ready

Dec. 19 (UPI) — Russian President Vladimir Putin said he was determined to continue the war in Ukraine until his conditions are met, which include taking Ukrainian territory.

Putin spoke at his annual press conference and touted Russia’s recent gains in the region.

“The strategic initiative is completely in the hands of the Russian forces,” Putin said. He added that Russia is “ready to end the conflict peacefully” if Ukraine cedes large areas of its eastern territories.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Ukraine won’t give up its land, which is set by the country’s constitution.

Russia has also demanded that Ukraine give up its bid to join NATO and said that if NATO members sent troops, Russia would view them as “legitimate targets.”

“The ball is entirely in the court of our Western opponents,” he said, adding that Russia had agreed to compromises proposed by the United States in its peace plan negotiated by the President Donald Trump administration.

Earlier this week, Zelensky was asked if Kyiv would give up its attempts to join NATO. He said Ukraine’s “position remains unchanged.”

“The United States don’t see us in NATO, for now,” he said. “Politicians change.”

European leaders have agreed to continue funding Ukraine in its fight against Russia with a two-year, $105 billion loan for munitions in the ongoing war.

European leaders couldn’t agree on their first choice to arm Ukraine using frozen Russian state assets to back the loan.

The plan to use frozen Russian assets fell apart in the final moments after Belgium pushed back, fearful that it would be at legal and financial risk. The bank holding the assets is in Belgium, and Russia has sued to block the plan.

European leaders announced Thursday that they will instead use money from the EU budget. The new plan could be more costly and difficult to mobilize.

Melissa Barrera is no stranger to a certain type of espionage. Dangerous missions. Sometimes starting in the dark of night. One particular covert operation she regularly took part in is one many daughters have had to take with their resolute mothers — Black Friday shopping.

She recalls crossing the border from her hometown in Monterrey, Nuevo León, in the wee hours of the morning to McAllen or Brownsville in Texas to score primo deals at the big-box stores.

“It felt like a treasure hunt for me,” she recalled. “In my mind, it was like a mission, getting the things that we had to get. I like challenges and being given instructions. That was very satisfying for my personality type.”

That experience prepared the Mexican actor for her role as a spy juggling secret identities in Peacock’s “The Copenhagen Test,” premiering Dec. 27. The espionage thriller stars Simu Liu as an intelligence analyst whose brain has been hacked, putting his thoughts and memories in the hands of unknown perpetrators. Barrera co-stars as Michelle, a spy tangled in the web of deceit.

“It was a challenge. I’d never done anything like this before, in the sense that you really don’t know who Michelle is,” said the actor, who chatted over Zoom from Barcelona where she’s filming another thriller, “Black Tides.”

“It was also confusing for me as an actor, because we didn’t have all the scripts at the beginning, so I had made up who I thought Michelle was — and then I would get more scripts and I was like, ‘Well, that goes out the window.’ It was a constant construction.”

Those Black Friday missions weren’t the only ways in which Barrera was innately prepared for the role. Growing up, she devoured the Jennifer Garner spy series “Alias.” She spent hours as a teen watching and rewatching episodes on DVD. It was Garner’s ass-kicking turn as Sydney Bristow, and her many stealthy alter egos, that planted a seed in Barrera.

“I was obsessed with that show,” she says. “As a young teenager, I was like, ‘I want to be a spy.’ I would research online: ‘How do you get recruited as a spy?’ That’s how obsessed I was.”

She longed for intrigue, for covert operations, for wigs. Not just the kind of spy business that equates to elbowing señoras at Best Buy for a deeply discounted TV. And then came “The Copenhagen Test.”

“I just thought that it was so fun, the role playing within the role playing that happens,” she said. “I read the scripts, and they were really good. And I got to be a spy. I was like, this is a no-brainer for me. I’ve been asking for this since I was 12, so it was a dream come true for young me.”

From “Episode 101” of “The Copenhagen Test”: Melissa Barrera as Michelle and Simu Liu as Alexander.

