As Ukraine and the United States work on a 20-point plan  that could put an end to Russia’s war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has appointed Kyrylo Budanov as his new chief of staff.
The Office of the President will primarily serve the fulfillment of these tasks of our nation, Zelenskyy said on X on Friday, adding that Ukraine needs to put more emphasis on security issues, the development of the Defense and Security Forces of Ukraine, as well as the diplomatic course of negotiations.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Kyrylo added, “Kyrylo has sufficient strength to deliver results in these areas.”
After Zelenskyy claimed on Wednesday that the US-brokered agreement to end the conflict was “90 percent” ready, Zelenskyy announced the appointment of the head of the Ministry of Defense’s Main Directorate of Intelligence (GUR). This is a crucial moment in the nearly four-year conflict with Russia.
Since Russia launched an unprecedented assault on Ukraine in 2022, Budanov has been credited with carrying out a number of daring operations against Russia. Since being appointed by Zelenskyy to the position in August 2020, the 39-year-old has run the GUR.
Budanov claimed he would continue to serve Ukraine and had accepted the nomination.
He said on Telegram, “It is an honor and a responsibility for me to concentrate on pressing matters of strategic security for our state at this crucial time for Ukraine.”
According to Zelenskyy’s adviser Dmytro Lytvyn, steps have been taken to formally appoint him as the president’s chief of staff.
Andriy Yermak, a divisive figure in Kyiv, will be replaced by Budanov. He was recognized as Zelenskyy’s most important ally and honored as a Hero of Ukraine, but he resigned in November as a result of extensive corruption investigations.
Public outcry over persistent high-level graft was fueled by the corruption scandal involving Yermak, who was also Kyiv’s lead negotiator in the US-backed peace talks.
Recently released UK government files appear to indicate that former prime minister Tony Blair pressured officials to stop British soldiers from defaming Iraqi civilians during the war from appearing in court documents.
Documents released on Tuesday to the National Archives in Kew, west London, reveal that in 2005, Blair said it was “essential” that courts like the International Criminal Court (ICC) did not investigate UK actions in Iraq.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The decision to join the war in Iraq, launched by the United States with the UK in full support, in March 2003, has become one of the UK’s most widely investigated and criticised foreign policy decisions. Up until December 2011, the Iraq war raged on. More than 200, 000 Iraqi civilians, 179 British soldiers, and more than 4 000 US soldiers were killed during that time.
In 2020, the ICC ended its own inquiries into British war crimes in Iraq.
What we know about Blair’s influence on keeping war crimes from the media in the UK.
Tony Blair addresses troops in Basra, Iraq, in 2003 [Stefan Rousseau/PA Images via Getty Images]
What do newly released documents show?
More than 600 documents were made available to the Kew National Archives on December 30 by the UK Cabinet Office. After 20 years, the government is required to give records of historical value to the National Archives in accordance with the UK’s Public Records Act of 1958.
According to the National Archives website, most of the newly added documents relate to the policies implemented by the Blair government between 2004 and 2005, from domestic decisions to ensure the UK would not break up by delegating power to Wales and Scotland, to foreign policy decisions on Iraq and other countries.
According to UK media reports, Blair stated in his declassified files that it was “essential” that civil courts did not prosecute British soldiers who had been abducted by Iraqi civilians while they were incarcerated during the war in Iraq.
In a written memo, he wrote that “we are actually in a position where the ICC is not involved and neither is CPS (UK Crown Prosecution Service).” “That is essential”. ,
Blair’s remarks came after Phillipson’s letter to him in July 2005 about a meeting between the nation’s attorney general and two former British military commanders, according to reports in the UK. He claimed that they had spoken about the case of British soldiers who were accused of murdering Baha Mousa, an Iraqi hotel receptionist.
Mousa, who was killed in September 2003 in Basra, Iraq, had been in the custody of UK troops.
According to information found in newly declassified documents, Phillipson stated to Blair that the case would result in a court martial. However, he added that “the Attorney General could direct accordingly if he felt the case needed to be handled in a civil court.”
