How the international media covered the Russo-Ukrainian war, June 27

Sasha Sverdlova

Israeli American political commentator Mica Halpern wrote an opinion on the Jerusalem Post, where he criticizes President Zelensky’s appeals to Israel. According to Halpern, the Ukrainian leader had “chutzpah” to demand more from the country that provided a field hospital to Ukraine and offered free transport for Ukrainian refugees accepting them as migrants. Ukraine’s Ambassador to Israel is demanding Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile interception system, which, according to Halpern, is insane, as the system would almost definitely end up in Russia. Overall, the opinion writes that countering Putin, while essential, would threaten Israeli relations with Russia, which are important as the latter controls Syria. Halpern also notes that “Israel understands both sides in this conflict. Intimately, diplomatically speaking, Israel understands”. According to the author, Zelensky should have chosen more polite diplomacy toward Israel.

The Washington Post published a story about a Minnesota newspaper publisher who decided to join Ukrainian defenders. Lee Zion has been a journalist for over 30 years, being able to purchase a local Minnesota newspaper four years ago. Zion is 54 years old, and when learning about Russian atrocities in Ukraine, he decided to go there and fight with the Ukrainians against the invasion. Zion had military experience in the past, as he served in the navy from 1990 to 1995, however, he has been a civil journalist since then. To leave for Ukraine, Zion decided to give away his business, as the newspaper is a crucial news source for the local population and has to roll on. Then he went to Ukrainian Embassy and applied for the territorial defense unit, however, he received a “hard maybe” response. Nevertheless, Zion is getting ready to travel to Ukraine and has started learning Ukrainian. Of course, war is scary, however, the journalist is determined. He’d like Tom Hanks to play him in the movie adaptation if he becomes a hero.

Politico explains the consequences of Russia missing the bond payment deadline, aka “Russian default”. While Russia claims there is no default, in fact, there is, as a failure to stick to the terms of the debt that includes currency specifications counts as a default. In the short term, the default would not influence Russia heavily. Still, in the more distant future, Russia will feel the pain of increased borrowing costs, affecting Russia’s ability to raise funds on capital markets for years to come. “This golden goose is cooked two to three years down the line. It might be on slow roast, but the goose will be inevitably cooked,” wrote economist Timothy Ash of Blueray Asset Management. As for the war, Politico reports the default would probably not immediately impact Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine.