Month: July 2024

The United States is hosting this year’s major annual NATO Summit in Washington DC on July 9,10, and 11. Heads of state, foreign ministers, and diplomats from across Europe will be in attendance, as will of course President Joe Biden. 

A big question that remains is how far the alliance will go in encouraging Ukraine’s ambitions to join. Currently the US is pushing the ambiguous language of offering Kiev a “bridge” to NATO while demanding reforms especially in the area of corruption. Zelensky is not happy, given that not even a timeline for membership appears to be on the table.

Still, there are enough hawks among Western leaders to present the possibility of launching Ukraine on an ‘irreversible’ path to membership, which many observers fear will only eventually trigger WW3 with Russia. 

Days ago, and just around the corner from the summit’s start, dozens of foreign policy experts have issued a letter which sounds the alarm on the question of advancing Ukrainian membership. The group is warning that should Kiev ever be admitted, it would trigger NATO’s Article 5, and require Western states to enter a nuclear-armed conflict with Russia.

“The closer NATO comes to promising that Ukraine will join the alliance once the war ends, the greater the incentive for Russia to keep fighting the war,” the letter, signed by over 60 analysts, reads. “The challenges Russia poses can be managed without bringing Ukraine into NATO.”

The letter argues that encouraging NATO membership only plays into Putin’s narrative, and in the end ensures “turning Ukraine into the site of a prolonged showdown between the world’s two leading nuclear powers.”

At one point the group says that advancing Ukraine’s membership presents the risk of the “unraveling of NATO itself”. According to a section from the letter [emphasis ZH]:

Some claim that the act of bringing Ukraine into NATO would deter Russia from ever invading Ukraine again. That is wishful thinking. Since Russia began invading Ukraine in 2014, NATO Allies have demonstrated through their actions that they do not believe the stakes of the conflict, while significant, justify the price of war.

If Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would have reason to doubt the credibility of NATO’s security guarantee — and would gain an opportunity to test and potentially rupture the alliance. The result could be a direct NATO-Russia war or the unraveling of NATO itself.

Below is the letter in full, followed by the list of signatories, which was first reported and posted online by Politico…

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Last night, President Joe Biden refused to take a cognitive or neurological test despite widespread concerns over his physical and mental decline. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed the President on his low polling and efforts of Democrats to get him to drop out of the race. He specifically mentioned the effort of Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) to organize members to pressure him to end his campaign. Biden took a not-so-subtle dig at Warner. However, it was nothing compared to a curious posting by author and Democratic activist Don Winslow, who appeared to threaten Warner on X (formerly Twitter).

When the story broke in the Washington Post, Winslow posted a curious and ominous response:

Dear @MarkWarner

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

You definitely know what I’m talking about.

Think about it very carefully.

— Don Winslow (@donwinslow) July 6, 2024

It is not clear what Winslow meant by Warner knowing what he was talking about when asking if he was “sure you want to go down this road?”

The message has caused a bit of a stir on the Hill. For the denizens of the Beltway, it sounds extortive and threatening. The suggestion is that Winslow has something on Warner.

While some have asked whether this could be viewed as a threat criminally, it is clearly not sufficient for a charge. Warner is a public figure and this comment could just be a reference to political backlash or the lack of an alternative.

His asking Warner “Are you sure you want to go down this road?” could be a reference to the political implications of the resulting chaos, including making Kamala Harris the presidential candidate. Harris is even less popular than Biden according to some polls. While some polls show her doing slightly better than Biden against Trump, other polling shows that she would do considerably worse.

However, it is the follow up of “Think about it very carefully” that has got tongues wagging in D.C.

Whatever the intended meaning, the posting shows the depth of the division on the issue. Those divisions are only likely to deepen further after the refusal to take a test to put these concerns to rest.

Notably, Biden has insisted that the public can simply observe him. However, that position stands in contradiction to the frivolous privilege claims made by the Administration to withhold the audiotape from the interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. That was an interview that the President was prepared for in advance and held in ideal conditions with staff. It is an opportunity for the public to hear him under questioning to reach the very conclusions that Biden suggested in the interview.

