ReportWire

Tag: Ben Wallace

  • The 2003-04 Pistons were the champions Detroit needed

    The 2003-04 Pistons were the champions Detroit needed

    If there is a Mount Rushmore for NBA teams that feel like symbolic soulmates for their city, then the 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons are on it.

    This was a Motown team in every sense, and they played like an orchestra or jazz ensemble that season. Everyone had a role, but a role constantly being calibrated and re-calibrated toward lifting the collective someplace higher. And they played with the kind of qualities that fans from a tough city in the middle of an impossibly tough time hope for: Nerves as hard as steel. An unshakable belief in themselves and each other. Guts a mile long and a burning desire to defy expectations.

    “They were ‘Grit’ before The Lions made it popular around here,” as fan Justin Roberts put it on X.

    All this made it easy to root for them twenty years ago this month, when the Pistons stood at the brink of a bruising but ultimately dominant championship march over a Los Angeles Lakers squad stacked with four future Hall of Famers, all of them top 75 players. To this day, the Pistons’ 4-1 gentleman’s sweep is considered the greatest upset in NBA history.

    Looking back, if you’re a sucker for romantic sports stories like I am, it’s hard to imagine this happening anywhere but Detroit. From the drifters who made up the starting lineup, to the ultimate triumph over a flashier, more celebrated opponent, Detroit feels like the only landscape our unlikely heroes could have blossomed from.

    “That team showed what you can make happen when you give overlooked talent a place to be able to grow and succeed,” my friend Denzell Turner, a marketer from the city and lifelong fan, tells me. They also “serve as this sort of parable for working-class struggle overtaking the ruling class,” says Kamau Jawara, another friend and local organizer whose obsession with basketball began with the ’04 Pistons. They brought “the NBA’s mega-market darlings to a dogfight they weren’t ready for and absolutely broke their spirit.”

    The question now is, how will we embody the best of what they represent for ordinary working people and fans in the city, while adapting to a league completely dominated by corporate interests?

    click to enlarge

    Zuma Press, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo

    The Pistons’ Richard Hamilton blocks a shot by the Pacers’ Jermaine O’Neal in the Eastern Conference Finals, May 24, 2004.

    Starting over

    As the Grant Hill era came to a close in 2000, Pistons president Joe Dumars went into rebuild mode. An undrafted Ben Wallace whose full talents had yet to be tapped came first as a throw-in consolation for losing Hill to a trade with Orlando.

    The year 2002 was even more pivotal. The Pistons traded Jerry Stackhouse to the Washington Wizards for Richard “Rip” Hamilton, a nightmare from mid-range. Chauncey Billups, a late bloomer who had been ricocheting around the league since the 1997 draft, was signed as a free agent. And with a late pick in the draft’s first round, they scooped up a lanky forward named Tayshaun Prince.

    “When we got together, we all came from different places,” Billups, the starting point guard, 2004 NBA Finals MVP, and now head coach of the Portland Trailblazers, said at a March 17 ceremony honoring the championship team at Little Caesars Arena.

    “As fate would have it, we landed here in Detroit,” he said. “What we did on the floor embodied what y’all do every single day in life.” What Billups does so well here, as he has in the past, is connect the dots between the towering odds facing both the city and its NBA franchise. When Billups arrived in 2002, Detroit was reeling from decades of corporate plunder and municipal abandonment. Residents had just elected a young mayor named Kwame Kilpatrick who was seen as a symbol of promise to many, but ultimately never posed any real threat to a status quo that placed wealthy developers and personal greed ahead of ordinary people in the overwhelmingly poor and working-class Black city.

    You can see the movie posters now. A group of guys hungry for a fresh start all land in the Midwest’s quintessential fallen city, desperate for its own breakthrough.

    After getting swept by the Nets in the 2003 conference finals, Dumars replaced Rick Carlisle for Hall of Fame coach Larry Brown. They played solid ball throughout the first half of the ’03-’04 season, but never hit a stride with enough consistency to strike fear in anyone. Which means that almost no one saw what was coming.

