A brief “three-day ceasefire” between Ukraine and Russia to permit Moscow to commemorate victory over Nazi Germany was announced by Kyiv in a statement that was “short but strong on symbolism,” notes Aidan G. Stretch at The Free Press. Ukraine, in “dictating the terms” of the break in hostilities, indicates that Zelensky is not engaging in “mere posturing.” While Ukraine’s “long-range strike campaign” was originally “heavily” reliant on US help, “last spring, the Trump administration began to wind down this assistance,” and the “weapons doing most of the damage are now Ukrainian-made.” French President Emmanuel Macron reports that “two-thirds of the intelligence Ukraine receives now comes from France.” America’s “role in ending the war in Ukraine is receding, not expanding.”
Fear of “NATO expanding to his borders” was a main pretext for “Vladimir Putin’s utterly unjustifiable full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022,” smirks National Review’s Jim Geraghty. But that prompted Finland to join NATO, so now “Russia has 1,279 miles of shared border with NATO members, almost three times as much as before the invasion.” Despite its “colossal casualties” in Ukraine, Moscow remains a “military risk to Finland and other countries on NATO’s Eastern flank,” as Russia reportedly plans to garrison 80,000 troops “in the vicinity of Finland.” Americans should care because the “Russian state sees the United States and its allies as an enemy that must be undermined and harassed.”
Picking a new US Surgeon General “is a source of tension” between the “MAGA and MAHA factions” of the Trump base, but “there’s an easy path to a conflict-free resolution,” advises Reason’s JD Tuccille: Just “leave the Office of the Surgeon General unfilled and push for its abolition.” It’s a “completely unnecessary office” originally designated to care for “sick and injured merchant seaman,” but driven by “mission creep” to grow though it now “doesn’t really have a clearly defined role,” except as a “national nag” on lifestyle issues. “We’re paying an awful lot for the privilege of being nagged by a government medical bureaucrat” who “oversees an archaic uniformed corps.” Nix it to “rid us of a national annoyance, ditch a vestigial bureaucratic position, and potentially save money.”
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) claims Tennessee’s redistricting plan is vulnerable to legal challenge, notes The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, because it breaks up a district that’s “more than 60% black” — a clear sign, Goldman asserts, of “intentional discrimination.” Yet Taranto points out that “Tennessee Republicans have a formidable defense” by claiming their plan is a “nonjusticiable” partisan gerrymander, with “the dispersion of black voters” merely “incidental” to that. Indeed, Democratic lawmakers in Virginia similarly sought “partisan advantage in part by spreading black voters around.” So “Goldman can find consolation in the Virginia ruling, which turned back a partisan gerrymander that came at the expense of ‘black opportunity’ — assuming, of course, that his concern for the latter is sincere.”
Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter!
“The ruling from the federal court to pause mail-order abortion drugs nationwide is nothing short of monumental,” cheers Shanyce Thomas at The Hill. She “nearly died at age 19” after an adverse reaction to such pills. More: Her “experience didn’t happen through the mail”; she underwent “an actual ultrasound” — yet “everything went terribly wrong.” With mail-order abortion pills, there’s “no ultrasound or physical exam, no confirmation of how developed the baby is, and no doctor to monitor if something goes wrong.” Beware: “Women deserve to know the full picture before taking drugs that can affect their bodies and their futures.” The risks are serious enough that the feds “should ban the abortion drug altogether,” or “at the very least they should get these drugs out of the mail.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。