As for Winslow’s posting, it may just be an incautious, poorly worded message rather than extortion or blackmail. We have all made postings that we regretted.

The real issue for Democrats is how to address this looming issue without tearing the party apart. I have tried to drill down on the legal implications of swapping out the top of the ticket or the entire ticket. It is uncharted territory when it comes to the federal election laws on the use of past contributions as well as some states with restrictive rules on ballot changes.

With a military budget bigger than most countries’ GDPs, the U.S. military manages to station troops in nearly 170 territories, on every continent in the world.

But which countries host the most troops? In the chart below, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao maps the territories where active duty American military personnel are stationed, according to March 2024 figures from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC).

ℹ️ Reserve troops and civilian personnel are also stationed overseas for support activities. They are not included on this map.

Ranked: Top 10 Territories Hosting U.S. Troops

There are nearly 170,000 active duty American troops stationed overseas.

More than half of that number are in Japan (55,000) and Germany (35,000), a holdover from World War II after the Axis powers surrendered.

Germany is now also home to the US European Command (EUCOM) headquarters in Stuttgart. It’s a key regional outpost, to help “keep the peace in Europe, parts of the Middle East, and Eurasia,” as stated by the government.

*Guam is a U.S. territory.

Meanwhile, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty revised in 1960 allowed America to establish military bases in the country, in exchange for defending Japan in the event of an attack.

South Korea also has a significant garrison, nearly 25,000 active duty personnel. This is also a legacy from the Korean War.

Tellingly, however, six of the top 10 countries hosting U.S. troops are in Europe. For the decades since the Cold War, the American military had been reducing its European footprint. However after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the buildup restarted.

Finally, in the wake of the 2022 Russian invasion and the Israel-Hamas war, the U.S. military has increased the number of troops both in Europe and the Middle East.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Russia’s majority-Muslim regions of Dagestan and Karachay-Cherkessia temporarily banned the niqab on security-related pretexts in the aftermath of last month’s terrorist attacks in Dagestan. The temporary nature of this restriction is meant to avoid violating federal law after a government document from the Cabinet seen by Kommersant in late May described a full ban as unconstitutional. That came in response to the head of the Human Rights Council calling for this shortly after late March’s Crocus terrorist attack.

It’s ironic that Russia’s majority-Orthodox Cabinet considers a full ban to be an unconstitutional violation of its citizens’ freedom of religion while at least two of its majority-Muslim regions thus far consider a temporary one to be a prudent security-related measure. This disconnect is likely due to the first’s fear of offending Russia’s growing Muslim minority, which the Grand Mufti predicted in 2019 will constitute around one-third of the population in the next 15 years, and the second’s on-the-ground reality.

The Cabinet might be acting nobly, and there’s no doubt that there’s a sizeable segment of this minority that would object to banning the niqab, but those Muslims on the front line of Russia’s domestic War on Terror in the North Caucasus understand the pragmatism behind temporary measures. At the very least, the niqab can be worn by male terrorists to disguise themselves in order to move freely among society while smuggling explosives and/or weapons, thus making this garment a security risk.

There’s also the fact that the Central Asian Republics from which the vast majority of Russia’s migrant population originates have banned the niqab to varying degrees for similar security-related reasons as well as concerns that this foreign (Arab) tradition contributes to radicalizing members of society. By letting their citizens wear it during their stay in Russia, the federal government is inadvertently undermining their policies, which in turn risks destabilizing those countries once those citizens return.

“Putin & The Patriarch Reminded Russians That Ethno-Religious Hate Speech Is Unacceptable” as part of their national unity efforts after the Crocus terrorist attack, but publicly discussing the socio-security benefits of banning the niqab doesn’t constitute such. It’s only controversial if someone associates terrorism with Islam like the Head of the Russian Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin recently did while lobbying for this policy and accidentally upset Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov as a result.

