Culture More Sport, Less War The Olympics should be a unifying occasion, not an outlet for political acrimony. The vexed question of the role of politics in sport has surfaced yet again at the Winter Olympics in Milan. The Ukrainian skeleton skier Vladyslav Heraskevych wanted to wear a “helmet of remembrance” displaying 24 fellow athletes killed during the Russian invasion of his country. The International Olympic Committee refused. He was offered the compromise of wearing it before and after the races. Because he insisted on wearing the helmet during the actual race, he was banned from the competition. President Volodymyr Zelensky awarded him Ukraine’s Order of Liberty. Defending the ban, IOC President Kirsty Coventry said it was crucial to “keep a safe environment for everyone” on the field of play. But cleaving to the Olympic ideal has been increasingly contentious. In September 2025, the International Paralympic Committee lifted the suspension on Russian athletes competing under their own flag. In protest, seven countries—the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine—said they would boycott the opening ceremonies. When the Games opened in the Roman amphitheater in Verona on 6 March, four Russians appeared to booing by the crowd. The extent to which international sport has been politicized, or I would say weaponized, is shown by the fact that Russian and Belarusian athletes, if allowed to compete at all, can only compete under the label “independent neutral athletes.” For example, the top Russian tennis players Daniil Medvedev, Andrey Rublev, and Belarusian Aryna Sabalenka can play at Wimbledon only as “neutrals.” No Russian athletes are allowed to compete in team sporting events. The weaponization of sport can take the form of boycotts, exclusions, or political gestures within the sporting arena itself (like “taking the knee” by American athletes). Sport as peaceful competition on neutral ground has given way to sport as an expression of moral outrage or political coercion. The position is much the same in literature and music. Whereas Daniel Barenboim started an Israeli–Palestinian orchestra in 1999 as an experiment in coexistence—a space for dialogue—today Russian artists like opera singer Anna Netrebko and conductor Valery Gergiev have suffered bans for showing “a lack of sufficient distance” from Putin’s policies. The weaponization of science and technology, potential human benefactors, advances apace. Is sport bound to be entangled in politics, athletes inevitably tainted with the sins of their governments? It was not always so, and need not be. The Olympic Games were supposed to offer a zone of peace in times of trouble. They started in classical Greece as a “truce” (ekecheiria) between warring sides. Perhaps the nearest modern equivalent would be a ceasefire—not guaranteeing permanent peace, but pointing to its possibilities. The late-19th-century revival of the Games was driven largely by a Frenchman, Pierre de Coubertin: “Let us export rowers, runners, and fencers… the cause of peace will have received a new and mighty ally,” he said. No doubt the idea that sport can stop wars is as much of a pipe dream as the belief that free trade can do so. The revived Olympics did not stop the First World War, and unofficial Christmas Day truces between the warring soldiers only briefly interrupted the mass slaughter. The 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin did not prevent the outbreak of the Second World War. The argument is not that sport can stop war, rather that by channeling destructive instincts into competitive but peaceful activities it makes the world a little less likely to be violent by fostering respect for others. It also increases tolerance. For example, the outstanding performance of African athletes in international sport helped to debunk pseudo-scientific racial hierarchies. Suppose these fine athletes had been excluded because of the often murderous conduct of their governments? Sports boycotts are sometimes defended on the grounds that they help bring about desirable regime change. The famous case is the boycott of South African sport in the 1960s. Because white South Africans were mad about sport, excluding them from international competition in cricket, rugby, and athletics is said to have brought important pressure to bear on the white regime, causing it to give up apartheid. The evidence is far from convincing. The sporting ban started in the 1960s was UN-authorized and universal, unlike today’s partial boycott of Russian athletes, so there were no escapes. Yet the regime survived 30 years of sporting sanctions. Today it is generally believed it was not sport but disinvestment in South Africa, and Portugal giving up the “buffers” of Angola and Mozambique, which spelt the doom of white rule in Africa. Finally, there is the argument that sporting boycotts, even if they do no good, offer a relatively harmless way of showing moral disapproval. But we need to weigh two moralities: the morality of outrage and the morality of reconciliation. It is easy for moral outrage to run amok, something to which democracies