    And then came Rasheed Wallace at the 2004 trade deadline. Sheed was a solid big man who could play both sides of the floor. But he was also called a “walking technical foul,” and it seemed like his talents might be eclipsed by some combo of his on-court challenges, a racist traditional media system (the “Jailblazers” stuff should haunt every one of their careers), and NBA executives like David Stern who plainly hated his guts and wanted him out of the league. Eight years into his career, it wasn’t clear if he would ever find a system that could harness his powers and passion for good.

    He had come to the right place this time. Sheed was a Philly boy Detroiters could recognize. And he turned out to be the final piece the team needed to really take off.

    click to enlarge The Pistons’ Rasheed Wallace attacks the net in Philadelphia on Feb. 23, 2004. - UPI Photo/Jon Adams

    UPI Photo/Jon Adams

    The Pistons’ Rasheed Wallace attacks the net in Philadelphia on Feb. 23, 2004.

    Finish strong

    After picking up Sheed, the Pistons were an almost unstoppable locomotive. They went 20-6 for the rest of the season, and finished 54-28. They were solid offensively, but dismantled opponents with a defense that could pick apart any team in the league.

    Big Ben was now firmly cemented as one of the all-time great defenders. Prince’s length made him a nightmare in his own right. And with Sheed in the mix down low and Rip and Billups on the perimeter, teams had to fight for their lives on every inch of the floor. Famously, the Pistons held 11 teams under 70 points that season. As ESPN play-by-play announcer Mike Tirico put it during the playoffs: “Every pass, every shot defended like it’s the last.”

    They entered those playoffs with the third best net rating in the league. And still almost no one had them going the distance.

    Before they could defy gravity against the Lakers, they had to make it through a notoriously scrappy Eastern Conference. After wiping the Milwaukee Bucks 4-1in the first round, they slugged it out for seven games with the Nets before advancing to the conference finals, where the Pistons knocked off the Indiana Pacers, the team with the best record that year, in six bruising games. In game 2, the teams combined for an astonishing 26 blocks, 19 of them by the Pistons.

    One of those blocks would go down as perhaps the most iconic in playoff history. Ahead by two, the Pistons have possession with just seconds to go. After a Billups turnover, Reggie Miller breaks out for what looks like an easy layup. And then our lanky hero appears, destined for greatness. Miller is in the air alone until he’s not — until Prince flies in to get a piece of the ball with so much momentum that he lands somewhere in the rows behind the basket. It was such an incredible block that it is now known simply as “The Block,” the one that every other block must bow to.

    The Pistons were now on their way to the finals for the first time since the Bad Boys’ legendary back-to-back 1989-1990 wins.

    But even after all that, popular opinion was that the Lakers might sweep. L.A. just had too much star power. The Pistons “shouldn’t even show up in L.A.,” Ben Wallace remembers hearing.

    As Marlowe Alter writes in the Free Press, “nobody gave the Pistons a chance in the Finals — the Lakers were minus-700 favorites, meaning a bettor would have to put down $700 to win $100.” That’s almost right. Nobody, of course, except the Pistons themselves, and the dedicated fans who knew what they were capable of.

    click to enlarge Jun 08, 2004: The Los Angeles Lakers defeated the Detroit Pistons 99 to 91 in overtime to tie the series 1-1. - Zuma Press, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo

    Zuma Press, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo

    Jun 08, 2004: The Los Angeles Lakers defeated the Detroit Pistons 99 to 91 in overtime to tie the series 1-1.

    “David conquered Goliath”

    “If you look at the names on the back of the jerseys, yeah, they should have swept us,” Billups said in a 2020 interview. After all, the Lakers were that era’s most feared franchise. Kobe and Shaq were still the best players on any court. They had also picked up Gary Payton and Karl Malone, stacking a team with three championships and two Hall of Famers with two more Hall of Famers, both on their way out but still capable of contributing.

    What everyone missed though is that you can have all of the star power but none of the chemistry. And you’re going to need chemistry in order to overcome a team that has a metric ton of it and braids it together with elite game-planning — a team, like the Pistons, that knows it lacks a traditional championship-caliber lineup, and so also knows their only chance is by elevating everyone to the height of their powers. Which is exactly what they did against the Lakers, who had their own clash of the titans thing going on internally, making it impossible for them to deal with a team that “played the game the right way,” to use Larry Brown’s famous standard.