The latter’s region already informally banned the niqab long ago, with this being the case beyond any doubt after a group of women were scolded on local TV in late 2020 for wearing this garment in public and then forced to remove it. Chechnya, much more than any other region in Russia, understands the socio-security risks of applying a laissez-faire approach towards foreign religious traditions even if this is for well-intentioned reasons related to upholding citizens’ human rights and whatnot.

While the federal government might remain fearful of reversing its position on the alleged unconstitutionality of officially banning the niqab, Russia’s majority-Muslim regions of Chechnya, Dagestan, and Karachay-Cherkessia are paving the way through their informal and temporary bans. More regions could foreseeably follow their lead and couldn’t be accused of ethno-religious hate speech since it’s Russian Muslims themselves that are pioneering this pragmatic solution to such a sensitive issue.  

Considering that Joe Biden, who is already the oldest sitting president ever in the United States, will turn 82 in November and his designated challenger Donald Trump just turned 78, age was always going to be an issue in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.

After last week’s debate, however, during which President Biden looked every bit his age, the discussion over Biden’s fitness to run a successful re-election campaign, let alone serve another four-year term has taken on a new dynamic.

As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, even among rank-and-file democrats, anxiety over Biden’s health and his re-election prospects is growing, even though the party’s leadership is trying to present a united front in support of the president.

A new poll by The New York Times and Siena College reveals how big the concerns about Biden’s age really are, showing that 74 percent of registered voters believe that he is “just too old to be an effective president”, compared to 43 percent who think the same about Donald Trump.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Even more strikingly, 62 percent of those who voted for Biden in 2020 believe he is now too old, along with 59 percent of those who identified as supporters of the Democratic Party.

That doesn’t necessarily mean people won’t vote for him though, as even 58 percent of those who would vote for Biden in 2024 tend to agree that he is too old to be an effective president, as they have similar (and other) concerns about Trump.

As Statista’s chart shows, registered voters are significantly more concerned about Biden’s age than they are about Trump’s with more than 50 percent of all respondents strongly agreeing that Biden is too old to be an effective president and another 21 percent somewhat agreeing.

When it comes to Trump’s age, just 22 percent of registered voters strongly agree that he’s too old to be a good president with another 21 percent somewhat agreeing.

Authored by Amaka Nwaokocha via CoinTelegraph.com,

Spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced a surge in inflows on July 6, following the recent U.S. Independence Day, during which Bitcoin’s price dropped below $54,000.

According to Farside monitoring, this is their largest net inflow in a month, with a remarkable $143.1 million flowing into these financial products.

Strong inflows

The Fidelity Bitcoin ETF (FBTC) led the inflows with an impressive $117 million, highlighting strong investor confidence in the fund. Following FBTC, the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB) recorded a net inflow of $30.2 million, while the ARKB and HODL ETFs saw inflows of $11.3 million and $12.8 million, respectively.

Conversely, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) experienced a net outflow of $28.6 million, starkly contrasting the positive trend across other spot Bitcoin ETFs.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs bounced back strongly.    Source: Farside Investors

Despite the recent market turbulence, the substantial inflows into these ETFs suggest that institutional investors and large-scale buyers are taking advantage of the dip to accumulate Bitcoin at lower prices.

Prime opportunity to buy Bitcoin

Hunter Horsley, CEO of Bitwise Asset Management, highlighted in a post on X social platform his team’s efficiency in acquiring Bitcoin, managing to do so at a cost of less than half a basis point.

Horsley also emphasized the strong outlook for Bitcoin, suggesting that the current market conditions present a valuable buying opportunity for both new and existing investors.

“The outlook for Bitcoin has never been stronger. For many who don’t yet have exposure, this week is a chance to buy the dip,” he stated.

During the first week of July, BITB registered inflows exceeding $66 million, increasing its total Bitcoin holdings to over 38,000. Despite short-term volatility, this growth shows continued confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term potential.

Renowned Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff also offered his perspective on the resilience of Bitcoin ETF investors. Despite recent market fluctuations, Schiff observed that these investors remain committed to holding their assets, showing no signs of panic.

“So far, there’s no sign of panic. It will likely take a much larger drop in Bitcoin before they finally capitulate,” Schiff commented.