A spy series is just the latest in a long wishlist of roles for Barrera, who got to flex her dramatic side in “Vida,” her vocal and dance prowess in the musical “In the Heights,” and dive into scream queen territory in “Scream V” and “Scream VI.”

“I think it’s valuable for Latinos onscreen to bring in some of their background when it fits, and when it doesn’t, there’s no need to push it — I’m representing Latinos just by being there,” said Barrera, with a nod to ongoing discussions surrounding Latino inclusion in Hollywood. “[Yet] I’ve always wanted to explore all parts of myself. I’ve always wanted to try different things. I think it’s been happening, because I do believe that whatever you put out into the universe comes to you.”

It’s not just dream acting roles that Barrera puts out into the universe, hoping it produces something good. The 35-year-old is an outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights, wearing her beliefs quite literally on her chest — during our call she sports a hoodie with the phrase “words not actions” in the shape of a watermelon, a symbol of perseverance and resistance for Palestinian people. She’s never shied away from using her voice, in particular for this specific human rights issue, and it’s come with its consequences.

Two years ago, Barrera was fired from the forthcoming installment of the Scream franchise, “Scream VII,” as well as dropped from her agency for posts she shared and wrote on social media calling Israel’s attacks on Gaza acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

“Gaza is currently being treated like a concentration camp,” read one of her Instagram stories in following the events of Oct. 7. “Cornering everyone together, with no where to go, no electricity no water … People have learnt [sic] nothing from our histories. And just like our histories, people are still silently watching it all happen. THIS IS GENOCIDE & ETHNIC CLEANSING.”

Her firing drew widespread attention and critical discussion over what was viewed by many as the latest form of Hollywood blacklisting. Last year, Barrera spoke to De Los about the backlash, saying, “It wasn’t easy to be labeled as something so horrible when I knew that wasn’t the case. But I was always at peace because I knew I had done nothing wrong. I was aligned with human rights organizations globally, and so many experts and scholars and historians and, most importantly, Indigenous peoples around the world.”

Over a year later, her stance hasn’t changed. In fact, that period changed everything for Barrera.

“I’ve always had that inner inquietude, that kind of yearning for equality and for justice and for eliminating any kind of prejudices and racism and colorism, which is very prevalent in Mexico,” she explained. “But I honestly think it was Palestine that did it for me, that crumbled everything for me. After that, it’s been a before and after in my way of thinking and my way of viewing the world; in my way of viewing the industry and the way that I want to move forward.”

As Barrera moves forward, using her platform to speak up for injustice is inextricable from her sense of self and her place in Hollywood. What she brings to the screen is her full self, regardless of the role; to play a spy, or a scream queen, or any other character takes knowing who you are and what you stand for. Now, more than ever, Barrera is firmly grounded and ready for action.

Ukraine is “ready for elections”, President Volodymyr Zelensky has said, after US President Donald Trump repeated claims Kyiv was “using war” to avoid holding them.

Zelensky’s five-year term as president was due to end in May 2024, but elections have been suspended in Ukraine since martial law was declared after Russia’s invasion.

Speaking to reporters following Trump’s comments in a wide-raging Politico interview, Zelensky said he would ask for proposals to be drawn up which could change the law.

Elections could be held in the next 60 to 90 days if security for the vote was guaranteed with the help of the US and other allies, he said.

“I’m asking now, and I’m stating this openly, for the US to help me, perhaps together with our European colleagues, to ensure security for the elections,” he told reporters.

“The issue of elections in Ukraine, I believe, depends first and foremost on our people, and this is a question for the people of Ukraine, not the people of other countries. With all due respect to our partners,” Zelensky said.

“I’ve heard hints that we’re clinging to power, or that I personally am clinging to the presidency” and “that’s why the war isn’t ending”, which he called “frankly, a completely unreasonable narrative”.

