© Jillian Vordick/The New York Times
© Julia Demaree Nikhinson/Associated Press
© The New York Times
The strange historical dispute between Poland and Ukraine, in which Polish officials keep making demands upon Ukraine, seems unwilling to die down. Most recently, on October 20 the L’viv oblast (regional) council announced plans to honor the World War II-era Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and its military leader, Roman Shukhevych. The council declared 2027 as the Year of the UPA, the Year of Shukhevych and the Year of Oleh Olzhych, a Ukrainian poet and political activist. In response, the Polish charge d’affaires in Kyiv, Piotr Lukasiewicz, responded by stating that “glorifying the UPA and criminal figures runs counter to European values and the strategic and neighborly relations between Ukraine and Poland.” Similar statements were then echoed by other Polish officials, including ministers. Are the Poles right about it being the Ukrainians who are running afoul of European values? And are Poles right to think that they have the right and the authority to police whom in history Ukraine chooses to memorialize? I would suggest that the answer to both questions is no.
Sovereign equality is a fundamental principle in international law that asserts that all states are equal, regardless of their size or power. The equality of states is a fundamental constitutional principle that governs how the European Union functions. As a general proposition, it is, thus, contrary to European values for Poland or Polish officials to assume that Poland has some sort a special right to dictate to Ukraine whom it may or may not memorialize, as one can presume that Poland would vigorously reject Ukraine’s or anyone else’s attempt to tell Poland which historical figures it may or may not memorialize based on that outside country’s views of the demerits of Poland’s various heroes.
But given the spirit behind the set of values that developed after the horrors of World War II and after the Western European countries finally lost all of their colonies by the 1960s, there are certain actions by Ukraine or any European country that could merit criticism or even condemnation. For example, it is incontestable that in the summer of 1943 the UPA, which was newly formed in Volyn, attacked Polish villages and there killed civilian men, women and children in the tens of thousands. It is also incontestable that according to most definitions, that massacre was a war crime. With respect to these events, what actions by contemporary Ukrainians could merit condemnation? There are two. First, if any Ukrainian official or political figure or public intellectual or organization were to deny that this massacre took place, he/she/they/it would clearly merit condemnation. Have any current or recent Ukrainian officials or other spokespersons denied the occurrence of the Volyn massacre? The answer is no.
Second, if any Ukrainian official or political figure or public intellectual or organization were to admit that the Volyn massacre took place but nevertheless deny that it was a war crime or actually condone it on the basis of some one or another historical Ukrainian grievance against the Poles, that would, in accord with contemporary European values, merit condemnation. Have any current or recent Ukrainian officials or other spokespersons denied that the massacres of Poles were a war crime or maintain that for some reason these massacres were to be viewed approvingly? The answer, once again, is no.
So why do Polish officials still complain? They complain because in effect they want to assert that they have the right more generally to be the ones to define Ukraine’s historical past. As the great British historian of Poland Norman Davies has pointed out, this is absurd. About 4% or 5% of the soldiers in UPA participated in the Volyn killings, and in fact most of the members of UPA joined after 1943. UPA is memorialized in Ukraine because of the extraordinary heroism of many, but certainly not all, of its members in the Ukrainian anti-colonial struggle against the Poles, the Germans and the Soviets that extended into the 1950s against the Soviets. The Poles seem to think that, ignoring what UPA did against the Germans and for much longer against the Soviets, and regardless how large or how small was the percentage of the UPA that was involved in the 1943 massacre, it is what happened to the Poles who were massacred that is more important than all else and it must be that which defines who and what UPA was. The Poles are of course entitled to view the UPA however they choose, but they insist on more. They insist on having the right to dictate to Ukrainians how to view the UPA.
