Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Marina Akhmedova
[REGNUM] This spring I was in the Kursk region, next to the recently liberated Sudzha.
I recorded many interviews: with people who spent seven months under occupation, and with fighters who took part in Operation Pipe. Each conversation is unique.
It's time to introduce you to the Belobrov family, who survived the occupation in Sudzha. The interview with Svetlana Belobrova was recorded on the phone at a temporary accommodation point on the day of the evacuation.
A FAMILY DIED BEFORE OUR EYES
— How did you find out that the Ukrainian offensive had begun?
— We woke up from such a blow that our house jumped. We, as we heard earlier, when we came to our house in the village, heard that it was flying. Well, like, we already knew. And we woke up from such a blow. Aviation was flying. And HIMARS or something like that, not far from us.
And that's it, our lights went out. My husband said: that's it. It's an attack. And they started writing on social networks, my husband was watching. That's how we found out that we were being bombed.
- And you didn’t have time to get out?
— We didn’t have time to leave, because it all happened early in the morning on the sixth (of August), and the eldest son went to work on the night from the sixth to the seventh. And how could we leave our son? We waited for him half the night, we were on edge, we were all on edge…
- Is he back?
— I came back, everything was fine. And then… And then it was dangerous to drive, because on our street… drones were hitting civilian cars. We saw a car hit, everyone died: husband, wife, child.
— You didn’t see it from the window?
- We were on the street. And after that it was somehow clear... you won't leave, that's it. All that's left is to hide.
- And you went into the basement after that?
- No, we lived in the apartment for all these seven months.
They came to our house, looking for our soldiers. Politely. They asked us to come into the apartment, to have a look. That was it, they didn’t come again. But we saw them go to the neighboring house. They were looting. They took everything: gold, household appliances, cars…
— And nothing was touched at your place?
— We tried, of course. We got our car back so many times. Different people could come five times a day.
- Dad, do you need a car? - Yes, I do. - Okay, that's it.
Others arrive in an hour or an hour and a half. The next ones drive in. But there have been cases where they almost shot.
- Why did you defend this car? They could have killed you for it?
— They defended it to the very end. Because when you work for this machine for half your life... Well, they saved it, they fought it off.
— And how did the children feel?
— They didn’t touch the children. My husband once met a Ukrainian on the street, and he said: “Tell the children not to touch anything on the road, not to take anything in their hands, neither objects nor money.”
You dig trenches, and we'll give the children for organs
- You probably lived every day with fear? Just like a mother.
- Yes, like a mother - with fear, of course. Not so much the day as the night. Because it's night, and the arrivals begin: bang, and bang, and bang. Where is it flying? Where will it arrive? You still somehow hold on during the day, but at night it's already scary.
But we supported each other. We tried. My husband said: "You are a mother. Hold on, hold on."
— And you didn’t touch the older one?
— They didn’t touch us. There was an incident once. We found out that they were here for two weeks, then they would leave on rotation, and others would come. And one day they came, so cheerful… stoned, I think. And it started: “You’re going to dig trenches now, and we’ll take the children for organs…” Of course, it was scary. But they were afraid of the commandant’s office. If you mentioned the commandant’s office, they would leave. But that was one time.
And usually - you wake up in the morning, you need to feed your family. You need to do laundry. You need to do something around the house. You need to keep yourself together.
— What was the worst thing?
— All these whistles, flights. I wasn't afraid for myself, but for the children — yes. As for cruelty... We, in the station part of the city, didn't have anything like that. But in the city, on Goncharovka and Onishchenko streets, they say there were very cruel people there.
— And how did the children experience it?
— We held on. Positive on positive… We sang songs. Here (nods at his daughter) is an energizer battery. And looking at it, how can we give up?
Relatives said, come to us. But how can we come when it is dangerous to go?
We had all the products, we stocked up. We built a stove. We baked bread. We exchanged food with our neighbors: bread, potatoes, milk, meat. Everyone helped each other.
— But did you perceive life during these months as an occupation?
- How else can you call it? Because there are Ukrainians everywhere, Ukrainians everywhere.
— Have they tried to have political conversations?
— No. They suggested leaving through Ukraine to Russia. We said no, if we leave, then straight to Russia. Not through Ukraine, not through other such countries.