Zelensky won election in 2019 with more than 73% of the vote.

Russia has consistently claimed Zelensky is an illegitimate leader and demanded new elections as a condition of a ceasefire deal – a talking point which has been repeated by Trump.

“They talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore,” the US president told Politico. He has suggested without evidence that Zelensky is the main obstacle to peace as US-led efforts to broker a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine continue.

There are significant practical obstacles to a wartime election.

Soldiers serving on the front lines could be either unable to vote or require leave to do so. According to the UN, there are about 5.7 million Ukrainians living abroad because of the conflict. And any ballot would require complex, additional security measures.

Such a vote would only be fair if all Ukrainians could participate, including soldiers fighting on the front line, a Ukrainian opposition MP told the BBC.

“In order for these elections to be fair all of the People of Ukraine would need to be allowed to vote,” Lesia Vasylenko told the BBC World Service’s Newsday programme.

She said that “elections are never possible in wartime”, alluding to the suspension of elections in the UK during World War Two.

Discussions around holding elections have made headlines since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

There is little domestic political pressure on Zelensky to call elections while the conflict is ongoing, said Oleksandr Merezhko, the chairman of the foreign policy committee in Ukraine’s parliament.

There was “strong consensus” among politicians and civil organisations that elections would not be held under martial law, the Servant of the People MP told the BBC.

“There is absolutely no chance to hold elections,” he said. “Even the opposition, which is against Zelensky and would like to see him removed are against elections, because they understand the danger of attempting to hold elections during the war.”

The idea was “exactly what Putin would want”, Merezhko added. “An election campaign would be divisive. Having failed to destroy us from outside, Putin wants to destroy us from within, using elections as another tool to do so.”

A poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in March found about 78% of people opposed holding elections after a ceasefire with security guarantees, and were of the opinion that they could only be held after a complete settlement.

The share fell to 63% in a September poll, while 22% said elections could be held after a ceasefire with security guarantees – a jump from 9% in March.

“Even a year ago, Zelensky said that he was ready for elections as soon as the conditions allow” in the face of previous pressure, Hanna Shelest, a foreign policy analyst with the think tank Ukrainian Prism, told the BBC.

The question was, however, how to create the conditions Zelensky outlined, Shelest told the Newsroom programme on the BBC World Service, given the numbers of soldiers and refugees who would be voting as well as unsecured areas in the country and ongoing strikes.

“You cannot guarantee the security of the polling stations,” she said.

Zelensky is also facing continued and increasing pressure from Trump to agree to a peace deal to end the war, with the US leader urging Zelensky to “play ball” by ceding territory to Moscow.

Ukrainian leader responds to US President Trump’s suggestion that he is using the war as an excuse to avoid elections.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has declared that his government was prepared to hold elections within three months if the United States and Kyiv’s other allies can ensure the security of the voting process.

Zelenskyy issued his statement on Tuesday as he faced renewed pressure from US President Donald Trump, who suggested in an interview with a news outlet that the Ukrainian government was using Russia’s war on their country as an excuse to avoid elections.

Wartime elections are forbidden under Ukrainian law, and Zelenskyy’s term in office as the country’s elected president expired last year.

“I’m ready for elections, and moreover I ask… that the US help me, maybe together with European colleagues, to ensure the security of an election,” Zelenskyy said in comments to reporters.

“And then in the next 60-90 days, Ukraine will be ready to hold an election,” he said.

In a Politico news article published earlier on Tuesday, Trump was quoted as saying: “You know, they [Ukraine] talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy any more.”

Zelenskyy dismissed the suggestion that he was clinging to power as “totally inadequate”.

He then said that he would ask parliament to prepare proposals for new legislation that could allow for elections during martial law.

Earlier this year, Ukraine’s parliament overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming the legitimacy of Zelenskyy’s wartime stay in office, asserting the constitutionality of deferring the presidential election while the country fights Russia’s invasion.