“It must not”, Blair stressed.
Blair, an associate lecturer at the University of York’s Department of Politics, stated that he did not want to see the military of justice use international law and that it would be less harsh under the law. He also didn’t want the military to be able to defend itself in war zones.
According to Featherstone, Blair and his legacy have become synonymous with the Iraq war in British politics.
“He]Blair] was convinced that he could persuade the British public of the rightness of the Iraq war, both morally and strategically. However, this got harder and harder to accomplish. He expressed his concern about potential prosecution for UK soldiers because it would only amplify the country’s and international opposition to the war.
Protesters against the war in Iraq gather outside the Houses of Parliament in London, UK, in January 2003]File: Michael Stephens/PA Images via Getty Images]
What part did the UK play in the conflict in Iraq?
The Blair government used now-confused assertions that Iraq had WMDs to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to justify its support for the UK’s support for the invasion. The UK said its aim was to eliminate these and to liberate the people of Iraq from the rule of then-President Saddam Hussein.
The US sent more than 100 000 soldiers to the United States in 2003, while the UK sent about 46 000, Australia sent 2, 000, and Poland sent about 194 special forces personnel.
However, there was a lot of discussion in the UK about whether or not war could be waged against Iraq based on what was believed to be flawed information regarding WMDs.
Featherstone, who wrote the book The Road to War in Iraq: Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis, said Blair was “frustrated” by worries from officials about the legality of going to war in Iraq.
Senior military and civil servants expressed concern for the legality of the requests for reassurance from the attorney general in the interviews I conducted for my book research. Blair expressed his frustration with the legality of the invasion, but he resisted it.
“Blair saw the UK role as showing the international support for the US war on terror, and saw his personal role as building the case for the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam”, he added.
Blair claimed that joining the invasion had been “the hardest decision” he had ever made while serving as prime minister in a press conference in July 2016 after the release of the Chilcot report, a British public inquiry into the country’s involvement in the war in Iraq.
The Chilcot report stated that Saddam Hussein’s use of weapons of mass destruction was “not justified,” and that there had not been an “imminent threat” from him.
Blair acknowledged that the intelligence was wrong but said invading Iraq was nevertheless the “right decision” at the time, as Saddam Hussein was a “threat to world peace”.
In response to the findings of the Chilcot report, Blair told reporters, “The world was and is, in my opinion, a better place without Saddam Hussein.”
He offered his condolences to the families who lost loved ones in Iraq, saying that “no words can adequately express the grief and sorrow of those who lost their loved ones in Iraq, whether it be our armed forces, the armed forces of other countries, or Iraqis,” and that “no words can adequately express the sorrow and grief of those who lost those who lost them.”
Did UK soldiers abuse Iraqis during the war?
There is a lot of evidence that they did, according to the evidence.
During the war, cases of UK soldiers abusing hundreds of Iraqi civilians in their custody have been documented by rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR).
“Their testimonies]Iraqi civilians] show a pattern of violent beatings, sleep and sensory deprivation, ‘ stress positions’, deprivation of food and water, sexual and religious humiliation, and, in some cases, sexual abuse”, the ECCHR said in a report in 2020.
Three UK soldiers were detained in 2005 after being held for trial by a court martial at a British military base in northern Germany. Photos were taken of the abuses they committed. The soldiers denied the accusations, but they were found guilty of abusing Iraqi civilians during the war and were fired from the army.
In 2007, Corporal Donald Payne became the first British soldier to be sentenced. After being court-martialed by the army for treating Iraqi prisoners badly during the war, he was put in prison for a year.
Baha Mousa, an Iraqi civilian and hotel receptionist, passed away in 2003 after enduring 93 beatings, according to Payne.
Has the ICC intervened?
The ICC opened an investigation into the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war in 2005, but it ended when ICC judges decided that the case was outside the jurisdiction of the highest court in February 2006.
Despite the fact that rights groups had provided evidence of UK soldiers’ systematic abuse of Iraqi civilians, including murder and torture, the inquiry was reopened by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in May 2014.