There is another major problem with Polish complaints about Ukrainian memorialization. It is the problem of moral standing. The Polish minority in Volyn, about at most 16% in the interwar period, represented the nation that had militarily conquered and then occupied Volyn and other parts of western Ukraine. Ukrainians constituted between 65% and 70% of Volyn’s population. Some among the Polish minority were the descendants of the Polish lords and their administrators who had colonized Ukraine in the 15th – 17th centuries when Ukrainians were enserfed, a form of slavery that continued into the 19th century. In the interwar period between World War I and II, the Polish minority maintained its political, economic, educational and cultural domination of the Ukrainian majority. And, during World War II, the Polish government in exile in London continued to insist that Poland had the right to include Volyn in Poland and thus to continue to maintain dominion over the Ukrainian majority living there. None of this obscures what was a war crime, but given the Polish history of domination and exploitation of Ukrainians, it does call into serious question whether today’s Poles as putative representatives of the historical Polish nation should today have moral standing to make complaints against Ukrainians.
Lastly, killing civilians is killing civilians. It is a war crime. As has been well documented, during World War II various Polish units, including units of the Polish Home Army, which army is widely venerated and memorialized in Poland, attacked Ukrainian villages and killed civilian men, women and children. Those killings are often waived off as supposedly “retaliatory” attacks, but that is nonsense. The villages that were attacked were not even in Volyn but were simply Ukrainian. So if today’s Poles think that they have a right to make grievance claims on historical memory relating to events multiple generations ago, then they must also accept the burdens of accepting grievance claims against them. To put it in legal terminology, as regards history, it’s not as if Poles had clean hands.
In light of all of the above considerations, and with the exceptions discussed above, contemporary Polish officials do not have the right to routinely keep injecting themselves into Ukrainian decisions to memorialize historical figures that, for Ukrainians, were predecessors of Ukraine’s current efforts to fight off yet another attempt to subjugate it.
Dr. Bohdan Vitvitsky is a retired federal prosecutor and a former U.S. diplomat who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy.
I will join my fellow Gulf War veterans in Washington on Saturday for the dedication of the Desert Shield and Desert Storm Memorial. Our journey began Sunday, Aug. 5, 1990, three days after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, when President George H.W. Bush stood on the White House lawn and declared, “This will not stand — this aggression against Kuwait.”
I was privileged to have been a battalion commander then and, soon after Bush’s speech, led roughly 700 soldiers from Germany to the Middle East. At the end of the ground campaign, my unit was astride the so-called Highway of Death that connects Kuwait City to Basra following the famous “left hook” into Iraq. This weekend, I am looking forward to seeing many of my men — some of whom I have not seen for more than 30 years — but I fear my pride in my soldiers’ bravery and accomplishments will be tempered by what I believe the nation has lost since that conflict.
We deployed to liberate a sovereign nation from a totalitarian government. Our approach was the same as our parents’ in World War II, when American soldiers freed Europe from fascist occupation.
I told my soldiers in 1990 that American interests as well as our values — democracy, freedom, justice and respect for international law — were the basis for our deployment. We deployed to defend and liberate a sovereign nation from aggression by a totalitarian Iraqi government. Our approach was the same as our parents’ in World War II, when American soldiers helped free Europe from fascist occupation.
But based on how President Donald Trump has approached Ukraine and its ongoing efforts to resist Russian aggression, it appears that the democratic values that have long guided our national security policy are no longer relevant, and the use of U.S. military power is now based solely on the cold calculation of economic gain. The United States no longer supports nations, even fledgling democracies, that are the victims of aggression, but aligns itself with totalitarian states.
Recent decisions by the Trump administration are not only contrary to American values but a watershed for the future of U.S. national security policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed in September that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been invited to attend December’s Group of 20 summit in Miami. The Trump administration has also proposed unfreezing Russian assets in Europe to encourage Moscow to participate in peace talks. European and Asian leaders were surprised, shocked, upset and deeply critical of these decisions, which effectively seek to normalize economic relations with Russia.
Trump said on Oct. 9 that he and Putin had talked on the phone and reached an agreement for Russia to supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel fuel to U.S. and global markets. This translates into $4 billion for the Russian war machine. The president said this deal would lower diesel prices — and he blamed Ukraine for the rise in fuel costs here — but it is brutally clear that Trump is simply trying to appeal to American voters in the final days before the midterm elections. Energy experts are nearly unanimous that this agreement will have a limited impact on the cost of fuel and that the overwhelming driver for skyrocketing fuel costs is the president’s war with Iran. The agreement has been condemned by U.S. allies as well as congressional leaders on both side of the aisle.