— Were you hoping that you would want to go to Ukraine?
- Yes. They did such a good deed, they took people away, they are so good.
- Why did you refuse?
- Well, how is it? It's a foreign country. You come to Ukraine - and you're a disenfranchised Russian. Moreover, we've seen enough of all this stuff they do. They didn't touch us, but they took everything out of the city. From an entire motor transport company - all the equipment. All the stores were robbed, everything. They took away all the metal, boards, everything-everything-everything. Such is the poor, unfortunate country, they came to rob.
- Is it disgusting?
- Well, imagine if it's your thing and someone came and took it. When you're such a rich country, "we're going to Europe" - and you're the one robbing.
— But there were people who agreed to leave?
- Yes, there were some. Maybe it was hard for them, I don’t know, they were counting on coming back…
— Didn't you think it would just last forever? Seven months is a very long time.
- No, no, it didn't seem that way. It was just August 6th, and soon it would be New Year's. We thought so: maybe our people would come after New Year's.
We knew that our people would not leave us.
— And did you celebrate the New Year?
- Well, yes. We had toys, an artificial tree. Candy, lemonade.
— What did you wish for?
— I wanted it all to end faster.
— What was the hardest thing about the occupation?
— When we were sitting in the basement, on March 8th a rocket flew onto the road, and the windows in our apartment simply fell out.
— Have you ever had this feeling: Moscow is living its own life, and you are given away as a victim?
- No, we didn't think we were victims... Well, that's what happened. They won't leave us, they'll free us one day anyway.
— Do you think we were worried about you, or were we living our own lives?
- The man managed to leave, which means he's doing well. If people don't know this, then it's better for them not to know.
— We were very worried...
- That's understandable. We listened to the Russian news on the radio. They are liberating territories, evacuating, restoring, providing assistance.
— Was there ever a moment when you thought you were abandoned?
- No, no. There was no such thing. We always hoped that it would end someday. Our army is the strongest after all.
— And even though our army retreated?
— Because so much was invested in the Ukrainian army — both technically and financially. But we still believed that it would end, that our army was stronger and that it was impossible for us not to be liberated.
Grimy, in red bandages
- Now Sudzha is liberated. What was the day of our army's return like for you?
— We noticed that Ukrainians started leaving in groups. My husband was in the area around his house. And my friend and I saw soldiers walking between the houses — all so dirty… I looked closely — and they had red armbands. My husband said, “Guys, are you ours?” They said, “Ours!”
Well, there were emotions, of course. We weren't really on the street because there was a cleanup going on. Then another group and another!
— What did you feel then?
— I burst into tears.
- You know, in the six days in the pipe someone died because there was nothing to breathe. They died to get to you. What do you think about these soldiers now?
- Great job (cries).
- When Sudzha was captured, we thought something terrible had happened...
— And we believed that it would end soon...
— I thought that when we returned from here, it would be such a sharp, pure joy. But now for some reason there is no sharp joy.
- Maybe just tiredness. Because we waited a long time... But, of course, joy.
- Thank you for surviving. What will you do now?
— We are trying to leave for Kursk. We need to go to school, finish the school year. My daughter is in the seventh grade, my son is in the ninth. I will look for a job there. And the payments have increased now…
— You won’t return to Sudzha?
- No. I've been through so much...
— And where is your husband?
— My husband is staying there for now. And our cat is a coward, it’s not really possible to accommodate him in the temporary accommodation… My husband wants to come by car when it’s safe.
— This car is still very dear to my husband...
- Because it was hard to get, I saved it up penny by penny. Ours, a domestic car, an ordinary one. Well, that's just the way the man is.
- What do you do for a living?
— My husband is involved in setting up the equipment. And I am an assistant teacher in a kindergarten.
- That’s why you have such a calm voice... Thank you, Svetlana Alexandrovna!
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Daniil Pelymov
[REGNUM] At the beginning of the 18th century, Vyborg, a small fortress town in a convenient bay founded by the Swedes in 1293, became a significant threat to the young Northern capital of Russia. After the victory at Poltava in 1709, Tsar Peter I decided to finally cut the Swedes off from Russian possessions in the Baltics. By 1710, columns of the Russian army and navy rushed to the Karelian coast - 13 thousand people under the command of General Admiral Fyodor Apraksin. The Russians faced the most important task - to ensure a security zone in the adjacent part of Finland and protect the rear of St. Petersburg from threats from the north.