are particularly prone. Today Russian athletes are banned; but why should not athletes from the USA, Israel, China and many other murderous states around the world be banned on account of the crimes of their governments? If so, the Games as we know them will become morally acceptable to only a few, and the rest will start their own Games. How can the moral cause of international peace and understanding be strengthened by such a narrowing of the channels of communication? The world is drifting to war. A way must be found of giving expression to the competitive spirit in individuals and nations without turning all competition into forms of warfare. The Olympic ideal asserts that sport is one of the main activities in which people can show off the best of humanity, not its worst. It is an ideal worth fighting for. The post More Sport, Less War appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Russia Wins the War on Iran  Moscow is getting more oil revenue and Ukraine will get fewer defensive weapons. Nobody wins at war. In the war on Iran, fought without legal justification and without good reason, bringing devastation to lives, the economy, international law, and the environment, there are certainly no winners. But, though there are no winners in the long run, if there is one country that benefits in the short run, it is Russia. Diplomatically, Ukraine seems to have won some benefit by demonstrating its value as a partner to the West. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has offered to help countries facing Iranian drones that were the prototype for a class of Russian drone that Ukraine has so much experience facing.  “I would suggest the following,” Zelensky said. “Leaders of the Middle East have great relations with Russians. They can ask Russians to implement a month-long ceasefire. In exchange, we will send our best operators of drone interceptors to the Middle East countries.” Zelensky says that eleven countries have requested Ukrainian support and that some “have already been met with concrete decisions and specific support.” He says that Ukraine has sent “interceptor drones and a team of drone experts to protect U.S. military bases in Jordan” and “professional, fully equipped teams” to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.” Even here, though, Zelensky seems unable to offer altruistic help as a partner. The offer is linked not only to a ceasefire, but to reciprocal help to Ukraine: “Ukraine is ready to respond positively to requests from those who help us protect the lives of Ukrainians and the independence of Ukraine.” Giving help is contingent on getting help: “Ukraine helps partners who help ensure our security and protect the lives of our people.” He added that he has raised “the issue of missiles for air-defense systems that we currently lack.” Though Kiev may be able to sell some technology and offer some help, Ukrainians are themselves under frequent drone and missile attacks, and it is not clear they can truly afford to spare drones, interceptors, or personnel. Zelensky’s offer may be as much an attempt to retain Trump’s attention and enhance Ukraine’s perceived value as it is an offer of substantive help. Even here, Russia may prove the more valuable actor. On Monday, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin held his first phone call with Trump since the war on Iran began. Putin reportedly “expressed several thoughts aimed at a quick political and diplomatic end to the Iranian conflict, including contacts that have taken place with leaders of Gulf states, the president of Iran and leaders of other countries.” It is not known exactly what Putin said, but, the same day, Trump spoke of the war for the first time as a “short-term excursion” that is “very complete.” The next day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that “Russia is ready to provide any help it can to reduce the ⁠tensions in the Middle ⁠East” and that the proposals discussed on the phone “are still on the table.” Russia is the rare country that enjoys good relations with Iran, Israel, and the Gulf nations, and arguably even with the Trump administration. Russia is benefitting from the war, not only diplomatically, but economically. The war in Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, choking off 20 percent of the world’s oil exports. That has sent oil prices up, pumping money into the Russian economy. Russian oil is in demand and does not go through the Strait of Hormuz. The need to keep oil flowing to the global market and keep prices in the U.S. down with midterm elections coming up has moved the White House to scale back sanctions on Russia. After punishing India, one of the largest consumers of Russian oil since the war in Ukraine began, with sanctions and tariffs in an effort to compel it to stop buying Russian oil, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a temporary waiver, which could be extended, allowing India to buy Russian oil. It also issued a “general license allowing transactions with the German branch of Russia’s Rosneft oil company.