On Oct. 11, Trump announced a unilateral “energy ceasefire” on his social media platform. He said that the truce between Russia and Ukraine was “effective immediately” and that both parties had agreed to halt strikes on energy infrastructure. But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy subsequently noted that Kyiv learned of the purported truce through media reports, and Russian forces continued striking Ukrainian power facilities immediately following Trump’s announcement.
The president subsequently declared that Russia “has been fine on Ukraine,” argued that Ukraine was largely responsible for the continuation of the war, accused Zelenskyy of ingratitude and called for him to be replaced.
The president subsequently declared that Russia “has been fine on Ukraine,” argued that Ukraine was largely responsible for the continuation of the war, accused Zelenskyy of ingratitude and called for him to be replaced. At the same time, his administration hasn’t explained the disruption of Ukraine’s use of SpaceX’s Starshield, which provides Kyiv with critical intelligence on both incoming Russian ballistic missiles and jet-powered drones as well as command and control. An increase in Ukrainian civilian casualties followed as Russia continued its relentless bombardment. The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. officials, reported Thursday that the president had called SpaceX chief Elon Musk to have those restrictions lifted.
Trump has waived the imposition of new sanctions against the Russian government, oligarchs and companies as well as nations purchasing Russian energy consistent with the so-called Graham Act, named in memory of the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham. The president argued that negotiations with Russia were ongoing, and he did not “want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.” As Bush told the nation from the Oval Office on Aug. 8, 1990, “Appeasement does not work.” History bears him out.
It is true that the Bush administration was also pursuing economic interests in thwarting Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait. Secretary of State James Baker argued that allowing Iraq to control the crucial economic lifeline of the Persian Gulf would trigger a worldwide recession and subsequent American job losses. Yet the Bush administration didn’t seek to avoid war by pursuing an agreement with Saddam for American economic advantage, like Trump is doing with Putin.
Trump has shown a problematic lack of support for Ukraine since the outset of his second term, and he is likely frustrated by his failure to deliver on his campaign promise to end the war in 24 hours. The Trump administration is no longer treating Ukraine as a victim of aggression but as an obstacle to the president’s admiration for Putin and desire for closer economic cooperation with Russia. Trump seems to believe this would be an economic bonanza. American national security policy is now transactional and bereft of values.
Oddly, as of Friday morning, there had been no announcement about who would speak at the dedication of the Gulf War memorial on Saturday. I suspect the president and senior members of his administration are too busy campaigning. In some ways, I hope they are too busy, because I fear the president would attempt to turn a day set aside to honor Desert Storm veterans into a campaign rally. But if he shows up, it may do him some good. We’ll gather a short distance from memorials dedicated to World War II, Vietnam and Korea, and not far from the Lincoln Memorial. To stand in that space is to reflect on the values our nation holds dear.
The post May the new Desert Storm Memorial inspire President Trump to forcefully defend Ukraine appeared first on MS NOW.
A new report by the Federal Reserve Board says that from 2022 to 2025, the median net worth in the United States rose for families of all racial and ethnic groups — except Black people, whose median net worth fell a stunning 25%. During 2019-2022, by contrast, the median net worth for Black families increased by 60%. The median wealth of white families last year was nine times that of Black families. That is the largest gap since 2016.
“It’s the economy, stupid” was James Carville’s blunt, and effective, slogan during Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign.
Today, it is the economy that’s stupid — especially for Black Americans.
The median wealth of white families last year was nine times that of Black families. That is the largest gap since 2016.
While President Donald Trump’s fatuous war against Iran makes prices soar for everybody, African Americans are being subjected to a unique level of economic pain, providing them another reason to scorn Trump’s Republican Party this Election Day.
Factors in the African American economy’s turnaround are complex and varied. At the macro-level, Trump has convinced much of America, including corporations and colleges, that promoting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts to redress a long legacy of racism is taboo, if not illegal.
Black workers saw his harsh, overzealous firing of federal employees as a community affront because the government, especially in the Post Office decades ago, was a place where Black people could more reliably get jobs, even if at the lower levels, when other employers didn’t hire them.
Other factors include African Americans holding more money in houses and cars, which don’t gain ground like stocks and bonds. Also the Covid-19 financial assistance that was especially helpful for lower-income Black households during the pandemic expired in 2021.
And the bad economic news — especially for Black families — keeps coming.
The Black unemployment rate rose to 7% in September, a full percentage point over August. As usual, the Black unemployment rate is about twice the rate for white people, which is now 3.6%. (The Hispanic unemployment rate is in between, at 4.7%.)
Meanwhile, the social safety net is in tatters as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) participation has dropped to it lowest level in 17 years, even while “affordability” campaigns crowd the political landscape.
This administration has defunded and dismantled policies and economic safeguards for Black people to gain and maintain generational wealth in this country. We must fight to restore and expand the pathways that allow Black families to build, protect and pass down that wealth.
NAACP PRESIDENT AND CEO DERRICK JOHNSON
Last month, not long before the Federal Reserve released its consumer survey, the NAACP published its Roadmap to Generational Wealth, an initiative to dismantle “the systemic barriers that fuel the widening racial wealth gap in America.” The document focuses on crucial pillars that could help close the racial gap.
“This administration has defunded and dismantled policies and economic safeguards for Black people to gain and maintain generational wealth in this country,” NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson wrote. “We must fight to restore and expand the pathways that allow Black families to build, protect, and pass down that wealth.”
As usual, Trump sees what he wants to see and makes up the rest. This month, he told reporters that “we’re doing great” when asked about the economy.
— Center for Economic and Policy Research (@ceprdc.bsky.social) 2026-10-20T12:45:46.959175643Z
People don’t believe that. If they did, then the economy wouldn’t be the highest ranked issue for voters, including African Americans.
Eighty-seven percent of Black voters, more than any other group surveyed, listed the economy as their top concern in a Pew Research Center poll conducted Sept. 28-Oct. 4. With the alarming data about falling net worth, rising unemployment and sliding SNAP rates, it’s no wonder why. African Americans see more danger ahead.
Politics play a major role in the economy and the “future of democracy” also is a high-rated concern, cited by 72% of Black people. Voting is the fundamental function of democracy, and African Americans know that Republicans from state houses to the Supreme Court have used every tool to diminish the Black vote. Other major issues, including Washington’s unchecked corruption, the vanquishing of DEI and draconian immigration enforcement also drew substantial attention from African Americans in the survey.
None of this bodes well for Trump and his Republican allies if they care about Black votes.
But just as Trump is trying to convince Iran he has defeated it, he is trying to convince Black Americans that they’ve been winning because of him. The White House provided a list of 24 bullet points with “tangible benefits” meant to persuade Black families that he is not the man they know him to be. Lynne Patton, deputy assistant to the president for coalition, policy and engagement, told me in an email, “Even though the media refuses to cover it, I have seen firsthand the incredible impact President Trump has made for Hispanic and Black Americans.” Among other things, Patton cited what she called “the largest middle-class tax cuts in American history,” a drop in violent crime and “an additional $174 million” for historically Black university and colleges.
But with all the bluster, bullet points and whatever impact those points might have, another Pew Poll this month found Black families are not convinced. Only 7% of African American voters back Republicans this election.
The post This shocking new report is bad news for Black Americans — and likely also Donald Trump appeared first on MS NOW.
Hillary Clinton may no longer be the most influential voice in the Democratic Party, but she remains a member in good standing of the party establishment. So when she expresses support for expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, it tells us that what was once a radical idea has gone mainstream.
“We should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power,” Clinton said on a recent podcast. “You know, it used to be that you’d have one justice for each circuit. We now have 13 circuits, we should have 13 justices.”
Adding four justices to the court is just one of the potential reforms that have been suggested as a way of curbing the court’s abuses. Others include 18-year term limits for justices, ethics rules with actual teeth (no more billionaire-funded junkets for you, Justice Thomas) and limits on the court’s ability to strike down any law they don’t like. Whichever particular reforms one prefers, it is no longer acceptable for a Democrat to simply decry the latest awful ruling. They have to be willing to entertain fundamental change to the institution.
