Putin to host ceremony annexing occupied Ukrainian territories on Friday, Kremlin says

 

Russia will on Friday begin formally annexing up to 18% of Ukrainian territory, with President Vladimir Putin expected to host a ceremony in the Kremlin to declare four occupied Ukrainian territories part of Russia.

The ceremony would take place on Friday at 15:00 local time (08:00 ET) in the Kremlin’s St. George’s Hall, Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. Putin will deliver a speech and meet with Russian-backed leaders of the four occupied regions on the sidelines of the ceremony, he added.

Next week, Russia’s two houses of parliament – the State Duma and Federation Council – will consider the annexation.

Russia’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, will meet on October 3 and 4, its chairman, Vyacheslav Volodin, said, according to RIA Novosti. The state news agency cited Volodin as saying that the State Duma’s schedule had been adjusted so the deputies could make legislative decisions based on the supposed results of the polls.

The Federation Council, Russia’s upper house, will consider the annexation of the occupied Ukrainian territories on October 4, Andrey Klishas, Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation, said in a Telegram post on Thursday.

The announcements come after people in four occupied areas of Ukraine supposedly voted in huge numbers in favor of joining Russia, in five-day polls that were illegal under international law and dismissed by Kyiv and the West as a sham.

The so-called referendums were organized by Russian-backed separatists in the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) in the eastern Donbas region, where fighting has raged since the rebels seized control of parts of Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014.

The other two areas to hold so-called referendums were Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine. Russia has occupied the two regions since shortly after it invaded the country in late February.

Vladimir Saldo, the head of the Russian-backed administration in Kherson, urged Putin to annex the region on Wednesday, following the so-called referendum there.

The Moscow-aligned leadership in all four places claimed the processes yielded massive majorities for those “voting” in favor of acceding to Russian sovereignty: 87.05% in Kherson, 93.11% in Zaporizhzhia, 98.42% in the LPR and 99.23% in the DPR.

The process was widely panned as illegitimate, as experts said it was impossible to hold a free and fair election in a war zone or occupied territory. A top United Nations official, Rosemary DiCarlo, said the votes “cannot be called a genuine expression of the popular will.”

“Unilateral actions aimed to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the attempted acquisition by force by one state of another state’s territory, while claiming to represent the will of the people, cannot be regarded as legal under international law,” said DiCarlo, the UN’s under-secretary-general.

Meanwhile, the European Union on Wednesday proposed additional sanctions in retaliation for Moscow’s annexation plan, targeting “those involved in Russia occupation and illegal annexation of areas of Ukraine,” including “the proxy Russian authorities in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and other Russian individuals who organized and facilitated the sham referenda in these four occupied territories of Ukraine.”

Reports from the ground suggest that voting in the occupied regions was done essentially – and in some cases, literally – at gunpoint. Serhii Hayday, the Ukrainian head of the Luhansk region military administration, said that authorities were going door to door, trailed by armed guards, to collect votes, and that local populations were being intimidated into voting to join Russia.

The results also contradict data from before the war. An exclusive CNN poll of Ukrainians conducted in February, just before Russia’s invasion, found just 18% of Ukrainians in the east – including the Luhansk and Donetsk regions – agreed with the statement that “Russia and Ukraine should be one country,” while 16% of Ukrainians in the south, which included the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, supported it.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky said Tuesday the process was a “farce” that “cannot even be called an imitation of referendums.”

Zelensky also accused Russia of attempting to use the same strategy as it did when Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014. A referendum organized there, which officially saw 97% of voters back annexation, was ratified by Russian lawmakers within a week. Much of the international community did not respect that outcome, and it appears they will do the same with Tuesday’s results.

Some of the separatist leaders involved in carrying out sham referendums to secede from Ukraine and join Russia landed in Moscow Thursday, according to a photograph posted by the Russia-appointed deputy head of the Kherson regional military administration Kirill Stremousov.