He further predicted that a significant sell-off could occur soon, potentially leading to a capitulation among Bitcoin holders.

Bitcoin fell to $55,200 on Coinbase after the collapsed Japanese crypto exchange Mt. Gox transferred 47,229 Bitcoin – worth $2.71 billion at current prices – to a new wallet address in its first major transaction since May.

The reformist and ‘moderate’ Masoud Pezeshkian has been elected as Iran’s new president, defeating his hardline conservative rival Saeed Jalili, after gaining 53.3% of the 30+ million votes counted.

While Jalili was seen as the status quo candidate, by and large expected to continue his predecessor’s policies, Pezeshkian, a heart surgeon and member of the Iranian parliament, has vowed to seek an end to the Islamic Republic’s global isolation.

As part of this push, the 71-year old has called for “constructive negotiations” with the West on Iran’s nuclear program, in hopes getting US-led sanctions removed or at least softened. Iran has on a monthly basis been expanding its Uranium enrichment and purity, bringing it closer to the ability to produce a nuclear weapon if it decides to do so. Israel has meanwhile threatened preemptive attack if this happens.

After years of intermittent anti-government protests, including the months-long ‘hijab protests’ which were triggered by a young woman’s death at the hands of the morality police, Dr. Pezeshkian is promising “unity and cohesion” between the government and population.

He has personally long been critical of the morality police, which boosted his popularity among younger and professional young family circles. Already young people have been seen celebrating in the streets of major cities, in hopes of a new era for Iran.

Pezeshkian’s victory is the result of a run-off after the June 28 first round election failed to result in a clear majority for either candidate. June 28 saw a historically low voter turnout of just 40% – and was a little over a month after the late President Ebrahim Raisi’s helicopter crashed in northern Iran near the border with Azerbaijan. Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian were killed, along with other top officials.

According to the numbers from the run-off which secured Pezeshkian’s victory:

With all ballots counted, Pezeshkian secured 16.4 million votes, while Jalili received 13.5 million votes, Press TV reports. Turnout was 30.5 million, or 49.8% of the 61 million eligible voters, according to a final update at 6:45 am local time (3:15 GMT).

Iran’s Foreign Minister announced Saturday, “The great nation of Iran once again stood proud in the test of loyalty to the holy system of the Islamic Republic and protection of our beloved Iran. Now is the season of empathy, unity and national cohesion for progress and ever-increasing authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Very quickly on the news, the leaders of China, India and Russia were among the first to congratulate Pezeshkian on his victory.

Upon the first round of voting, it became increasingly apparent that regions were choosing their candidate largely along ethnic lines…

Another voting pattern map created by @bbcpersian indicates that ultra conservative Saeed Jalili has won in Persian majority provinces. With few exceptions, non Persian voters in border provinces have overwhelmingly voted for reformist and ethnic Azerbaijani Masoud Pezeshkian. pic.twitter.com/hIn482Mkf6

— Ahmad Hashemi (@MrAhmadHashemi) July 1, 2024

Below is a brief partial backgrounder on the newly elected Iranian president via Anadolu Agency…

* * *

A relatively low-profile political figure, Pezeshkian served as health minister in the government of Mohammad Khatami (2001-2005) and has represented the northwestern city of Tabriz in the Iranian parliament since 2008. A cardiologist by practice, Pezeshkian previously headed the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, one of the leading medical institutions in northern Iran.

His two previous unsuccessful bids for the presidency came in 2013 and 2021, respectively. In 2013, he withdrew from the presidential race in the later stages in favor of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani; in 2021, his candidacy was rejected by the Guardian Council, the country’s top vetting body.

As the only reformist candidate in the race this time around, backed by the country’s leading reformist coalition, Pezeshkian engaged in hectic campaigning in recent weeks. His campaign was bolstered by the presence of former reformist politicians and ministers, including Javad Zarif, who served as foreign minister for two terms under former President Hassan Rouhani.