But in December 2020, Bensouda abandoned the inquiry, saying that while there was “reasonable basis to believe” that “members of the British armed forces committed the war crimes of wilful killing, torture, inhuman/cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape and/or other forms of sexual violence”, the UK government had not tried to block investigations into the case.
Bensouda’s office stated in a 184-page report that an investigation by my office would have been necessary in December 2020. Despite the concerns raised in its report, the prosecutor’s office was unable to refute the claims that the UK’s investigative and prosecutorial bodies had conducted shielding [i.e., blocking inquiries] based on a thorough examination of the information presented.
” Having exhausted reasonable lines of enquiry arising from the information available, I therefore determined that the only professionally appropriate decision at this stage is to close the preliminary examination and to inform the senders of communications. She continued, “My decision is without prejudice to a reconsideration based on fresh evidence or facts.”
Rights groups have condemned the prosecutor’s action.
” The UK government has repeatedly shown precious little interest in investigating and prosecuting atrocities committed abroad by British troops, “Clive Baldwin, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch said in a statement in December 2020.
The prosecutor’s decision to close her investigation in the UK will undoubtedly stoke fears of a “ugly double standard” in justice, with one approach for powerful states and the other for less powerful, he added.
What was Blair’s opinion of the ICC?
Tuesday’s declassified documents have revealed that Blair was confident the ICC would not prosecute UK soldiers.
According to the documents, Blair had stated to the Australian prime minister at the time, John Howard, that countries like the UK had no reason to fear the ICC, one month before the ICC statute became effective, and about a year before the UK enlisted in the Iraq war.
The ICC’s main treaty, the Rome Statute, establishes that the ICC has the authority to prosecute individuals for serious crimes, including crimes against humanity and genocide.
Blair wrote to Howard after officials in Australia expressed fears about the ICC’s jurisdiction, as Australia had also joined the US and UK in the Iraq war.
However, Blair reassured Howard in his letter that the Supreme Court “only acts in the case of failed states” or “where judicial processes have failed.”
We think the ICC is harmless in responsible democratic states where the rule of law is upheld, he wrote.
According to UK media reports, Blair’s administration had agreed to sign the ICC’s Rome Statute in 1998 after the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office negotiated with the court that” the court]ICC] may only act when national legal systems are unable or unwilling to do so”.
It’s true, but Featherstone said, “The ICC has historically been accused of being biased in terms of where it has focused its attention and effort in investigating and prosecuting cases.”
Donald Trump, the president of the United States, revealed in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that he consumes more aspirin per day than his doctors advise.
What we know about Donald Trump’s aspirin habit and what happens when he takes too much:
What was Trump’s opinion of aspirin use?
Trump, 79, claimed to take more aspirin than doctors had advised, according to the US newspaper.
Sean Barbabella, the physician who treats the president, claimed that the president consumes 325 mg of aspirin per day for cardiac prevention, which is considered to be at the high end of the recommended dosage.
Trump told the paper, “I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart, but aspirin is good for thinning out the blood.”
“I want thin, nice blood to flow through my heart.” Does that make sense, exactly?
He continued, “They prefer that I take the smaller dose.” The larger one, which I’ve done for years, does cause bruising.
Trump claimed to have been taking more aspirin for 25 years.
Joe Biden, who was 82 when he took office and withdrew from his re-election campaign in 2024, is the second-oldest person to hold office in the US because of growing health concerns.
After being spotted on Trump’s hands during the summer, concerns about his health also grew.
Trump was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency in July, which a “benign and common condition” where damaged veins prevent blood from flowing properly.
According to Leavitt, the bruises were “consistent with minor soft tissue irritation caused by frequent handshakes and the administration of aspirin, a standard cardiovascular prevention regimen.”
Additionally, it was reported that Trump had undergone an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan in October. The MRI was described as “preventative” by the White House.
Trump and his doctor claimed, however, that he had been given a CT (computed tomography), not an MRI, according to the WSJ report.
“It was not that bad. Trump claimed that it was a scan.
Describe aspirin.
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) is aspirin, also known as acetylsalicylic acid. It has antiplatelet, or blood-thinning, properties.