LPR chief Leonid Pasechnik told Russian state news agency TASS Thursday he was also in the Russian capital.

Reuters said Thursday that a stage with giant video screens has been set up on Red Square, alongside billboards proclaiming “Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson - Russia!.” TASS had previously reported that a rally would be held in front of the Kremlin on Friday in support of the poll results of the so-called referendums.

Feared military escalation

Alhough the results of the Russian-backed referendums are unsurprising, there is concern Russia’s attempts to assert sovereignty over Ukrainian territory could portend a dangerous escalation in the seven-month-long war.

The Kremlin is expected to treat the territories as though they are parts of Russia, warning that it would defend them as such – signaling a potential military escalation once the Ukrainian Army attempts to reclaim them.

In an address on September 21, Putin raised the specter of nuclear weapons, saying he would use “all the means at our disposal” if he deemed the “territorial integrity” of Russia to be jeopardized.

The so-called referendums came after a sudden and successful Ukrainian offensive through most of the occupied Kharkiv region swung momentum in the conflict back towards Kyiv this month, galvanizing Ukraine’s Western backers and causing anger in Russia, which has time and again been stymied on the battlefield.

With losses piling up, Putin has enacted a “partial mobilization” of Russian citizens, meaning those who are in the reserve could be called up and nationals with military experience would be subject to conscription – and potentially sent to defend the illegally annexed territories. At the outset of the conflict, Putin was careful to emphasize that the military assault, euphemistically referred to as a “special military operation,” would only be fought by military professionals.

More than 200,000 people have traveled from Russia into Georgia, Kazakhstan and the EU since the announcement. Upwards of 50,000 Russians have fled to Finland and at least 100,000 have crossed into Kazakhstan. Images from crossings into Finland, Georgia and Mongolia show massive traffic jams on the Russian side of each border.

Protests against the partial mobilization have broken out in some of Russia’s ethnic minority regions. Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky, have alleged that Russia is forcibly drafting domestic protesters; entire segments of male populations in remote villages; and fighting-age men from minority communities as well as occupied territories in Ukraine. A Ukrainian mayor-in-exile alleged Russia was conscripting his constituents to “use them as cannon fodder.”

source

Boris Johnson's wish to pick fights with his old enemies risks making the UK a pariah

'No way out': Commentator predicts Boris Johnson's future

 

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government have spent much of this week fighting with the EU and rowing with a European human rights court, all while playing down accusations that they are breaking international law and pandering to his party's base.

On Monday, Johnson's foreign secretary, Liz Truss, revealed the long-awaited Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, a piece of legislation that, if passed, would allow the British government to unilaterally override parts of the Brexit deal it agreed with the EU in 2019.

Two days later, the EU responded by launching legal proceedings against the UK over its failure to implement parts of the protocol to date, while Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commission vice-president, said that "there is no legal nor political justification whatsoever for unilaterally changing an international agreement ... let's call a spade a spade: this is illegal."

UK government officials responded angrily by insisting that the bill, if passed, would be perfectly legal. Suella Braverman, the attorney general who gave the new bill a green light, went on television to defend the proposed legislation. In doing so, she accused the BBC of painting the EU as "the good guys" and told ITV's political editor that his assertion the bill would break that law was "Remaniac make-believe."

On Tuesday, the Johnson government found itself cursing the name of another European institution, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), after it was forced to abandon a flight that would transport asylum-seekers to Rwanda. The UK announced a deal in April under which asylum seekers in the country could be relocated and granted asylum in Rwanda. The UN's human rights agency had previously warned the UK that the policy might be unlawful, as it could expose those refugees to human rights abuses in Rwanda. 

Demonstrators protest outside of an airport perimeter fence against a planned deportation of asylum seekers from Britain to Rwanda, at Gatwick Airport near Crawley, Britain, June 12, 2022.

 

The scheme had been widely criticized by human rights organizations, which succeeded in numerous legal challenges against individual removals but failed in their bid for an injunction suspending the flight. However, when the ECHR intervened on Tuesday night, saying that the last asylum seekers due to be on board had not exhausted their legal options in the UK, the plane was grounded. 