In February, Trump also accused Zelenskyy of being a “dictator”, echoing claims previously made by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Zelenskyy and other officials have routinely dismissed the idea of holding elections while frequent Russian air strikes take place across the country, nearly a million troops are at the front and millions more Ukrainians are displaced. Also uncertain is the voting status of those Ukrainians living in the one-fifth of the country occupied by Russia.

Polls also show that Ukrainians are against holding wartime elections, but they also want new faces in a political landscape largely unchanged since the last national elections in 2019.

Ukraine, which is pushing back on a US-backed peace plan seen as Moscow-friendly, is also seeking strong security guarantees from its allies that would prevent any new Russian invasion in the future.

Washington’s peace proposal involves Ukraine surrendering land that Russia has not captured, primarily the entire industrial Donbas region, in return for security promises that fall short of Kyiv’s aspirations, including its wish to join the NATO military alliance.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives sounded ready on Monday to overrule Congress and give President Trump more power to fire officials at independent agencies and commissions.

The justices heard arguments on whether Trump could fire Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

The case poses a clash between Congress’ power to structure the government versus the president’s “executive power.”

A ruling for Trump portends a historic shift in the federal government — away from bipartisan experts and toward more partisan control by the president.

Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should overturn a 1935 decision that upheld independent agencies. The decision “was grievously wrong when decided. It must be overruled,” he told the court.

The court’s three liberals strongly argued against what they called a “radical change” in American government.

If the president is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies, they said, the longstanding civil service laws could be struck down as well.

It would put “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

But the six conservatives said they were concerned that these agencies were exercising “executive power” that is reserved to the president.

It was not clear, however, whether the court will rule broadly to cover all independent agencies or focus narrowly on the FTC and other similar commissions.

For most of American history, Congress has created independent boards and commissions to carry out specific missions, each led by a board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term.

But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards are unconstitutional if their officials cannot be fired at will by a new president.

Past presidents had signed those measures into law, and a unanimous Supreme Court upheld them 90 years ago in a case called Humphrey’s Executor vs. U.S.

In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies. The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by President Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

But conservatives often long derided these agencies and commissions as an out-of-control “administrative state,” and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he believes their independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.

“The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution, he wrote last year in his opinion, which declared for the first time that a president has immunity from being prosecuted later for crimes while in office.

Roberts spoke for a 6-3 majority in setting out an extremely broad view of presidential power while limiting the authority of Congress.

The Constitution in Article I says Congress “shall have the power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other powers vested” in the U.S. government. Article II says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

The current court majority believes that the president’s executive power prevails over the power of Congress to set limits by law.

“Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote last year in Trump vs. United States.

Four months later, Trump won reelection and moved quickly to fire a series of Democratic appointees who had fixed terms set by Congress. Slaughter, along with several other fired appointees, sued, citing the law and her fixed term. They won before federal district judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

But Trump’s lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, and the justices, by 6-3 votes, sided with the president and against the fired officials.

In September, the court said it would hear arguments in the case of Trump vs. Slaughter to decide on whether to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision.

At the time, conservatives applauded the move. “For far too long, Humphrey’s Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight,” said Cory Andrews, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.

In defense of the 1935 decision, law professors noted the court said that these independent boards were not purely executive agencies, but also had legislative and judicial duties, like adopting regulations or resolving labor disputes.

During Monday’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the principle of “democratic accountability” called for deferring to Congress, not the president.

“Congress decided that some matters should be handled by nonpartisan experts. They said expertise matters with respect to the economy and transportation. So having the president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists is actually is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.

But that argument gained no traction with Roberts and the conservatives. They said the president is elected and has the executive authority to control federal agencies.

The only apparent doubt involved the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is prized by business. The Chamber of Commerce said the court should overrule the 1935 decision, but carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve.

Trump’s lawyer grudgingly agreed. If “an exception to the removal power exists,” he wrote in his brief in the Slaughter case, it should be “an agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.