    The Pistons knew L.A.’s weaknesses and exploited them relentlessly. They let Shaq do his thing one-on-one against Wallace, but dogged everyone else across every inch of the floor. They knew this would frustrate the hell out of Kobe, who started playing the worst kind of hero ball imaginable, jacking up chaotic jumpers over Tayshaun.

    Making the best of it during a halftime interview in game 1, Kobe compared the contest to “two heavyweight boxers feeling each other out.” It wouldn’t take long to see the difference. The Pistons plainly outsmarted and outhooped the Lakers — getting stops, generating second-chance points wherever they could, and getting important minutes out of role players like Corliss Williamson, Mehmut Okur, and Elden Campbell.

    Outside of Shaq, who really was unstoppable, the Pistons jammed the Lakers’ entire offense up all series, holding them to 81.8 points per game.

    After a convincing Pistons win in game 1, the Lakers squeaked out game 2 in overtime in L.A. The Lakers wouldn’t see their arena again that season. After the loss, the team reportedly told Larry Brown “we’re not coming back to L.A.” They swept the next three games, slamming the series shut in game 5 in Detroit.

    “I knew we’d get exposed,” Lakers forward Rick Fox said in a 2015 oral history. “…I personally felt we didn’t have enough respect for the Pistons. We thought we were going to steamroll them.”

    The Pistons also knew otherwise. “When [Los Angeles] beat Minnesota, I was happy,” Billups said. “Because I felt like there was no way the Lakers could beat us.” Billups averaged 21 points, 5.2 assists, and 3.2 rebounds, and won the Finals MVP.

    A day before game 1, an exasperated Sheed let everyone know how he felt about their predictions: “Ain’t nobody scared here. Ain’t no punks on this team!”

    Seeing a squad like that reach the mountaintop after telling everyone they could do it, and then exploding with exhilaration as if part of them still couldn’t believe it themselves, is some of the best of what sports has to offer us. “We shook up the world! We shook up the world! We shook up the world!” backup guard Lindsey Hunter, his championship hat tilted to the side, shouts into a flip phone moments after the trophy presentation.

    “98% of the people didn’t believe in us, but guess what?” Sheed says in a post-game interview with Jalen Rose. “David conquered Goliath.”

    click to enlarge The 2004 National Basketball Association champions: from the Motor City to the White House. - Olivier Douliery/ABACA

    Olivier Douliery/ABACA

    The 2004 National Basketball Association champions: from the Motor City to the White House.

    20 years later

    It’s hard to properly account for everything that ’04 squad meant. For starters, fans will tell you that it just feels flat-out good to see a team full of overlooked players bring a championship to an overlooked city. And they take enormous pride witnessing those players be so loudly defiant and refusing to stay in their assigned place against more polished and decorated opponents who are right at home under the nation’s brightest lights.

    Whether it’s Big Ben, his ‘fro piled to the ceiling, swatting a shot into rows of fans wearing afros of their own in his honor, or Sheed, whose signature Air Force 1 would become a staple in the city, shouting “BALL DON’T LIE!’’ when an opponent misses a free throw after a bad call, a ruling you can still hear players roar in any open gym or neighborhood court run. And then to top it off, Jawara adds, we got to see Sheed, “the eventual all-time leader in ejections hoist the Larry O’Brien trophy.” Magnificient.

    “You’re talking about … a lot of throwaways that came together and played great basketball, loved each other, became brothers,” Billups said on a 2016 episode of the Vertical podcast.

    Sports fandom, like any fanaticism, has its share of absurdities and devastations. But at its best, it can help us imagine a version of ourselves and our communities achieving everything we deserve. The ’04 Pistons were throwaway players in a city where almost everyone knew the feeling. Guys with nowhere to go landing in a city filled with Black families who fled as far and as fast as they could from the brutality of Southern apartheid toward the promise of jobs and greater freedom in northern cities like ours.

    “Nobody gave Detroit credit,” Turner says. “The Pistons gave a lot of people hope about how bright the future could be for the city. As a young Black boy, I felt like the world was my oyster. There was no better place to be. I still feel like that to this day.”

    And there’s also the question about what this city’s largely working-class fans deserve all these years later from both the franchise’s owner and the city’s leadership as both drape themselves in the team’s romantic underdog legacy.