This shift in Democrats’ thinking is as remarkable as it is recent. Five years ago, Sen. Ed Markey introduced a bill to do just what Clinton and others now favor, adding four justices to the court; it got only two co-sponsors, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Tina Smith. Joe Biden responded to demands for court reform with Washington’s favorite way of burying an issue: He appointed a commission to study it. They produced a lengthy white paper, but it wasn’t until July 2024 — after he pulled out of the presidential race — that Biden finally endorsed term limits and an enforceable ethics code.
The situation today is far different. Supreme Court reform will almost certainly be part of the 2028 Democratic platform, and just about every politician considering a presidential bid has already come out for at least some version of reform.
The list of potential contenders who have endorsed court expansion — perhaps the most radical of the proposed reforms — is long and getting longer. It includes Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Term limits have been endorsed by Sens. Chris Murphy, Cory Booker and Elissa Slotkin, along with Gov. Andy Beshear. Other potential candidates, including Sen. Raphael Warnock and Govs. Josh Shapiro and JB Pritzker, are taking the “everything should be on the table” approach, not saying specifically what they’re for — which suggests they’re waiting to see what the voters demand. Pressure will only keep building.
What changed? The most important factor is the court’s own behavior. There are the monumental decisions: overturning Roe v. Wade, gutting the Voting Rights Act, eliminating any meaningful restrictions on billionaires pouring money into campaigns, outlawing affirmative action in education and giving the president immunity from prosecution for crimes, among other things. Taken together, the court’s conservative majority is so obviously pursuing its own partisan political project: to remake the law and the structure of the federal government in line with their personal preferences. Yet the justices pretend that they and only they are truly committed to the framers’ intentions and the text of the Constitution.
“We are not part of any political movement, and we are not attempting to further any political agenda,” said Samuel Alito, the most partisan justice on the court. “People think we’re making policy decisions,” lamented Chief Justice Roberts earlier this year, when nothing could be further from the truth. So says the man who has steered the court’s stampede to the right, including achieving his lifelong goal of destroying the Voting Rights Act.
Even Elena Kagan, the most conciliatory of the liberal justices, said in a recent speech that the court’s decisions rubber-stamping partisan gerrymandering showed “a lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions.” With all due respect, Kagan was mistaken: They know exactly what the consequences of their decisions are. That’s why they rule the way they do.
So thanks to the conservative justices, Democrats are moving toward a consensus on court reform. There is no left versus center division within the party on whether the court’s decisions have or haven’t created a crisis. The only question is what should be done about that crisis. Anyone wanting to lead the party is going to have to be willing to take on this court and rebalance the scales. If they don’t, their constituents won’t stand for it.
The post Hillary Clinton thinks we should have 13 Supreme Court justices. Here’s why that matters. appeared first on MS NOW.
When President Donald Trump encouraged Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to keep running the despicable attack ad featuring his opponent Amy Acton’s estranged mother, the message to survivors of sexual abuse was unmistakable. The TV ad shows the Democratic candidate’s mother, who defended Acton’s stepfather after he was accused of sexually abusing Acton starting at 9 years old, and who lost custody of Acton and her brother after her stepfather was indicted for raping her.
Trump called the ad “hitting pay dirt.” Vice President JD Vance dismissed it as “not really my concern.” Ironically, keeping the American public safe from harm — regardless of their political affiliation — is arguably the most important duty of the president and vice presidential offices.
These endorsements take a family’s rejection of a survivor’s testimony and back it with national political power.
Ramaswamy’s campaign committed $4 million to promote the ad. On Thursday, Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine said his wife had seen the spot on television that morning, indicating the campaign had moved from defending the ad to actually putting it into people’s homes for anyone to watch. Donald Trump Jr. also urged Ohio voters to watch it.
As a surgeon who has cared for survivors of sexual abuse, I am concerned about the people watching the ad who themselves have experienced sexual abuse, who will never appear on a ballot. What does it tell them when the president and vice president defend the public humiliation of someone who endured childhood sexual abuse, just to score political points? It tells them that the very people elected to protect them will abandon and defame them, just to win. These endorsements take a family’s rejection of a survivor’s testimony and back it with national political power.