Authored by Tony Morrison via DailySceptic.org,

The debacle that was President Biden’s performance at last Thursday’s Presidential debate divided America. Half were astonished to see someone with a crypt-keeper vibe who was obviously dazed and confused and whose language consisted mainly of mumbling nonsense that often trailed off into sheer incomprehensibility. The other half merely saw business as usual from Biden. Political pundits refer to this phenomenon as, in the words of Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, “one screen, two movies”.

Much of the blame for this societal dissonance lies in the unhealthy alliance of our MSM (mainstream media composed of broadcast networks and major newspapers) and the Democrat Party. Since at least the 1990s the MSM have been operating as a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party as opposed to providing “truth to power”. The MSM are gradually losing the battle for relevance in the huge flourishing of, first, cable networks and now internet-based sites, podcasts and assorted social media, but they are still powerful in their waning days. They trashed Trump merrily during his Presidency, pushed Biden over the finish line in 2020, and have carried Biden’s water since then.

And since 2020 the MSM have been carrying more water for Biden than the Ganges in monsoon season. Biden’s deterioration has been evident for some years and it became an issue in the 2020 election. Brit Hume, one of journalism’s grey eminences, posed that Biden was senile based on his manner, behaviour and actions. MSM “fact-checkers” protected the precious candidate. But Biden and his handlers took notice that they had been rumbled and used the excuse of Covid from early 2020 on to hide Biden away campaigning from his basement. MSM ignored his concerning demeanor completely and supported him for President in words that would have embarrassed George Washington.

After a most unusual election came a most unusual Presidency, where the hiding away of the most powerful man in the world continued. Appearances were controlled, press conferences limited and interviews permitted only in controlled scripted environments such as with celebrities or on late night talk shows. Biden’s deteriorating physical condition, as well as his mental decline, were covered up by his handlers in a number of ways.   

This year, two events began to poke serious holes in the view that Biden is just old. Last year a Special Counsel, Robert Hur, was appointed to conduct an investigation into the finding of classified documents at Biden’s residences. He reported his findings in January. The report was not kind to Biden to say the least. He stated that Biden should not be prosecuted for the documents because a jury would not find him guilty as they would be sympathetic to the fact he was a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. NBC News dutifully provided covering fire for this by rolling out Democrat operatives to trash both Hur and the report.

Then there were the recent international events such as D-Day and the G7 meetings, where Biden was caught on camera spacing out and wandering off. The videos were shown on Fox News and went viral. The Associated Press stepped up for the covering fire and called them “cheap fakes”, following on from the White House reaction.  A bemused Fox News said the videos “have not been cropped, they have not been sped up or slowed down or edited in any way”.

And then came the debate. Biden had slipped in the polls against Trump due to the response from voters to seeing a candidate pursue the Kafka-esque strategy of putting an opponent on trial. And so Biden and his handlers came up with a cunning plan – to challenge Trump to a debate in an environment they believed they could control. They set the rules, selected the moderators (CNN, who had earlier supplied the questions in advance to Hillary Clinton in a 2016 debate), had no audience that would cause Biden to lose focus, and banned any cross-talk to limit Trump’s quick repartee. Biden spent seven days at Camp David prepping for the debate as if there was nothing else going on that required his attention. It was a brilliant strategy and only one thing could ruin it – the senility of the candidate. It did.

The reaction was immediate from folks believing in Biden. Democrats and Never-Trumpers were gob-smacked. But it is fascinating how their surprise was akin to reading the last few pages of an Agatha Christie novel. Massive surprise at the unveiling of the murderer is followed by an “oh yeah” as folks think back on the clues that were there all along. These reactions showed up in polls taken over the last few days. A CBS News poll two days after the debate showed 72% of folks now believe Biden’s cognitive issues prohibit him from being President, and this includes 42% of Democrat voters.

The immediate reactions of the MSM were different. At 10:30 that night the panicked howls of the MSNBC political pundits and “experts” mourned the death of their favoured campaign, while CNN threw ashes on the coffin. The New York Times suffered a dark night of the soul, and as the dawn broke published an editorial claiming Biden should step down. These are the guys who in March this year were taking a victory lap comparing Biden to Beethoven, Wagner and Martin Scorsese after Biden angrily shouted his way through a teleprompter speech to Congress.

