When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Sources

This Happened—November 24: The Fate Of JFK's Assassin

Two days after being arrested for assassinating John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald is shot dead at point blank range.

Sign up to receive This Happened straight to your inbox each day!

Who was Jack Ruby?

Lee Harvey Oswald was in police custody for the murder of U.S President John F. Kennedy when a man emerged from a crowd of reporters and shot him in the abdomen. Oswald died shortly after, without standing trial and having said a word regarding the murder of Kennedy.

Why did Jack Ruby kill Lee Harvey Oswald?

A nightclub owner and member of the Teamsters Union with ties to organized crime, Ruby has been described as a man in great debt who was always desperate for attention. His exact motive for killing Oswald, however, has never been made clear.

The string of deaths surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy have led many to wonder what the motive was and who else might be involved,, inspiring many elaborate theories regarding a complicated cover-up surrounding the president’s murder.

What happened to Jack Ruby?

Ruby was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. Ruby always maintained that he was not part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and was eventually able to make a successful appeal. Regardless, shortly after his death sentence was overturned, Ruby became very ill and died in jail.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Ideas

"Collateral Benefit": Could Putin's Launching A Failed War Make The World Better?

Consider the inverse of "collateral damage." Envision Russia's defeat and the triumph of a democratic coalition offers reflection on the most weighty sense of costs and benefits.

Photo of a doll representing Russian President Vladimir Putin

Demonstrators holding a doll with a picture of Russian President Putin

Dominique Moïsi

-Analysis-

PARIS — The concept of collateral damage has developed in the course of so-called "asymmetrical” wars, fought between opponents considered unequal.

The U.S. drone which targeted rebel fighters in Afghanistan, and annihilated an entire family gathered for a wedding, appears to be the perfect example of collateral damage: a doubtful military gain, and a certain political cost. One might also consider the American bombing of Normandy towns around June 6, 1944 as collateral damage.

But is it possible to reverse the expression, and speak of "collateral benefits"? When applied to an armed conflict, the expression may seem shocking.

No one benefits from a war, which leaves in its trace a trail of dead, wounded and displaced people, destroyed cities or children brutally torn from their parents.

And yet the notion of "collateral benefits" is particularly applicable to the war that has been raging in Ukraine for almost a year.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest