Politics
Column: Some mentally ill people need to be forced into care. Newsom’s plan could finally help

Like too many individuals with psychological sickness, Chad Ricketts is on the verge of going to jail as an alternative of receiving care. That’s the California means in the case of treating critical mind sicknesses, as pathetic as it’s.
Hopefully, change is coming. Extra on that in a minute.
Ricketts, 25, has paranoid schizophrenia that first popped up whereas he was nonetheless a highschool monitor star. It has grown progressively worse whilst his dad and mom, Patti and Dan Ricketts, have fought to assist him into remedy. In January, he was stopped by police close to his Simi Valley dwelling for skateboarding on the street.
Once they tried to place handcuffs on him, the paranoia kicked in, prefer it had throughout his three earlier arrests, and he ended up on the mistaken finish of a Taser. One of many cops suffered a hand damage through the encounter, so now Chad is going through a felony cost and the opportunity of becoming a member of the 30% of state jail inmates who’re mentally ailing behind bars.
It’s a breaking level for his mom, who’s so determined to get Chad into in-patient remedy that she has even thought of frightening her 6-foot-4 son into attacking her or his father in an effort to qualify for a psychological well being maintain, a authorized mechanism to drive him into stabilizing remedy for just a few days.
Let that sink in. Beneath what at the moment passes for our psychological well being care system, Patti believes pushing her son towards violence could possibly be the most effective likelihood of saving him.
Patti Ricketts and her son Chad at their Simi Valley dwelling in 2018. Chad has been arrested a number of occasions for incidents associated to his psychological sickness, and Patti is preventing to put him into remedy as an alternative of jail.
(Courtesy Patti Ricketts)
Patti says her downside is that Chad “gained’t say he’s going to harm himself and he gained’t say he’s going to harm anybody else.” Regardless of being in a near-constant state of psychosis, regardless of the altercation with police, she mentioned, that makes him ineligible for involuntary care.
For years, civil and incapacity rights advocates have argued in opposition to increasing the state’s authority to put individuals into conservatorships to drive them into involuntary remedy — for psychological sickness or dependancy or the mixture that’s so frequent as individuals self-medicate. Anybody who has ever watched “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” will get the gist of their argument. None of us needs at hand out one-way tickets to asylums, and private freedom is the cornerstone of human dignity — even when it results in unhealthy decisions.
However more and more, individuals like Patti have been talking out and pushing again — arguing there may be nothing civil or ethical about leaving their family members to fend for themselves, or leaving households like hers with no viable means to assist. With as we speak’s polarized politics, it’s a place that has been labeled conservative and regressive, and pitted in opposition to those that consider a harm-reduction, whatever-it-takes strategy is best — that giving these with psychological sickness and dependancy the time and protected house to just accept remedy on their very own phrases is the precise tactic. And infrequently that does work.
On Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced a framework that might assist individuals like Chad and hundreds of severely mentally ailing individuals dwelling on the streets, too ailing to know their very own situation and resistant to assist. It’s a workaround on the stalemate between these useless set in opposition to simpler commitments and those that desperately need them.
Beneath the proposal, California would create “CARE Courts” (CARE is brief for Group Help, Restoration and Empowerment) in each county to facilitate remedy for individuals with critical psychological sickness similar to schizophrenia or psychotic issues. It wouldn’t require prison expenses. As a substitute, household, first responders, outreach staff and others may begin the civil proceedings — which might culminate in as much as two years of court-monitored companies.
It could even be out there to these coming off short-term “5150″ psychological holds often initiated by legislation enforcement. Not like a conservatorship, an individual referred to CARE Court docket would have company of their remedy — it could be voluntary — together with a public defender and a assist individual, a task that incapacity rights advocates again as a sort of mentor.