Again, government ministers responded by insisting that the plan was lawful. Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab has since suggested that the UK will introduce its own Bill of Rights that could effectively allow it to ignore the ECHR. 

Johnson's willingness to have public spats with large, international institutions makes sense when you look at recent history. Both Johnson and his predecessor, Theresa May, picked fights with the judiciary and the EU during the most frustrating days of Brexit. This, so the theory goes among Conservatives, gave both leaders a boost among their core supporters for attacking elitist bodies that were blocking the will of the people. 

"Historically, Boris has done well hitting out at big institutions like the EU and courts," says a former government minister told CNN. "These were not artificial fights, both Rwanda and Northern Ireland are proper government policy. But the hardline way we've defended them suggests to me that Boris sees a silver lining," they added. 

In one sense, this logic makes sense. Johnson has been hit by scandal after scandal and has seen his personal approval ratings tank, along with national polling for his Conservative Party. 

He has had to fight off a vote among his own party to remove him as leader and on Thursday night saw his own ethics adviser Christopher Geidt resigned, saying that Johnson's government had put him in an "impossible and odious position."

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks as he takes questions at the House of Commons in London, Britain June 15, 2022.

 

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks as he takes questions at the House of Commons in London, Britain June 15, 2022.

So, a fight with the lofty elites in Brussels and Strasbourg over real red-meat Conservative issues like Brexit and immigration could be just what Johnson needs to get things back on track. 

However, every time a government becomes so fixated on domestic policy, it risks forgetting that allies and enemies around the world are paying attention. 

CNN spoke to multiple Western diplomatic sources who said that Johnson's government had cast a dark shadow over their perception of the UK. One senior Western official who has worked closely with the UK during the Ukraine crisis said that while allies still coordinated with the UK, the sense of concern that they don't know what version of Johnson they will get has become normalized. 

"He is not Donald Trump, but he is so unpredictable that it's easy for allies to think of him as being like Donald Trump," said a Western diplomat. 

A European diplomat told CNN that "it's hard to overstate just how much damage has been done. Trust has been hugely damaged." They pointed to the issue over Northern Ireland, saying that "on our side, we know that there are solutions to the protocol. But those solutions rely on trust. Why should we trust him not to tear up any new agreement in the future?"

Western officials say, with some sadness, that there were moments in the immediate aftermath of Russia invading Ukraine where they thought Johnson might start behaving like a "stable and predictable" leader, as the Western diplomat put it. 

A European official agreed, saying that "there were moments when we looked at the UK with some admiration and thought there might be some path forward. Ukraine was something bigger than our squabbles." 

However, the official continued that this feeling of optimism faded quickly, after Johnson compared the Ukrainian fight for freedom to Brexit. 

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the National Service of Thanksgiving held at St Paul's Cathedral as part of celebrations marking the Platinum Jubilee of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, in London, Friday, June 3, 2022.

 

Conservatives in Westminster have mixed views on how bad this all is. Some worry that Johnson's continued scandals and rhetoric are making the UK a pariah. Worse, they fear that a country like the UK -- a longstanding member of the rules-based, international order -- playing so fast and loose with international law sets a terrible precedent at a time when democracy is under threat in many parts of the world. 

On the other hand, some MPs think that Johnson's critics are getting worked up about something that normal people don't care about. They say, not unreasonably, that a G7, NATO member with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council -- and one that has in many respects led the way on Ukraine -- is not about to get cut out by its allies. 

Ultimately, Johnson's international spats are most likely to play out in the domestic political arena. Some will love that he is taking a hardline stance. Others will feel a deepening sense of embarrassment that this man is their prime minister. 

"If you are in Boris's position, then you may as well double down on some of this stuff. What does he have to lose?" a senior Conservative MP told CNN. "Either things are so terminally bad that he's doomed whatever he does, or he's got two years to turn things around before the election. So why not go out there and have fights on your own pitch?" 