It can be purchased online or through a doctor’s prescription. It is typically prescribed for infections brought on by immune responses, such as pain, fever, and inflammation.
Low doses are also recommended for those at risk of heart attacks and strokes because they help stop blood clots from developing. In order to do this, it blocks the blood cells that control clotting by producing a substance called thromboxane A2 within platelets.
The platelets are clumped together by a thromboxane. There are fewer chances of heart attacks or strokes when the blood flow is blocked by clots, which are the result of both having fewer thromboxane in the body and having less of both.
Are side effects from aspirin?
According to the website for the National Health Service (NHS), the country’s publicly funded healthcare system, mild indigestion and bleeding more frequently than usual are side effects of taking aspirin, according to the website for the NHS.
In the event of severe side effects, such as coughing up blood or yellowing of the eyes, the website advises contacting a doctor.
According to the NHS, taking aspirin for a long time or in high doses can result in ulcers in the stomach or gut.
What is the “normal” daily aspirin dose?
Aspirin is typically available in 300mg tablets, and one or two tablets are typically taken every four to six hours for headaches and other pain or fever.
Adults 40 to 59 who are at risk of cardiovascular disease should start receiving treatment with a much lower dose of 81 mg of aspirin per day, according to the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
An independent panel of experts reviews medical evidence and makes recommendations for preventive health services like medication and screenings.
As a result of the panel’s analysis, the risk of excessive bleeding declines in older adults as a result of taking aspirin.
The benefits decrease as the patient’s age ages, and according to the USPSTF, “clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75,” according to the USPSTF.
According to the health information website Healthline, doctors can advise people who have had or are at risk of heart attacks and strokes to receive a daily dose of 81 mg to 325 mg.
Is aspirin too much for you?
Clinical pharmacist Dr. Alan Carter wrote an article on Healthline that stated that taking more aspirin than your body can clear can lead to aspirin poisoning.
Depending on how much aspirin is taken and how much weight is being taken, this can be mild, moderate, or severe.
If a person takes less than 300 mg of aspirin per kilogram of body weight at once, they may experience mild poisoning.
If someone ingests 300 to 500 mg of aspirin per kilogram of body weight at once, moderate poisoning occurs. When the aspirin content exceeds 500 mg/kg of body weight, severe poisoning occurs.
According to these figures, taking 45, 000 mg of aspirin in one dose would likely be fatal for a man who weighs 90 kg.
Depending on how well their kidneys and liver manage to process aspirin for a long period of time, “chronic” toxicity may occur in some people.
Burning throat pain, decreased urination, double vision, drowsiness, fever, hallucinations, nervousness, restlessness, ringing in the ears or inability to hear, seizures, stomach pain, uncontrollable shaking and vomiting are symptoms of an aspirin overdose.
Yemeni air strikes have been launched by Saudi-backed coalition forces against southern separatists whose recent victories have altered the country’s political landscape. Which groups are vying for territory, according to Al Jazeera’s Aksel Zaimovic.
Who: Sudan vs. Senegal What: CAF Africa Cup of Nations Where: Ibn Batouta Stadium in Tangier When: Saturday, January 3, 5pm (16:00 GMT) How to follow: We’ll have all the build-up on Al Jazeera Sport from 13:00 GMT in advance of our text commentary stream.
As the title favorites Senegal face Sudan, the lowest-ranked side still standing, in the AFCON round of 16, a fight between the heavyweights and minnows kicks off.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Senegal outlasted the competition, joining the title favorites as the AFCON 2021 champions battled their way to their second title, with the help of Nicolas Jackson and Sadio Mane, who both had strong attacking firepower.
On the other hand, Sudan, which is ranked 117th, needed a helping hand to qualify and will face off in the knockout stages for the first time in 14 years. Sudan’s football team’s progress has defied the ongoing hostility, and reaching the round of 16 is a significant accomplishment.
Everything you need to know about Sudan and Senegal:
What’s happening in Sudan?
Since fighting broke out between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in April 2023, Sudan has been ravaged by war.