It isn’t, mentioned Mark Ghaly, head of California’s Well being and Human Providers Company, an growth of conservatorships or a change in what qualifies an individual for one. However those that fail to progress in this system could possibly be referred for a conservatorship, with the presumption that there’s no appropriate various — a form of sluggish roll into involuntary care if all else fails. The governor’s workplace estimates between 7,000 and 12,000 individuals may qualify for CARE Court docket every year.
Newsom’s proposal (which might have to be handed by the Legislature) additionally comes with the specter of punishing counties with court docket sanctions in the event that they don’t step up with new and higher remedy choices, from community-based care to locked amenities. Proper now, counties largely select what they are going to provide and will select to supply little, regardless of having hundreds of thousands to spend from a number of sources, together with the so-called Millionaires Tax, in any other case often called 2004’s Proposition 63, which positioned a tax on high-income earners to fund psychological well being care. This 12 months, it’s anticipated to usher in about $3.8 billion. Prior to now two years, Newsom’s budgets have included about $14 billion for homelessness, with greater than $4 billion of that tied to psychological well being. So there’s cash — simply no clear enforcement mechanism for guaranteeing counties use it to extend significant entry to care.
CARE Courts are an essential and workable concept that might assist hundreds — these similar to Chad who’re on the point of a cliff, and those that have already gone over many precipices and appear crushed by the load of their falls.
However it is usually a concession to the exhausting line civil and incapacity rights advocates have drawn.
And within the background is the truth of California’s homeless and housing state of affairs. We now have greater than 160,000 individuals on the streets, and it’s estimated that at the least 1 / 4 of these — 40,000 — have psychological sickness. We even have rampant NIMBYism that has made it arduous if not unattainable to construct the shelters, transitional housing and, sure, locked psychological well being remedy facilities that we’d like.
So Newsom’s plan is simply the opening salvo in what’s more likely to be months of debate over the place the precise to be mentally ailing ends and the place society’s obligation to intervene begins. Ought to psychological well being remedy for our sickest residents be a state-mandated proper?
State Sen. Henry Stern, who represents components of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, thinks it must be — he’s launched a brief invoice that will just do that. It reads like a placeholder for one thing longer to return, however Stern says it’s not. He wished to maintain it easy to introduce the idea.
In it’s entirety, Senate Invoice 1446 reads, “Any person who lacks supportive housing and behavioral well being care and is in any other case not dwelling safely locally has a proper to psychological well being care companies, housing that heals, and entry to a full-service partnership mannequin, together with entry to remedy beds and a restoration facilitator that shall navigate entry to applicable assets for the individual.”
It doesn’t sound like a lot, however there’s a ton of innovation packed into that sentence — and a ton of controversy as a result of it opens a backdoor for constructing housing (by requiring a spot for individuals to obtain remedy) and a entrance door for involuntary remedy. Much like the “proper to shelter,” it’s a proper that will include an obligation to just accept assist sooner or later (simply as CARE Court docket would). It could additionally assure funding by the state due to the mandate (and would wish federal approvals to revamp some Medicare guidelines).
Darrell Steinberg, the mayor of Sacramento and one of many driving forces to extend psychological well being companies in California throughout his tenure within the state Senate, mentioned CARE Courts are a “daring motion.” He additionally strongly helps a proper to remedy (although he hasn’t taken a place on the Stern invoice but).
“The legislation issues,” Steinberg mentioned. “When society deems one thing essential, we require it. Folks on the road want and deserve nothing much less.”
Few perceive the necessity for codifying how we deal with severely mentally ailing individuals higher than Teresa Pasquini, who has a mentally ailing son named Danny and who helped create the thought of “housing that heals” after many years of preventing for remedy. For her, housing that heals is shorthand for rebuilding a sturdy psychological well being system, one with all ranges of care from an emergency service akin to 911 to long-term housing with no matter degree of assist is required.
Teresa Pasquini helped create the thought of “housing that heals” after many years of searching for remedy for her mentally ailing son, Danny Pasquini.
(Courtesy Teresa Pasquini)
The secret is abundance, she mentioned, as an alternative of the shortage that at the moment leaves individuals locked out of care. She believes that the harm-reduction strategy is sweet for some, however not for these similar to her son who can’t see their very own circumstances clearly — who could also be “useless or in jail earlier than that thirty ninth outreach go to.”
“I’m simply type of fed up with sloganeering,” Pasquini advised me. “No mistaken door. Full service partnerships. No matter it takes. My son didn’t get no matter he wanted and no matter it takes, even with a conservatorship.”
She advised me she’s bored with involuntary commitments being a political “third rail” that forestalls fixing the psychological well being system, and I feel she’s proper. Psychological well being is just too difficult to imagine that everybody will be capable of make the selection to obtain care, simply because it’s too simplistic to assume everybody must be required to leap into remedy the primary time it’s supplied.
I can’t think about being a guardian like Patti Ricketts, feeling like her personal sanity is slipping away as she fights for her son. That California has left Patti, Dan and Chad remoted and falling deeper into the black gap of incarceration as remedy is unconscionable.
To Patti, that’s “madness,” and it’s driving her household into disaster — there’s a concern that Chad will wind up homeless if he does keep away from jail. It’s a relentless, insufferable stress on Patti and Dan that their son’s life is determined by them, their endurance and their resolve. Although he hasn’t harm her but, Patti says she is usually afraid of Chad. Generally she and Dan need to lock him out of the home. They know on some degree they will’t deal with this endlessly.
“We simply need to reside with it and it’s practically unattainable,” she mentioned. “I do know that everybody who has a mentally ailing youngster feels this manner.”

Politics
Inside Pete Hegseth’s Rocky First Months at the Pentagon

Even before he disclosed secret battle plans for Yemen in a group chat, information that could have endangered American fighter pilots, it had been a rocky two months for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guard infantryman and Fox News weekend host, started his job at the Pentagon determined to out-Trump President Trump, Defense Department officials and aides said.
The president is skeptical about the value of NATO and European alliances, so the Pentagon under Mr. Hegseth considered plans in which the United States would give up its command role overseeing NATO troops. After Mr. Trump issued executive orders targeting transgender people, Mr. Hegseth ordered a ban on transgender troops.
Mr. Trump has embraced Elon Musk, the billionaire chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla. The Pentagon planned a sensitive briefing to give Mr. Musk a firsthand look at how the military would fight a war with China, a potentially valuable step for any businessman with interests there.
In all of those endeavors, Mr. Hegseth was pulled back, by congressional Republicans, the courts or even Mr. Trump.
The president made clear last Friday that he had been caught by surprise by a report in The New York Times on the Pentagon’s briefing for Mr. Musk, who oversees an effort to shrink the government, but also denied that the meeting had been planned.
“I don’t want to show that to anybody, but certainly you wouldn’t show it to a businessman who is helping us so much,” Mr. Trump said.
But Mr. Hegseth’s latest mistake could have led to catastrophic consequences.
On Monday, the editor in chief of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, wrote that he had been inadvertently included in an encrypted group chat in which Mr. Hegseth discussed plans for targeting the Houthi militia in Yemen two hours before U.S. troops launched attacks against the group.
The White House confirmed Mr. Goldberg’s account. But Mr. Hegseth later denied that he put war plans in the group chat, which apparently included other senior members of Mr. Trump’s national security team.
In disclosing the aircraft, targets and timing for hitting Houthi militia sites in Yemen on the commercial messaging app Signal, Mr. Hegseth risked the lives of American war fighters.
Across the military on Monday and Tuesday, current and retired troops and officers expressed dismay and anger in social media posts, secret chat groups and the hallways of the Pentagon.
“My father was killed in action flying night-trail interdiction over the Ho Chi Minh Trail” after a North Vietnamese strike, said the retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who served in the Iraq war. “And now, you have Hegseth. He has released information that could have directly led to the death of an American fighter pilot.”