Vyborg, which allowed the Swedes to close off the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland (and therefore the mouth of the Neva with the newly built St. Petersburg), as well as control the Karelian Isthmus, had already become a cause for concern for the Russian command more than once.
Peter I first attempted to capture Vyborg in 1706, but the poorly supplied and underprepared army was forced to retreat without achieving any results. This defeat clearly demonstrated that success would require not only force, but also endurance, engineering skill, and naval support.
RUSSIAN BRUCE VS. SWEDISH AMINEV
After the defeat of the main Swedish forces at Poltava in 1709 and the collapse of attempts at a diplomatic settlement, the campaign against Vyborg was again on the agenda. In the spring of 1710, Peter gathered troops and approved a carefully planned offensive.
On April 1, Apraksin's corps, having overcome a difficult path across the still frozen Gulf of Finland, quickly reached the walls of Vyborg. According to contemporaries, movement across the melting ice required exceptional discipline and determination: soldiers walked across ice floes, risking falling into the water, carrying guns and supplies.
The Russian army quickly encircled the fortress, cutting it off from possible help from the land. At the same time, another part of the operation was unfolding in the Baltic: the fleet was making its way through the ice fields and storms of the Gulf of Finland to the siege site.
The fortress garrison numbered about six thousand people, well armed and provided with artillery. It was headed by Colonel Zacharias Aminoff, an elderly and experienced Swedish officer of Russian origin (one of the descendants of the Ivangorod voivode Fyodor Aminev, who defected to the Swedes during the Time of Troubles).
Despite the prolonged spring, the cold and the shifting ice, the besiegers continued to attack vigorously. Under the leadership of General Feldzeugmeister Jacob Bruce and engineer Georg Bernoulli, there was continuous artillery fire, digging and laying of earth mines.
By the end of April, with the arrival of reinforcements and the strengthening of the fleet, the Russian troops deployed heavy siege artillery. Two batteries were aimed at the stone fortifications of the old city, the third at the earthen ramparts of the bastion part. The guns were installed with the expectation of prolonged shelling: preparations were underway for the decisive blow.
WILL THERE BE AN ASSAULT?
In the tradition of siege warfare, Apraksin sent an ultimatum to the Swedish commandant Aminoff: to surrender the fortress “on the accord that (the commandant) desires.” This meant that Aminoff was offered surrender on some compromise terms.
To which the commandant calmly replied: “Why would I surrender a defensive and armed fortress?” – this is what the oath obliged him to answer even in the most desperate situation.
The Russians ordered the preparation of pontoon bridges and assault columns - they were going to take the Scandinavian outpost by force.
On May 31, Apraksin received permission to begin the assault as soon as a breach appeared. The very next day, he again offered the enemy to surrender, but was refused. On the evening of June 1, a five-day artillery bombardment began, which caused serious damage to the fortress walls and the city. The Swedes staunchly resisted and responded with fire, but were unable to turn the tide.
An important success was the capture of a key fortification, which opened the way to the bastion and allowed the preparation of assault vehicles. Despite losses, the positions were held. There was no help to be expected from outside: attempts to break through to the besieged were unsuccessful. The situation for the Swedish garrison became critical.
By June 9, the assault had been carefully prepared, the troops were distributed into columns and supplied with the necessary equipment. The plan called for decisive action on both sides and strict discipline. Meanwhile, the enemy, realizing the hopelessness of the situation, began negotiations for surrender. Despite stubborn resistance, it was clear that there would be no help; the arrival of His Majesty helped catalyze the capitulation.
CAPITULATION AND HONORS TO THE VICTORS
On June 12 (23), 1710, the negotiations finally ended with an agreement to capitulate the fortress. The Swedish garrison, devastated by the hurricane fire, surrendered with honor. The next day, the Russian Tsar triumphantly entered the city at the head of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. He found 141 cannons, gunpowder supplies, and 5,500 rifles here – huge trophies.
At first, there were plans to exchange the nearly 3,400 Swedish soldiers and officers who had been taken prisoner, but Peter I rejected this, reproaching the Stockholm government for its cruelty in treating Russian prisoners and for refusing to exchange the Russian ambassador, Prince Andrei Khilkov, who had been arrested by the Swedes.