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the U.S. “may unsanction other Russian oil.” But the biggest way Russia may benefit is militarily. The U.S. and the Gulf countries have been forced to fire an incredible number of interceptors to defend against Iranian missiles and drones. The U.S. is rapidly expending defensive weapons that would have been sent to Ukraine to fight its war. Zelensky says more Patriot missiles were fired in the first days of the Iran war than Ukraine has fired in the entirety of their war. The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas says “there are defense capabilities that are needed in Ukraine now moving also to the Middle East.” Zelensky has acknowledged that “we understand that a long war… and the intensity of the fighting will affect the amount of air defence equipment we receive.”  Jennifer Kavanagh, a military analyst at Defense Priorities, told The American Conservative that “the war in Iran will disrupt the U.S. ability to support Ukraine” and that “the biggest and most immediate impact will be on air defense” since “Ukraine depends almost entirely on the United States for air defense, especially Patriot air interceptors and AMRAAMs,” referring to Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles. She says supplies of Patriot missiles should be expected “to be disrupted as soon as the end of this month.” The war on Iran has, perhaps more forcefully than before, exposed the hypocrisy of American hegemony, facilitating the path to Russia’s preferred vision of multipolarity. It is hard to see why Russia’s assault on Ukraine is wrong while America’s war on Iran is right. Europe and Canada, so quick to arm Ukraine, barely stirred when the U.S. assaulted Iran. However, the war on Iran sparked outrage and protest across the Global South.  The war on Iran has also pushed the pause button on diplomatic talks in Ukraine. Zelensky says that “because of the situation with Iran, the necessary signals for a trilateral meeting haven’t come yet,” and that they will resume “as soon as “the security situation and the broader political context” permit. Though Russia and Ukraine are both hurt by the pause in negotiations caused by the war on Iran, Ukraine is hurt much more for three reasons. The first is that a pause in talks means more time for war, which means more loss of lives and land for Ukraine. The second is the pause on weapons supplies for Ukraine means, not only a reduced ability to defend its territory now, but less leverage at the negotiating table later. The third is that the war in Iran diminishes Russian trust in U.S. led negotiations. Twice the Trump administration has apparently used talks as a cover for war preparations. “We have seen,” says Dmitry Suslov, of the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, “that, for the U.S., negotiations are fake, just a ruse to provide cover for preparing military actions. The U.S. cannot be trusted.” The way the U.S. used negotiations in the war on Iran could make Russia less willing to trust negotiations over the war in Ukraine. It could also make Russia less willing to make concessions to Ukraine, not trusting that the guarantees offered by the U.S. in return will be kept.  And finally, Ukraine may be worried that Putin’s promise not to kill Zelensky expired with the U.S. greenlighting the assassination of national leaders with the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. No one will win as a result of this war, including, in the long run, Russia. But the loss of interceptor missiles, the oil money flowing into Russia’s war economy, and the pause on negotiations could not come at a worse time for Ukraine, especially if an expected springtime offensive by Russia is coming soon. The post Russia Wins the War on Iran  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Latin America The Foreign Influence Scandal Shaking the White House A longtime associate of Marco Rubio is being prosecuted for running an undercover influence campaign for Venezuela. Marco Rubio is going to court. The Secretary of State is scheduled to testify against a good friend and political associate from his time in the Florida House of Representatives in a trial over foreign influence allegations that are shaping up to impact some of the most powerful people in Washington. The defendant, David Rivera, has been Rubio’s friend for more than two decades. Rubio and Rivera campaigned and served together in the Florida House, where they earned the nicknames “Batman and Robin.” Rivera also played a major role in pushing Rubio to launch his underdog Senate campaign and canvassed for him during the race. Their partnership extended far beyond politics—they signed a mortgage for a house together, and Rivera was present at the hospital for the birth of all four of Rubio’s children. But while Marco Rubio has stepped onto first the national and now the world stage, David Rivera has been dogged by allegations of corruption and dirty dealings—accusations that are now seeping into the fetid waters of Washington, DC, and making trouble for some of the most powerful people in the country. The case for which Rubio is headed to court is one