It was unclear on Tuesday whether anyone involved in the Signal group chat would lose their jobs. Republicans in Congress have been wary of running afoul of Mr. Trump. But Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, indicated on Monday that there would be some kind of investigation.
John R. Bolton, a national security adviser in the first Trump administration, said on social media that he doubted that “anyone will be held to account for events described by The Atlantic unless Donald Trump himself feels the heat.”
In his article, Mr. Goldberg said he was added to the chat by Michael Waltz, Mr. Trump’s current national security adviser.
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump defended Mr. Waltz. “Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man,” Mr. Trump said in an interview on NBC.
The president added that Mr. Goldberg’s presence in the group chat had “no impact at all” and that the Houthi attacks were “perfectly successful.”
To be sure, some of Mr. Hegseth’s stumbles have been part of the learning process of a high-profile job leading a department with an $850-billion-a-year budget.
“Secretary Hegseth is trying to figure out where the president’s headed, and to run there ahead of him,” said Kori Schake, a national security expert at the American Enterprise Institute. But, she added, “he’s doing performative activities. He’s not yet demonstrated that he’s running the department.”
Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who has studied the military for decades, said the Signal chat disclosure “raises serious questions about how a new accountability standard might apply: How would he handle a situation like this if it involved one of his subordinates?”
On Monday, Mr. Hegseth left for Asia, his first trip abroad since a foray to Europe last month in which he was roundly criticized for going further on Ukraine than his boss had at the time. He posted a video on social media of himself guarded by two female airmen in full combat gear as he boarded the plane at Joint Base Andrews. The show of security was remarkable. Not even the president is guarded that way as he boards Air Force One.
When he landed in Hawaii several hours later, Mr. Hegseth criticized Mr. Goldberg as a “so-called journalist” and asserted that “nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”
Mr. Hegseth’s stumbles started soon after he was sworn in to lead the Pentagon on Jan. 25.
In his debut on the world stage in mid-February, he told NATO and Ukrainian ministers that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders, before Russia’s first invasion, was “an unrealistic objective” and ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. A few hours later, Mr. Trump backed him up while announcing a phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to begin peace negotiations.
Facing blowback the next day from European allies and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, Mr. Hegseth denied that either he or Mr. Trump had sold out Ukraine. “There is no betrayal there,” Mr. Hegseth said.
That was not how even Republican supporters of Mr. Hegseth saw it. “He made a rookie mistake in Brussels,” Mr. Wicker said about the secretary’s comment on Ukraine’s borders.
“I don’t know who wrote the speech — it is the kind of thing Tucker Carlson could have written, and Carlson is a fool,” Mr. Wicker said, referring to the conservative media personality and former Fox News host.
Mr. Hegseth sought to recover later in the week, saying he had simply been trying to “introduce realism into the expectations of our NATO allies.” How much territory Ukraine may cede to Russia would be decided in talks between Mr. Trump and the presidents of the warring countries, he said.
Last week, Mr. Hegseth again got crosswise with Mr. Wicker over reports that the Trump administration was planning to withdraw from NATO’s military command and reduce the number of troops deployed overseas in addition to other changes to the military’s combatant commands.
Mr. Wicker and Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that they were concerned about reports that the Defense Department might be planning changes “absent coordination with the White House and Congress.”
Other signs point to a dysfunctional Pentagon on Mr. Hegseth’s watch.
Last week, the Defense Department removed an online article about the military background of Jackie Robinson, who became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball in 1947, after serving in the Army.
The article — which reappeared after a furor — was one in a series of government web pages on Black figures that have vanished under the Trump administration’s efforts to purge government websites of references to diversity and inclusion.
In response to questions about the article, John Ullyot, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement that “D.E.I. is dead at the Defense Department,” referring to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. He added that he was pleased with the department’s “rapid compliance” with a directive ordering that diversity-related content be removed from all platforms.
Mr. Ullyot was removed from his position shortly afterward.
Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said in a video that the screening of Defense Department content for “D.E.I. content” was “an incredibly important undertaking,” but he acknowledged mistakes were made.
The Pentagon leadership under Mr. Trump expressed its disdain for the military’s decades-long efforts to diversify its ranks. Last month, Mr. Hegseth said that the “single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength.’”
Mr. Hegseth also came under sharp critique from the federal judge handling a lawsuit against his efforts to ban transgender troops. “The military ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext,” Judge Ana C. Reyes of U.S. District Court in Washington wrote in a scathing ruling last week.
“Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit and its conclusions bear no relation to fact,” she wrote in her decision temporarily blocking the ban. “Seriously? These were not off-the-cuff remarks at a cocktail party.”
Greg Jaffe contributed reporting.
Politics
Trump says Waltz doesn't need to apologize over Signal text chain leak: 'Doing his best'

President Donald Trump defended National Security Advisor Michael Waltz during an ambassador meeting on Monday, as his administration faces fierce backlash over the recent Signal text chain leak.
Waltz, whose staffers had unknowingly added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat where Secretary of State Pete Hegseth and others discussed sensitive war plans, has come under fire for the blunder. Speaking to a room full of reporters, Trump said he believes Waltz is “doing his best.”
“I don’t think he should apologize,” the president said. “I think he’s doing his best. It’s equipment and technology that’s not perfect.”
“And, probably, he won’t be using it again, at least not in the very near future,” he added.
TRUMP NOMINATES SUSAN MONAREZ TO BECOME THE NEXT CDC DIRECTOR, SAYS AMERICANS ‘LOST CONFIDENCE’ IN AGENCY
U.S. President Donald Trump listens during an Ambassador Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Goldberg was added to the national security discussion, called “Houthi PC Small Group”, earlier in March. He was able to learn about attacks against Houthi fighters in Yemen long before the public.
“According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time,” Goldberg wrote in his piece about the experience. “So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.”
Though Goldberg’s inclusion in the chat did not foil the military’s plans, the national security breach has still stunned both supporters and critics of the Trump administration. During the Tuesday meeting, Trump also said that he was in contact with Waltz over whether hackers can break into Signal conversations.
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

National Security advisor Mike Waltz speaks as he sits with U.S. President Donald Trump during an Ambassador Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
“Are people able to break into conversations? And if that’s true, we’re gonna have to find some other form of device,” Trump said. “And I think that’s something that we may have to do. Some people like Signal very much, other people probably don’t, but we’ll look into it.”
“Michael, I’ve asked you to immediately study that and find out if people are able to break into a system,” he added.
In response, Waltz assured Trump that he has White House technical experts “looking at” the situation, along with legal teams.

U.S. President Donald Trump listens to a reporter’s question during an Ambassador Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
“And of course, we’re going to keep everything as secure as possible,” the national security official said. “No one in your national security team would ever put anyone in danger. And as you said, we’ve repeatedly said the attack was phenomenal, and it’s ongoing.”
Politics
Column: Congress wants to impeach judges instead of doing its job
Some Republicans want U.S. District Judge James Boasberg removed from the bench for allegedly interfering with the president’s authority — under the Constitution and the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — to deport members of a Venezuelan gang.
Texas Rep. Brandon Gill and several colleagues introduced articles of impeachment charging that Boasberg violated his oath of office by “knowingly and willfully” using his “judicial position to advance political gain while interfering with the President’s constitutional prerogatives and enforcement of the rule of law.”
This is ridiculous. For starters, there is zero evidence Boasberg “knowingly and willfully” violated his oath, never mind that he acted in pursuit of “political gain.” Moreover, even if the House managed to pass articles of impeachment against Boasberg, nobody thinks two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict. At best, this is theater; at worst it’s an attempt to intimidate judges so they stop scrutinizing Donald Trump’s deportation efforts.