The celebration was loud and wide. Peter I awarded the participants of the siege: officers were given gold medals, and privates - silver. Apraksin was awarded the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called.
In honor of the victory, a commemorative silver medal with a diameter of 46 mm was minted with an image of the siege plan and Latin inscriptions. This medal became a symbol of the return of Vyborg and the adjacent Karelian lands to Russia, which had been developed by Novgorodians in the early Middle Ages.
OPEN BALTIC
The capture of Vyborg in 1710 was of enormous strategic importance. This fortress was the main Swedish bastion in the North-West and stood on the way to St. Petersburg. Russia for the first time finally cut off Sweden from its possessions in Eastern Finland. Now the Baltic Sea was open to the Russian fleet: St. Petersburg received a reliable outlet to the sea, and the Russians began mass colonization and fortification of the coasts of Finland.
The Petersburg and Karelian directions quickly entered the sphere of Russian influence: new fortresses, settlements and roads were founded along the Karelian Isthmus. Russian naval forces consolidated their positions on Kotlin Island, guarding the Neva Bay. The fortress of Kronstadt was built on this island.
By September 1721, according to the Treaty of Nystad, practically all of Swedish Finland (including Kexholm and the Åland Islands) was ceded to Russia. Peter's creation received a reliable shield for many centuries: " And so, through the capture of this city (Vyborg), St. Petersburg received its final security," the autocrat wrote.
THERE, 230 YEARS LATER
When the Red Army entered Vyborg (called Viipuri when it was part of Finland) in March 1940, history came full circle. Exactly 230 years after the city first became part of Russia thanks to the efforts of Peter the Great, it returned once again under the Russian flag – this time under the banner of the Soviet Union. And just as in the 18th century this was dictated by strategic considerations for the protection of St. Petersburg, so in the 20th century Moscow acted in the interests of the security of Leningrad, the new capital of the North.
After the collapse of the Russian Empire, Vyborg found itself outside the new state border. Finland, previously the grand ducal outskirts of the empire, became a hostile buffer. Leningrad, one of the most important industrial and cultural centers of the USSR, became a dangerously close front line, fortified under the command of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, a general who had once served the Russian Empire. Like Aminoff, who defended Vyborg from Peter the Great, Mannerheim found himself in the role of a commandant who had come out against his historical homeland.
The Soviet command could not allow a repeat of the threat from the north. The breakthrough of the Mannerheim Line became a symbol of Moscow's military will to restore control over key positions on the Karelian Isthmus. This had not only military but also historical logic: the return of Vyborg was an act of restoring natural borders.
And again on the 12th the northwestern neighbor capitulates, although this time with the signing of a peace treaty in Moscow, on March 14, 1940 the last Finnish units left Viipuri. Two wars, two centuries, two empires - and one constant task: the defense of the Northern capital, no matter what it is called, St. Petersburg or Leningrad.
History, as we know, does not repeat itself literally, but sometimes it rhymes. And in March 1940, the echo of Peter's victory once again sounded over the shores of the Vyborg Bay.
[IsraelNationalNews] While American B-2s were dropping fourteen-ton super bombs on the Iranian nuclear facilities, on magnificent Lake Geneva there was a meeting between the foreign ministers of France, Germany, England and Iran. Also present was Kaja Kallas, the high representative of EU foreign policy and the only woman there. The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghachi, did not shake her hand.
No European diplomat seemed upset. Remember when Erdogan left President of the European Commission Ursula von Der Leyen without a chair and former president Charles Michel shrugged? And Ursula, without a chair, muttered: "It’s regrettable, but I chose not to make the situation worse".
A few hours later, the British foreign minister, David Lemmy of the Labour Party, addressed Iran in this way: "We did not participate in the attacks (by Israel and America)."
In other words, we British ostriches have nothing to do with it.
When Trump took out Iranian general Soleimani, German foreign minister Heiko Maas was quick to distance himself from the raid ("it will not help reduce tensions") and to point out that "as Europeans, we have reliable channels of dialogue with both sides".
In mid-June, Israeli forces launched an unprecedented offensive against Iran, targeting military and nuclear infrastructure. The message from Jerusalem was unmistakable: Israeli deterrence is real and not subject to diplomatic concessions from anyone.
