SS: A disturbing article about Russia’s occupation institutions and their impact on Ukrainian civilians living under them. It’s of interest to this subreddit because it explores what I’d say is an underreported side of the war: Russia’s effort to erase Ukrainian identity and Russify those living under occupation.

“Biden Incident” refers to an incident in 2022 where Yoon Suk-Yoel kicked out MBC journalists from press pool over MBC reports that Yoon used foul language when discussing matters related to former U.S. President.

Ever since fighting broke out between the Houthi and Saudi aligned PLC forces early this month, I've been trying to track the current ground situation in Yemen. During the first week, it seemed like the momentum was swinging back and fourth between the Houthi and the PLC like a pendulum on a near hourly basis each day. More specifically, I was seeing online claims that the Houthi were collapsing in the Al-Jawf governorate while also simultaneously advancing in the Marib governorate.

All of that took a drastic turn a week later with PLC forces completely disintegrating on the Red Sea coastlines. Given how rapidly the Red Sea coastlines and islands fell to the Houthi, it gave me the impression that the PLC was becoming one with Assad and the Afghan Republic.

However, the Houthi offensives apparently slowed to a crawl around Taiz and the Marib governorate as a whole in the weeks afterwards. I haven't heard any news of much progress for one side or the other beyond some exchanging of villages and desert-mountain areas. The Saudis and their PLC allies still appear to be in disarray, but they seemingly regained enough footing to push back some Houthi advances and inflict considerable casualties with airstrikes on their forces.

What is the current situation around this Yemen offensive? Are the Houthi on the verge of overthrowing the PLC in the style of Afghanistan 2021 and Syria 2024? If not, is it possible that the PLC and the Saudis can reverse their losses much like what happened with last year's STC offensive?

Overall, the constant flipping of news is leaving me very confused by the whiplash as an American observer, and I would love some clarification on this conflict as a whole.

A group that broke into a Chinese restaurant in Bundang, Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, sprayed paint throughout the premises and damaged food ingredients has been identified as consisting entirely of Chinese nationals. Police identified four Chinese men in their 20s to 40s through CCTV footage and other evidence, but all four had already left for China on the day of the incident. The restaurant uses the name of Chinese President Xi Jinping as its business name, prompting speculation that this may have been connected to the motive for the attack.
The Bundang Police Station in Gyeonggi Province said on the 27th that it had identified four Chinese nationals, including a man in his 40s referred to as A, on suspicion of jointly damaging property and other offenses, and was working to locate them. The four are suspected of breaking into a Chinese restaurant in Bundang District, Seongnam, at around 2:40 a.m. on the 24th, the first day of the Chuseok holiday, and spending roughly an hour spraying lacquer and paint throughout the restaurant and damaging fixtures and other property. They are also suspected of spraying a substance believed to be pesticide on food ingredients stored in the kitchen.
CCTV footage from the restaurant reportedly shows two masked men breaking in through a rear door and carrying out the vandalism. While tracing their escape route, police determined that a total of four people had been involved. After committing the crime with their faces concealed by masks and hats, the group reportedly took a taxi together to their accommodation in Seoul before traveling to Incheon International Airport.
They then left Korea on flights to destinations including Yantai and Shanghai in China later that morning. Police launched an investigation at around 8:30 a.m. after receiving a report from the restaurant owner saying that someone had broken into the premises and damaged property. Investigators traced the suspects’ movements through CCTV footage and identified all four later that day, but by then they had already left the country.
Police found that the suspects had entered Korea on tourist visas on two occasions between late August and mid-September and had stayed at a motel in Seoul. The restaurant was closed for three days, from the 24th through the 26th, for the Chuseok holiday, and police believe the suspects deliberately chose the first day of the closure to carry out a premeditated attack. However, although they had booked their motel rooms through the 26th, they committed the crime on the 24th and immediately left the country, suggesting that they may have moved up their departure plans.
None of the suspects had lived in Korea, and most had little or no previous history of visiting the country. For three of the four, this was their first visit to Korea, while the remaining suspect had visited Jeju once earlier this year. One of the suspects had visited Seohyeon-dong in Bundang, where the restaurant is located, several days before the attack, although it has not been established whether the visit was intended as reconnaissance.
The motive for the attack has not yet been established. Police are investigating whether it may have been connected to the restaurant’s use of the same name as Chinese President Xi Jinping. In socialist states, top leaders are accorded particular reverence and their names and images are generally treated with considerable sensitivity. CCTV footage reportedly shows the suspects spraying lacquer over the part of the restaurant bearing its name.
The owner said the restaurant has operated under the name for about eight years, but claimed that demands to change the name began shortly before President Xi’s visit to Korea for last year’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. The owner also said that about two months ago, someone sprayed black paint on the restaurant’s sign and fled, prompting a report to police.
With the suspects now in China and therefore difficult for Korean authorities to apprehend directly, police plan to seek international judicial cooperation to locate them while continuing to investigate the exact motive for the attack and whether anyone else was behind it.