That summary makes a lot of sense when you are sitting in Westminster, talking to people who spend too much time in Westminster. However, Johnson's decisions seriously impact the lives of people who spend no time in Westminster and for whom this really is not a game. Especially as the UK is going through the worst cost-of-living crisis it has suffered in decades. 

Johnson won't know if his red meat gamble has paid off with the public until the next general election -- unless he's removed from office before then. There will undeniably be people who see him as the same Brexit street fighter who stands up for Britain against the bullies seeking to do it down. 

But there will be an awful lot of people who think that instead of picking fights with the EU and ECHR, Johnson should be thinking of ways to improve their lives. 

source

'Diet' soda is disappearing from store shelves

 

As you make your way through the soda aisle, you may notice a lot less of the word "diet" than you used to.

That's because some diet sodas are disappearing — or at least, that packaging is gone. Instead you'll find those beverages under their new branding: zero sugar.

"Zero sugar" has replaced "diet" for many no-calorie soft drinks. Canada Dry and Schweppes ginger ales, 7Up, A&W and Sunkist, made by Keurig Dr Pepper, now label their diet drinks "zero sugar." (One exception is the namesake Dr Pepper brand, which will still come in "diet" packaging in addition to a different zero sugar version.)

The reason for the overhaul: The word "diet" has fallen out of fashion — especially for Millennials and Gen Z-ers.

"Younger people just don't like the word 'diet," said Greg Lyons, chief marketing officer at PepsiCo Beverages North America, during the Beverage Digest Future Smarts conference in December. Pepsi rebranded "Pepsi Max" as "Pepsi Zero Sugar" in 2016 and has been investing in its zero-sugar offerings over the past few year.

"No Gen Z wants to be on a diet these days," he said, adding that the company is "going to continue to innovate and support that business."

Diet 7UP is dead. Long live 7UP Zero Sugar.

 

But distaste for the word diet doesn't signal an aversion to no-calorie beverages. The diet soda segment, which includes diet and zero-calorie branded drinks, has ballooned since it first hit the mainstream in the 1960s. In 2020, the US retail diet carbonated soft drink market hit $11.2 billion, according to Mintel, a market research company.

The segment is still far smaller than the market for regular carbonated soft drinks, which was $28.2 billion in 2020, but it's growing much more quickly. Diet soda sales are up about 19.5% from 2018, compared to just 8.4% for regular soda in the same period, making it an attractive segment for soda makers seeking growth.

Evolving attitudes toward dieting as a concept mean soda makers have to de-emphasize diet branding as they steam ahead with zero-sugar offerings — even when, as in the case of those brands owned by Keurig Dr Pepper, they're selling the same exact drink.

The tactic could help soda makers bring more consumers, especially younger ones, into the fold. The industry needs those customers if it wants to grow the soda market. 

Diet sodas become popular in the 1960s.

 

The birth of diet colas

Diet drinks first became popular in the 1960s.

Diet Rite, a no-calorie drink from the soda maker Royal Crown Cola, was launched in 1958 "as an option for diabetics and other consumers who needed to limit their sugar intake," wrote Emily Contois, author of "Diners, Dudes, and Diets: How Gender and Power Collide in Food Media and Culture," in a 2020 piece for Jezebel.

"It was first stocked among medicines rather than soft drinks, but focus soon shifted to the growing number of weight loss dieters nationwide," she wrote. Diet Rite was a hit, prompting Coca-Cola to introduce Tab in 1963, and Pepsi to start selling Diet Pepsi a year later.

The segment gained steam in the following years. Looking to expand beyond Tab, Coca-Cola launched Diet Coke in 1982.

At the time, Coca-Cola was facing many of the same challenges it is fighting today: It needed to reinvigorate the Coca-Cola brand, and thought adding a Coke-branded diet option could help.