The European Union issued ritual calls for "moderation on all sides", carefully avoiding any statement that might offend Tehran, always expecting the liquidation of the Iranian nuclear threat to be carried out by others.
The exasperating European inertia is the result of impotence, which in turn is the result of a great misunderstanding that grew in the shadow of US military and political tutelage, progressively eroded since 1989 and now openly under discussion.
If Israeli pilots hadn’t bombed Iran’s nuclear project, who else would have? The RAF? The French? The Germans? After all these years and all these "talks," the only country that finally intervened was the one with the most at stake: the one that Ayatollah Khamenei and his predecessors always said they wanted to annihilate like a "tumor."
Israel acts because it must, because its survival demands it and as Melanie Phillips wrote, it has become the moral compass of the free world. America acts from principle because Trump wants to protect Western ideals. And he has secured his place in history, as has Benjamin Netanyahu. Europe doesn’t act because it no longer knows what it stands for.
And the implications are clear.
Some European leaders have "Das Houellebecq-Problem", as Die Welt calls it: Emmanuel Macron is siding with the Islamists and against the Jews because of "French demographic dynamics," not to mention the trade surplus with Iran. "Recognize the Palestinian state to appease French Muslims": this is the recommendation contained in a dossier from the Ministry of the Interior in Paris.
Clear?
It’s not about Gaza, it’s about us, in Europe!
Along the corridors of the Paris Air Show, the French air show, the stands of Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael, Uvision, Elbit and Aeronautics were fenced off with two-meter-high fences covered in black cloth, preventing access (and even a view) of the Israeli stands, at the same time that the Israeli air force was bombing Iranian atomic sites.
Brilliant, these French.
Those black panels reminded me of others.
The ones used by the Italian government to cover the statues of the Capitoline nudes in Rome during the visit of Iranian President Hassan Rohani. At the time, in Le Figaro, I called it "the little Italy that submits to Iran".
In 1976, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq purchased a nuclear reactor from France. While Iraq and France claimed that the reactor, called "Osirak" by the French, was intended for "peaceful scientific research", Israel rightly saw it differently and destroyed the reactor in 1981. Thank God.
European dhimmitude was also atomic.
From Swiss President Alain Berset to German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, European chancelleries specialize in congratulatory telegrams for the anniversary of the Islamic Republic.
In the European squares these days there is not a single demonstration for Israel or even one from the Iranian diaspora: only Islamic flags and slogans of submission. And Israeli flags are burned, in Italy, not in Tehran.
In what imaginary world do Europe’s statesmen live - under the blackmail of multiculturalism, fear of their own shadows and their own cultural cowardice?
Tucker Carlson’s YouTube from June 18, 2025. It’s not his fault he completely got the situation wrong, as both the Trump administration and the Israelis had not yet Revealed All. Interestingly, the video was released with Russian subtitles.
Ted Cruz gives Carlson a good working-over and explains in small words what AIPAC is: patriotic Americans who strongly support the alliance between America and Israel. Carlson starts with his "Jews control the US government" conspiracy theories and Cruz takes him apart brick by brick. Cruz is a DC insider who is very familiar with AIPAC and knows what they do, and he's not having any of what Carlson is selling. It's beautiful to watch.
Carlson immediately retreats to the first resort of antisemites: JAQ. "Just asking questions". Tucker keeps JAQing off and Cruz slaps him soundly every time. Tucker even literally says "The Jews" while making the quote marks gesture with his fingers.
I have to wonder if Mr. Carlson is actually neutral on Israel and “The Jews”, just catering to the noisy, Israel-hating part of his audience rather than leading them, because he objects to the idea of a monolithic group called The Jews with scare quotes — I never got my news from television, so know nothing about the man except what I’ve read here at Rantburg. Senator Cruz makes a really good point that as a politician he can find donors for whatever positions he takes, and that he was a supporter of Israel long before AIPAC discovered him.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Leonid Tsukanov
[REGNUM] On June 22, a terrorist attack occurred in the Church of St. Elijah in the suburbs of Damascus. As a result of the attack, representatives of the Christian denomination, including several foreigners, were killed.
The attack on the Greek Orthodox diocese was far from the first terrorist attack on religious sites in Syria, but it was the first major attack on Christians since the change of power in Damascus. And how the Syrian government responds to this challenge will largely determine its future relations with local minorities.