The conflict, which the UN calls the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis,” has caused famine in several parts of Sudan, where tens of thousands have been killed, more than 12 million have been displaced, and caused famine in several areas.
Mohamed Abooja, Sudan’s goalkeeper, had to deal with his brother’s agony after the RSF imprisoned him. The team has obviously experienced some impact. Everyone has made an effort to pass this time, but the conflict in Sudan has been difficult, Abooja told the AFP news agency.
Our customers’ happiness and morale are ultimately boosted by our performance on the pitch.
Sudan’s AFCON qualifying round 16 was held in what manner?
The Sudanese national team, one of the four best third-placed teams, made it to the last 16 with a 1-0 victory over Equatorial Guinea, marking only their second-ever victory at the tournament since 1970 when they won the trophy.
Equatorial Guinea’s own goal proved decisive thanks to a moment of good fortune, which added to that historic victory.
How did Senegal get to the 16th round?
Senegal, the second-highest-ranked country in Africa, came in top of Group D with seven points, outpacing DR Congo on goal difference, after two victories and a draw.
They finished the group stage one behind Nigeria with the second-highest goal total (seven), just behind Algeria.
In the following round, who will face off?
On January 9, the Senegalese and Sudanese match winner will travel to Tangier to face the Tunisian and Mali match winner in the quarterfinals.
Who are the top players in Senegal?
In the opening game of the match against Botswana, striker Nicolas Jackson scored two goals, and Cherif Ndiaye also has two goals to his credit, both of which were scored as substitutes.
Along with Senegal’s midfielders Iliman Ndiaye and Idrissa Gana Gueye, the experienced winger Sadio Mane is another star player.
Mane has scored 17 AFCON goals (10 goals, 7 assists), which is the most by any player since 2010.
Who are the top players in Sudan?
The tournament featured Sudan’s top scorers, midfielders Walieldin Khidir and Ammar Toaifour, as well as defender Sheddy Barglan.
Sudan and Senegal act as guides.
Last match of the week:
Senegal: W-D-W-W-L
Sudan: L-W-L-L-L
Senegal are currently winning 14 games (W9 D5) at AFCON.
Senegal has kept 17 clean sheets at AFCON since 2017, more than any other team.
Sudan has conceded six goals, which is the most of any team’s total for the group stage.
Only one of their final seven AFCON matches (D1 L5) came away with a win.
Head-to-head
In seven previous competitive and friendly games, Senegal and Sudan have played each other.
Senegal has won four games and drawn three, and is unbeaten overall.
When did the last meeting between Senegal and Sudan occur?
Senegal defeated Senegal 2-0 to qualify for the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying match.
Sudan vs. Senegal: stat attack
Their first AFCON game will be on Saturday, and they will be ranked fifth overall overall.
Senegal has won four matches, drawing one, and never lost to an East African rival at AFCON.
Has Senegal ever captured an AFCON title?
Senegal will make its 18th appearance in the AFCON finals, and their best accomplishment was the 2021 title they won in Cameroon. In 2002 and 2019, they also placed third twice.
Has Sudan ever captured an AFCON title?
This is Sudan’s tenth appearance. Since making their debut in 1957, they have finished second twice, winning only once in 1970 and finishing second in 1959 and 1963.
After receiving a red card in the previous match, Senegal’s captain, Kalidou Koulibaly, a crucial member of their defense, will miss the game against Sudan.
News from the Senegalese team
Kalidou Koulibaly, Senegal’s captain, will miss this game after receiving a red card in their final group game, according to Senegal coach Pape Thiaw.
Senegal’s lineup was anticipated
Edouard Mendy, Krepin Diatta, Abdoulaye Seck, Moussa Niakhate, Ismail Jakobs, Pape Gueye, Ismaila Sarr, Iliman Ndiaye, Sadio Mane, and Nicolas Jackson are just a few examples of them.
news from the Sudan team
Salah Adil, Abo Eisa, and Abuaagla Abdalla, who are both injured, will miss out on Sudan coach Kwesi Appiah.
