraine would lose its last major port on the Black Sea through which Western arms shipments now flow and where Ukraine can export to the world, particularly metals and wheat. Odessa has been mostly spared from the current war, with Russia not having yet attempted to liberate the city, but if discussions in the West to deploy troops continue and Kiev entertains it, it could instigate a Russian action to take the city. That would deal another major blow to Ukraine’s ailing economy and post-war recovery.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