ATTACK ON THE CHURCH
According to information from Syrian security forces, a lone radical belonging to ISIS* attacked parishioners during a Sunday service, opening fire on them with small arms.
Some time later, when the scene of the terrorist attack was cordoned off by police, he entered into a shootout with them and then blew himself up.
According to various sources, between 30 and 100 people died in the attack. Of these, at least a dozen died on the spot. Another ten died on the way to hospitals and on operating tables.
At the same time, the attacker, as noted, did not take hostages and did not make any demands on the security forces, which allows the attack to be characterized as an act of intimidation without a clear political subtext.
DELAYED REACTION
Although the Syrian government almost immediately blamed ISIS* for the attacks, the group only claimed responsibility for the attack 10 hours later, calling it a "contribution to the defeat of the apostates."
According to terrorist media resources, the attack highlighted Damascus's inability to protect its citizens even near the capital, let alone the outskirts, where ISIS* activity is many times higher.
However, radical propagandists described the terrorist attack in extremely general terms, without naming the attacker or his motives.
This is noticeably different from their usual tactics, when a broad ideological basis is provided for the actions of the adherents of the "caliphate" in Syria, and the "semantic roots" of the attack are linked to the plots of Islamic history. Here, the information was presented in the most routine manner and tied exclusively to the events of the present day.
Such uncharacteristic stinginess in details allows us to assume that the radical who attacked the church was a lone wolf and acted without instructions “from above,” although he could well have shared the ideas of ISIS* or its allied groups.
However, the ambiguities did not prevent the radicals from ultimately taking credit for the attack and presenting it as one of the signs of their own growing power in the fight against the new Syrian authorities.
COUNTER-ACCUSATIONS
The attack on the Christian minority has once again stirred up discussions about the ability of the new authorities to fulfill their promises and “return Syria to peaceful life”; to protect the “suffering” national and religious minorities.
Some Syrian leaders, out of old habit, tried to convert tensions into political points and blame the tensions on the “surviving supporters of the old regime.”
For example, the country's Minister of Culture, Mohammed Yassin Saleh, stated that the destabilization of minorities is beneficial to "those parties that suffered the most from the fall." Thus hinting at the participation in the attack of representatives of the defeated republic, of whom there are still many in both the security and civilian agencies.
The placement of former associates of ousted President Bashar al-Assad on the same level as radicals suggests that the search for compromise between yesterday's opponents is still complicated, and not all of the new Syrian elite agree to peacefully coexist with the vanquished.
However, opponents of the current Syrian authorities also did not remain in debt and recalled Damascus' controversial management decisions. Among them, for example, the integration of Uyghur militants from the "Islamic Party of Turkestan"* (IPT*) into the ranks of the army and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Considering that many IPT* leaders still have close ties with terrorist cells, their inclusion in government structures significantly simplifies the radicals' planning and execution of operations.
The version that was spread on emigrant resources (especially on the X network) was that the person who attacked the church had previously served in the ranks of the “Security Service” of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham* group, from whose leadership part of the current Syrian cabinet “grew” – including the country’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa.
Thus, the opposition placed responsibility for the terrorist attack directly on the country's leadership. However, this version was not confirmed.
KEEPING BALANCE
However, even taking into account the sharp rhetoric, neither side of the conflict is interested in elevating the voiced accusations to absolutes. Excessive pressure on Damascus could provoke the authorities to expand repressive measures against the internal opposition.
In this case, the al-Sharaa government risks repeating the same scenario as earlier with the Druze and Alawites.
Damascus does not want to create another hotbed of tension in the country, and therefore quickly shifted the emphasis in its accusations from the “Assad camp” to the terrorist underground.
Former supporters of the republic also agreed to “shift the blame” to ISIS*, due to the fact that the camp of supporters of ex-President Assad is still segmented. Most of its leaders are either in exile or do not have sufficient authority to challenge Damascus and “take” minorities under their protection.
One way or another, today's Damascus will have to seriously reconsider the model for preventing terrorist attacks, especially since the strategy for fighting ISIS, with an emphasis on destroying cells in border areas, has weakened attention to the capital region. The radicals have not failed to take advantage of this.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