The assorted Democrat Party apparatchiks and elected representatives were even more on fire. The donors did not like seeing their investment go down the drain. Many wanted their money back. Incumbent Democrats facing election in November were all over the place, with the mood varying from total support to calls to step down. In a Presidential election year Biden is at the top of the ticket and so has the capability of dragging these guys over the finish line, as party regulars tend to vote the entire line. Or not, as the case may be.

The White House gamely tried damage control, saying Biden was ill with a cold or suffering from jet lag after two back-to-back trips to Europe two weeks before the debate. The usually obedient White House Press Corps did not buy it.

No word as yet from White House doctor Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who gave Biden his annual physical this year and claimed he was “fit for duty“.

As for the Biden campaign, its response came four days later on Monday night when he addressed the nation on TV. The Supreme Court had issued a ruling on Presidential immunity when carrying out constitutional duties that essentially destroyed the strategy to tie Trump up in court for bogus charges. All Biden had to do was give a stirring speech on TV about the evil Supreme Court as a dramatic riposte to the debate nightmare. Unfortunately, Biden stank up the joint once again. His speech was only four minutes long, delivered in the trademark Biden mumble. He read both his speech and his instructions (“end of quote”) off the teleprompter. And it did not help that Biden’s face was painted with orange make-up in a vain effort to look as vibrant as his opponent.

This story is going to take a while to play out as the Democrat Party is on the horns of a dilemma. Biden is still planning on running and if he (or those around him) want him to, he will. His delegates (over 90%) have to vote for him on a first ballot at the Democratic Convention in August, which makes him the Democrat nominee. Only pressure from Democrats, anxious about a thrashing in November if he heads the ticket, can change this. But try that with a cranky, senile, elderly man. Also, the $100 million campaign war chest he has raised so far can only be transferred to his VP, Kamala Harris. And Democrats, apart from those who want the first POC woman as President, do not want her as she is, unbelievably, more unpopular than Biden with the public. Raising that kind of money and formulating a nationwide campaign is unrealistic with just four months left. Whatever strategy is followed, one thing is clear – the MSM will support whatever path is chosen by the Democrat Party.

Left out of all this is the state of the country. The focus at the moment is on Biden the candidate, but it is Biden as President for the next six months that is far more worrying. The MSM and Democrat Party, however, cannot waste too much time on something as trivial as the state of the nation. Not when there is an election to win.

Let’s start with the good news: The Lower 48 has reached peak summer, backed by 30 years of seasonal temperature trend data from Bloomberg. 

Now for the bad news: A heat wave continues to set records across the Lower 48, with 150 million Americans under weather alert this holiday weekend. 

Axios outlines the areas where the heat dome will impact the most: 

• Nearly half the U.S. population is under some type of extreme heat warning or advisory on Friday. The extreme heat in the Southeast to Mid-Atlantic is oppressive, with a strong upper-level high-pressure area, or heat dome, leading to hot and humid conditions.

• Heat advisories and other alerts extend from New Orleans to New York City on Friday.

• In the West, though, a near-record-strong heat dome is yielding scorchingly hot and dry conditions, and raising wildfire risks.

• Excessive heat warnings along the West Coast stretch from Nevada and Arizona through California and northward into Oregon and Washington State.

National Weather Service meteorologist Jenn Varian told Bloomberg that Las Vegas is forecasted to hit a scorching 117F on Sunday into early next week, potentially tying the metro area’s all-time high recorded in 2005 and again in 2017.

“Confidence is increasing that this potentially historic heatwave will last several days,” the National Weather Service’s office in Portland, Oregon, wrote on X, adding temperatures will rise “into the 100s and 110s over much of California and southern Oregon.” 

Here are more forecasted highs this weekend (list courtesy of Axios):

• 118°F: Forecast high in Redding, Calif., on Saturday, tying the city’s all-time high.
• 128°F: Forecast high in Death Valley, Calif., just 2-degrees shy of the hottest reliably measured temperature on Earth.
• 100°F: Forecast high on Friday in Portland, Ore., with temperatures at or above this level from Friday through Tuesday in this typically cooler city.