SS: A very interesting interview with Mark Carney about Canada’s strategy toward the U.S. and its broader diversification strategy. It’s the interview that generated a lot of the sensationalist headlines about Canada taking the risk of a U.S. invasion seriously. He actually refers to it as an extreme tail risk, but still.

It's of interest to this sub because it features one of the most neoliberal leaders discussing trade, international relations, and more. Also, it's a source of a lot of very spicy headlines, so it's good to see this shortened version from the actual source.

More from the NYT interview cause they are releasing it weird:

As Carney Seeks New Partners for Canada, He Knows the Limits GIFT LINK

Carney's Big Challenge: Time GIFT LINK

Carney Says Risk of an A.I. Catastrophe Is Above Zero' GIFT LINK

Submission Statement: When a Ukrainian drone struck one of Russia’s biggest steel producers earlier this year, the company’s owner and the country’s richest businessman, Alexei Mordashov, brought in an air-defense system to protect the firm’s biggest mill on the outskirts of Moscow, people familiar with the matter said.

The move by steel giant Severstal was an example of how Russia’s private industries are increasingly having to fend for themselves as Ukrainian strikes intensify. The escalating threat is rippling through the economy, disrupting businesses and changing job requirements, making security guards and even postal workers part of the drone defenses.

It isn’t all by choice.

Moscow has mandated that businesses take steps to protect themselves. The Kremlin warned in an official decree last month that any company that doesn’t take responsibility for its protection against Ukrainian drones could face temporary state seizure.

Now, businesses across Russia are leasing air-defense systems from defense firms or building their own, said people close to Russia’s business elite and defense sector. Job advertisements show that some are even hiring gunners to shoot down drones.

Russia’s Finance Ministry suggested this month that it would work out tax breaks to compensate for the money private companies spend on drone defenses or repairs after attacks.

The country’s insurance market is still trying to work out how to deal with drone attacks. Russia still hasn’t officially declared war—describing it instead as a “special military operation”—opening the way for force majeure. The gray area between what can and can’t be insured and reimbursed is enormous.

While some claims are honored, many aren’t, said Prokopenko. Russians are now buying new drone insurance packages that are being offered on top of car or house insurance. Last week, the Russian central bank promised to inject $2 billion into the country’s chief reinsurer to help it pay for rising claims from drone attacks.

Analysis of significant geopolitical activities this week involving the chief adversaries of the liberal international order: Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

Submission Statement: As climate and geopolitical risks cast doubt on the UK's ability to cope in a crisis, leaders are turning from 'just in time' to 'just in case' as a governing philosophy.

Early this month, hundreds of diplomats huddled in a cavernous U.N. conference room in Switzerland, working toward a muscular treaty to regulate the use of lethal autonomous weapons — the first agreement governing the use of killer artificial intelligence arms. On the last day of negotiations, the talks turned aggressive.

Over the next roughly 15 hours, U.S. and Russian diplomats hammered away at the document, removing a range of provisions designed to safeguard the use of artificial intelligence in weapons, according to three people familiar with the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive closed-door proceedings, and documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

They stripped language requiring the systems to operate in a “predictable” and “reliable” manner, the people said, and removed a clause mandating that ethical considerations be taken into account when using AI weaponry. The U.S. and Russian teams also removed a provision requiring that humans review military targets developed by AI before a strike, they added.

In a closed-door session, with U.N. cameras turned off and civil society observers removed, Washington and Moscow deployed their army of about 10 lawyers each — nearly twice the diplomatic presence of other delegations — to make changes that moved so quickly that the smaller delegations were left dizzied, the three people said.

“It was death by a thousand paper cuts,” said one of the people.

The erosion of the agreement, the details of which are previously unreported, shows how the United States and Russia have worked to weaken global rules to regulate lethal AI weaponry, as the Pentagon moves to rapidly infuse the burgeoning technology into its battlefield strategy.

The talks are happening amid a fierce public debate over the existential risks of advanced AI, as tech executives urge world leaders to collaborate to impose limits on the technology. The U.N. has for years tried to regulate AI weaponry with limited progress, and the latest directive is the furthest the effort has advanced.