For a survivor of sexual abuse, any reminder of abuse can bring the past painfully into the present, forcing them to relive what happened to them. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse especially go through multiple, sometimes lifelong cycles of self-blame and guilt after disclosure, especially given that the majority of children who are sexually abused know their abuser, as in Acton’s case.
A child may blame herself for the upheaval that follows disclosure: leaving home, losing contact with a parent, seeing a sibling’s life disrupted. She may wonder whether staying silent would have kept her family together. That is a devastating burden for a child, and the ensuing adult, to carry. As professionals who work with survivors, we must make clear that telling someone did not make her responsible for the abuse or its consequences. The responsibility belongs to the adults who harmed her and failed to protect her.
Broadcasting Acton’s mother’s words risks reinforcing precisely that misplaced guilt that we work so hard to heal. And when the president and vice president defend and support it, they give a survivor’s deepest self-doubt the authority of the highest offices in the country.
No responsible physician can diagnose Acton from a campaign advertisement, and survivors will respond differently. But for some viewers, hearing a mother denounce her daughter who reported abuse could evoke their own experiences or fears of disclosure, rejection or disbelief. Repeatedly airing the spot creates repeated opportunities for that encounter.
A frightened child could reasonably wonder: If this is what happens to a prominent doctor and political figure, what will happen to me?
The response to disclosure matters. A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis of 51 studies, published in Clinical Psychology Review, found that negative reactions to disclosures of interpersonal violence were associated with worse mental health. That research does not measure this advertisement’s effects. But it does establish why dismissing survivors’ concerns as political oversensitivity, as Vance is doing, is medically irresponsible and morally reprehensible.
Then there is the person who has never told anyone. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network identifies fear of disbelief, retaliation and losing support among the barriers to reporting sexual violence. Imagine weighing those fears while watching a survivor’s estranged mother become a campaign asset, with the president’s encouragement. A frightened child could reasonably wonder: If this is what happens to a prominent doctor and political figure, what will happen to me?
That possibility should trouble every public official. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 20 boys in the U.S. experience childhood sexual abuse. The audience for this spectacle includes people carrying experiences their spouses, colleagues or children may know nothing about.
In medicine, our responsibility is to make it safer to ask for help. We should listen without judgment, respect patients’ choices and treat their distress seriously. Needing treatment is not a character defect. Neither is having a parent who failed to protect you.
Nor should survivors have to earn compassion by becoming physicians. Acton’s accomplishments do not make her more deserving of dignity than someone whose trauma interrupted an education, damaged relationships or made holding a job difficult. Recovery is not an audition for public sympathy.
The endorsement matters because it offers permission. A campaign uses a survivor’s family history against her. Powerful allies defend the tactic. Objections become evidence of weakness or disloyalty. I worry about how that example lands with people already reluctant to seek help, and with the people they might turn to.
There is an obvious alternative. Ramaswamy can withdraw the ad. Trump and Vance can say that survivors’ childhood suffering should never become campaign ammunition. They can debate Acton’s public record without elevating the rejection she experienced as a child.
Their responsibility extends to the survivor watching alone at home, wondering whether speaking up will bring support or punishment. That person deserves a better answer than the one these leaders are giving.
Every survivor watching this ad deserves a clear message: What happened to you was not your fault. Your suffering is not a character flaw. Your future does not belong to the people who failed to protect you.
Ramaswamy is spending $4 million amplifying that betrayal, and Trump and Vance are defending his right to do it. Anyone willing to make a survivor’s humiliation the price of political victory has absolutely no business anywhere near the seat of power.
The post I work with survivors of sexual abuse. Ramaswamy’s disturbing attack ad is so much bigger than Amy Acton. appeared first on MS NOW.
A growing share of the world’s electric-vehicle batteries contains nickel from Obi, an Indonesian island where the mining company Harita Group has long paid for goodwill, according to alleged leaked documents published on October 22 by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). When accusations of such payments reach an Indonesian courtroom, accountability usually […]
The post Green batteries built on dirty dealings in Indonesia appeared first on Asia Times.
Login