currently headed up by the Trump administration itself. Rivera, who has been the subject of a number of past investigations by the FBI for taking bribes and kickbacks during his time in Florida politics, is now accused of acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of the Venezuelan government. In 2022, Rivera was arrested and charged by the Department of Justice with a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which mandates that any American “whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized” by a foreign government or agent must register with the federal government and disclose their funding and lobbying activities. The issue stems from a massive contract that Rivera’s consulting firm, Interamerican Consulting Inc., took in 2017 from Citgo, the American subsidiary of Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). Prosecutors allege that the colossal $50 million contract was in fact cover for an agreement under which Rivera would clandestinely lobby for the interests of the Venezuelan government, then led by President Nicolás Maduro. The indictment alleges that Rivera used his contacts to arrange a meeting between an American congressman and the then-vice president of Venezuela Delcy Rodriguez “to discuss a process for normalizing relations between the United States and Venezuela.” Rivera also unsuccessfully attempted to facilitate a meeting for the Venezuelan government with an American oil company that Caracas wanted to partner with. Rivera even arranged for Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), then chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, to travel to Venezuela and meet with Maduro in 2018.  Others who met with Rivera during the time he was allegedly lobbying for the Maduro government include Rubio, then a U.S. senator for Florida, and Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway. The contract for these services, among others, was sent by Rivera’s consulting firm directly to PDVSA executives in Venezuela. Rivera has denied the allegations and appears ready to go down fighting. His defense team subpoenaed Rubio at the end of 2025 to testify that he was actually working to subvert the Maduro regime, not lobby for it. “Senator Rubio and Mr. Rivera were focused only on their support for the Opposition in Venezuela, on sanctions against the Maduro government, and on removing Maduro as head of state in Venezuela,” his lawyers wrote in a letter in December. Rubio isn’t the only White House figure Rivera appears willing to drag down with him in the contest. One of Rivera’s Venezuelan contacts was Venezuelan media executive Raúl Gorrín, the president of TV network Globovisión. According to court documents reviewed by The Lever, Gorrín helped to arrange the Citgo contract with Rivera’s consulting firm and acted as his liaison with the Venezuelan government. He also accompanied Rivera to some of his meetings, including a meeting with Rubio, and received millions of dollars in kickbacks from Rivera for his services. In an uncomfortable twist for the Trump administration, at the same time as he was traversing DC with Rivera, Gorrín’s Globovisión hired the lobbying firm Ballardson Partners to expand its business in the U.S.—a firm that was run in part by current Trump Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Wiles and Gorrín corresponded extensively at the time, with court documents referencing some 400 pages of material related to the case, and Rivera’s lawyers have requested that the Chief of Staff testify about Ballardson Partners’s activities lobbying for Gorrín and his Venezuelan business interests. And they may have a serious case: A document obtained by the Miami Herald shows that Ballard lobbyists drafted a letter for Gorrín to deliver to Trump at his inauguration; the letter contains a proposal for mending U.S.–Venezuelan relations in exchange for a political transition, but does not mention Globovisión or Gorrín’s business interests. While neither Wiles nor her associates at the firm are being accused of any wrongdoing, the implication is clear: Ballardson Partners never registered as a foreign agent under FARA. If Rivera is found guilty of illicit foreign lobbying, it could bring the activities of other members of Trump’s orbit under additional scrutiny. So far, the affair has been flying under the national radar, but Rivera’s legal team (which includes David Markus, the defense lawyer representing Jeffrey Epstein’s confidante Ghislaine Maxwell) is doing its best to make headlines. At least part of Rivera’s legal strategy seems aimed at pressuring the Trump administration to drop the case by making it increasingly awkward for the president and his allies to prosecute. Rivera has a long history of shady dealings and scrapes with the law—scrapes in which, so far, he has always evaded suffering significant consequences—but if he can squeeze out of this one, it will be his biggest Houdini act so far. The post The Foreign Influence Scandal Shaking the White House appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Morality of Taxation

The Parent-Led Rebellion Against EdTech