And not just deportation. Republicans have introduced articles of impeachment against more than a half-dozen judges for ruling against Trump on a number of fronts.
But the war on Boasberg is the most intense and significant.
A quick recap. The Trump administration deported more than 200 people, delivering them to an El Salvador prison. Without providing much in the way of evidence, the government says most of them are part of a Venezuelan gang. The president claims the authority to do all this under the 1798 Enemy Aliens Act, which is one of the components of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. Indeed, the Enemy Aliens Act is the only component of the sedition acts that hasn’t been repealed or allowed to expire.
The 1798 law says that “whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,” the president can, after a formal proclamation of such an emergency, remove “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government” over the age of 14.
On March 15, Trump issued a proclamation asserting that the gang Tren de Aragua is a foreign terrorist organization that is “closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime.”
We aren’t at war with Venezuela last I looked, nor do I buy that Tren de Aragua is an invader controlled by a foreign government waging war on the U.S. But on the latter, perhaps the administration has better evidence than it has been willing to provide.
For argument’s sake, let’s say the gang meets the criteria of the Enemy Aliens Act. In that case, I have no first-order objection to a policy of arresting, imprisoning or deporting proven members of Tren de Aragua.
The key issue is whether a judge can scrutinize the president’s actions under the Enemy Aliens Act (including the arguably crucial question of whether or not the government is deporting who it says it’s deporting). Gill and the Trump administration say no. And any attempt to do so renders Boasberg and any other magistrate a “rogue judge.”
It’s noteworthy that the smartest defenses of the administration do not necessarily contend that what Trump is doing is legal or constitutional. Rather, defenders hold that scrutinizing the president’s action is a “political question.” Under the so-called political question doctrine there are some issues, particularly pertaining to national security, that are simply not justiciable — that is, the courts rightly stay away from them. For instance, Congress hasn’t issued a formal declaration of war since World War II, but the courts have not ruled that subsequent wars were unconstitutional.
I am very skeptical of the political-question defense in this case, but it is not an unserious argument. If Venezuela or any other country launched a surprise attack on the United States, I wouldn’t want the courts to monkey-wrench our prompt response.
At the same time, there’s a reason why the Enemy Aliens Act has only been used — and abused — during declared wars. If you’re not troubled by the idea that a president — any president — can simply assert that we’re in a war, without much evidence, and start deporting or imprisoning people, possibly including American citizens, without due process, I question your dedication to the Constitution and even your patriotism.
But that doesn’t automatically mean the judiciary is the right institution to stop the president or empower him. That’s Congress’ job.
Congress doesn’t have to rely on the last surviving relic of a package of laws that were reviled by Jefferson and Madison and discredited. It could write new ones. It could clarify what the president can or can’t do. It could even declare war on Venezuela or Tren de Aragua — that would clear things up in a hurry.
In short, Congress could take its role as the first branch of government seriously.
It’s grotesque constitutional malpractice for legislators to attack judges trying to determine what the Constitution and the law allow while booing from the cheap seats. It’s fine to argue that the judiciary overplays its role as a check on the executive, but I’m grateful for judges when Congress refuses to play any role other than spectator — or heckler.
@JonahDispatch
-
News1 week ago
Vance to Lead G.O.P. Fund-Raising, an Apparent First for a Vice President
-
News1 week ago
Trump Administration Ends Tracking of Kidnapped Ukrainian Children in Russia
-
Technology1 week ago
The head of a Biden program that could help rural broadband has left
-
Business1 week ago
Egg Prices Have Dropped, Though You May Not Have Noticed
-
News1 week ago
Black Lives Matter Plaza Is Gone. Its Erasure Feels Symbolic.
-
News7 days ago
Trump’s Ending of Hunter Biden’s Security Detail Raises Questions About Who Gets Protection
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump invokes wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target violent illegal immigrant street gangs
-
News1 week ago
U.S. to Withdraw From Group Investigating Responsibility for Ukraine Invasion