This all means that power grids will be under stress this weekend as high temperatures boost air conditioning demand. Bloomberg says that grids in California and Texas should be closely monitored for an elevated blackout risks.

Authored by Ted Snider via AntiWar.com,

Another year of war and another NATO summit, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is still not going to get the NATO membership Ukrainians are fighting and dying for. At last year’s NATO summit, Zelensky was offered only “an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met.”

“Ukraine isn’t ready for NATO membership,” U.S. President Joe Biden said because, as he told CNN, there are “qualifications that need to be met, including democratization.”

Zelensky was outraged: “It’s unprecedented and absurd when time frame is not set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership. While at the same time vague wording about ‘conditions’ is added even for inviting Ukraine.”

At this year’s NATO summit, to be held in Washington from July 9-11, corruption reform will be added to democratic reform. Ukraine will neither be offered membership in NATO nor a timeline to membership. Instead, they will be told that they are still too corrupt to join NATO.

According to a senior official in the State Department, although the U.S. has to “applaud everything that Ukraine has done in the name of reforms over the last two-plus years… we want to talk about additional steps that need to be taken, particularly in the area of anti-corruption.” In a recent interview with TIME, Biden cited “significant corruption” for not being “prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.”

Instead of being given membership, Ukraine will be given “a list of reforms it will be expected to carry out before its membership ambitions can be realized.”

As a consolation, Ukraine will be offered a headquarters in Germany “to give something solid to Kyiv at the summit even as they maintain the time is not right for Ukraine to join.” The mission, to be called NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine, will match the weapons the West sends to Ukrainian needs and coordinate training of Ukrainian troops without NATO itself providing that training. NATO will also offer Ukraine a senior civilian official to be stationed in Kiev who will oversee Ukraine’s “longer-term military- modernization requirements and nonmilitary support.”

NATO leaders at this year’s summit will attempt the sleight of hand of making the same old offer being made to Ukraine look shiny and new. Though what is being promised Ukraine won’t change, the wording of the promise will. Ukraine won’t be offered membership in NATO, but they will be offered “a bridge to their membership inside the alliance.” They will be offered a “path” to membership, though NATO is “very sceptical about bringing Ukraine any further along the path to full Nato membership this year.”

In an attempt to mollify Ukraine, NATO is considering labelling the path to NATO membership as an “irreversible” path. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has used that language, promising that “[t]he work we are undertaking now puts you on an irreversible path towards NATO membership so that when the time is right, Ukraine can become a NATO member straightaway.” But Ukraine might not even get that. The U.S. and Germany have reportedly stymied even that concession, favoring replacing “irreversible path” with “well-lit bridge.”

In order to avoid the debacle of last year’s offer of an invitation to NATO when NATO is ready and Zelensky’s angry reaction, NATO officials have engaged in “expectation management,” muting NATO members supportive of Ukraine accession, while warning Zelensky not to demand the “impossible.” NATO officials have asked Zelensky not to pressure NATO members to publicly support a timetable to NATO membership this time. “The hope,” The New York Times reports, “is that the mission and the commitment it represents will satisfy Mr. Zelensky and lead to a smoother summit than the last one, a year ago in Vilnius.. where he made his unhappiness clear.”

It didn’t work. Zelensky is already publicly stating his frustration and anger. “We understand that the White House is not ready to give us the invitation,” Zelensky said in a June 30 interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer. He castigated the U.S. for being “afraid to annoy Putin,” saying “this is the reason why we are not invited.” Zelensky criticized U.S. policy, saying, “I don’t think this is the policy of world leaders. These are the very cautious steps of my de-miners in the minefield.” He added in resignation that “If NATO is not ready to protect us, and to take us into the alliance, then we ask NATO to give us everything so we can protect ourselves.”

Unless something changes between now and the convening of the NATO summit on July 9, Ukraine will, again, not be given what it has been led to believe it is fighting for, and Zelensky will, again, loudly express his anger.