A company blog post detailing the launch of Diet Coke noted that "colas accounted for 60% of all soft drink sales in the US back then, but diets were growing three times faster than the rest of the category. Diet Coke was seen as the right product for the right time."

The company grappled with what to name the product. It considered using the moniker "sugar free" instead of diet, but "many saw it as a slur on Coca-Cola's main ingredient," according to the post. Ultimately, the company went with "diet" because it "was the most straightforward articulation of the promise of the brand."

But a few decades later, Coca-Cola returned to the idea of a sugar-free-branded product. This time, it wanted to attract the demographics that seemed to be avoiding the company's diet beverages: younger consumers and men.

Zero hits the scene

In 2005, Coca-Cola introduced Coke Zero in the United States. The Baltimore Sun explained at the time that Zero's "marketing is geared to a demographic, such as young people and the most macho of men, who see a stigma attached to the word diet."

Other companies also wanted a more neutral way to advertise no-sugar products.

Eliminating the word "diet" creates a "gender-free way to talk about the same topic," said Jim Watson, senior beverage analyst at Rabobank, who told CNN Business that "diet definitely got taken over as something for women."

But the arrival of zero-sugar drinks wasn't just about gender: It marked a turning point for the overall popularity of diet drinks. Alex Beckett, global food and drink analyst at Mintel, said the word diet "started falling out of fashion ... with the rise of zero." 

Coke Zero Sugar got a makeover this year, with new cans and an updated recipe.

 

Billing a drink as free of calories and sugar is also about addressing changing ideas about health, and highlighting the absence of sugar from the drink as a positive attribute in itself.

"While the diet designation may be associated with strict regimes or deprivation, the 'zero' designation has fewer negative connotations, corresponding with simply a cleaner profile," according to a Mintel report from April.

For Keurig, the shift seems to be working. Recent zero sugar launches alone were responsible for one percentage point of market-share gains for the company, according to Derek Hopkins, president of cold beverages at Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP), who detailed the company's finances during the company's investor day in October.

Coca-Cola (KO) has also seen success with its Zero offering, which was rebranded to Coca-Cola Zero Sugar in 2017 and got another update this year. "Coca-Cola Zero Sugar's new recipe has rolled out in more than 50 countries and has had accelerated growth in the last three months," said Coke CEO James Quincey during an analyst call in October.

The new recipe arrived on shelves in the US this summer, and since then "we have seen that 23% of current Coke Zero Sugar consumers are new," said Alex Ebanks, a spokesperson for the company, adding that Coca-Cola will continue to invest in the product next year and beyond.

Competition heats up

While big brands sharpen their focus on their zero-sugar offerings, they face competition from other categories and upstarts with novel ideas.

One major competitor, according to Mintel's Beckett, is sparkling water.

"Many people are shifting over ... from carbonated soft drinks to sparkling waters," he said, because those drinks often have no sweeteners, no calories, and "have a more of a health healthy image."

PepsiCo (PEP) and Coca-Cola have offered their own sparkling waters to get in on the trend. Coca-Cola owns Topo Chico and has a line of caffeinated sparkling water called Aha, while PepsiCo sells Bubly.

Beyond sparkling waters, competitors are entering the space with fresh spins on sodas. For example: Sodas that promote gut health.

Olipop, a startup that says it makes "a new kind of soda," sells throwback flavors like classic root beer, vintage cola and others. The sodas, which range from about 35-50 calories each, are made with a mix of ingredients like Jerusalem artichoke and Cassava root that the company says support digestive health. Poppi, which also sells traditional soda flavors in addition to fruit flavors, makes a similar claim, emblazoning a "for a healthy gut" label on the front of its brightly colored cans.

"​​Consumers are voting with our wallets, and sugar is something that people definitely want less of in our lives," said Danny Stepper, CEO of LA Libations, a beverage company incubator. "That opens the door for a lot of opportunities and categories," he said. "Consumers want new things, so that's opening the door to new ideas." 

source