    Jawara warns against over-romanticizing “blue-collar basketball,” which is “something that allowed us to get in the ring with the biggest and the best, but no longer sustains us.” The NBA, after all, is a “global money machine” in which “you’re gonna absolutely need a ton of firepower [on the court] to survive” night to night.

    Not to mention, by coasting on the ’04 Pistons heroic blue-collar story, we risk letting the team’s massively wealthy owner Tom Gores off the hook for failing the its actual blue-collar fan base, Jawara argues. Gores has allowed the team to “flounder year after year while fans still show up faithfully” with “no accountability, no restoration, and most of all, little to no winning.”

    “Detroit can be more,” he adds. “We can preserve our scrappy DNA while showcasing our other beautiful traits: fashion and flashiness,” traits that also translate well to today’s game. “And we can hold the architect of this team accountable” for giving fans the team they deserve.

    And in a way, this is also an important aspect of the ’04 legacy. This was a squad that loved its fans as much as they loved playing together. They undoubtedly would want the city and Pistons’ ownership to take those fans seriously enough to put forth a genuine effort to build a competitive team.

    The ’04 Pistons are rightly remembered as conquering underdogs at a time when Detroiters desperately needed to see ourselves that way. And as the city evolves, they serve as a powerful reminder of what kind of city we should aspire to be. One where the communities who actually built that underdog reputation, and lifted its scrappiest franchise to immortality, be given everything they deserve from the city they’ve given everything to.

    Eli Day

    Source link

  • Zelenskyy fires Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK

    Zelenskyy fires Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK

    KYIV – Volodymyr Zelenskyy has fired Vadym Prystaiko as Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, after the envoy criticized the Ukrainian president in public.

    Zelenskyy’s decree, announcing the dismissal of the ambassador, does not give a reason for his decision. But it comes after Prystaiko criticized Zelenskyy’s punchy response to U.K. Defense Minister Ben Wallace, who suggested that Ukraine should show more gratitude to its allies.

    Speaking to reporters at the NATO summit in Vilnius earlier this month, Wallace said that the U.S. is heading for a presidential election next year, and lawmakers from countries making big military donations to Kyiv could face a political problem if they are met with Ukrainian anger. There is concern across much of Europe that NATO-skeptic Donald Trump could return as U.S. president.

    Zelenskyy responded with an ironic remark during the press briefing in Vilnius, saying he does not understand how much more he should express his thanks, in response to Wallace’s comment. “He can write to me about how he wants to be thanked, so we can fully express our gratitude. We can make a point to wake up (every) morning and thank him,” Zelenskyy said.

    During the interview with Sky News Prystaiko was asked if that remark had a hint of sarcasm. He agreed. “I don’t believe that this sarcasm is healthy. We don’t have to show Russians that we have something between us. They have to know we are working together,” Prystaiko said.

    Veronika Melkozerova

    Source link

  • Ben Wallace to step down as UK defense chief: Sunday Times

    Ben Wallace to step down as UK defense chief: Sunday Times

    U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace plans to leave the government at the next Cabinet reshuffle and will not stand in the next general election, he told the Sunday Times newspaper.  

    Wallace informed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of his plans on June 16 but had hoped to make the announcement later in the summer, the newspaper reported late Saturday. A Cabinet reshuffle is expected by September. 

    “I’m not standing next time,” Wallace was quoted as saying. But he ruled out going “prematurely” and forcing another by-election, the newspaper said.  

    “I went into politics in the Scottish parliament in 1999. That’s 24 years,” Wallace, who has been defense chief since July 2019, told the paper.  

    The development comes days after Wallace controversially said Ukraine should put more emphasis on showing “gratitude” to “doubting politicians” in the U.S. and other allied countries who might not be completely convinced of the need to maintain military and economic support to Kyiv as it defends the country from Russia’s invasion.

    “There’s a slight word of caution here which is, whether you like it or not people want to see gratitude,” Wallace told reporters at a NATO summit in Lithuania on July 12.

    Sunak was forced to try to calm the diplomatic tumult caused by Wallace’s remarks. The prime minister said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed gratitude to Kyiv’s allies “countless times.”

    Wallace’s name was in the mix of potential candidates to be the next secretary-general of NATO before the defense alliance in early July agreed to extend Jens Stoltenberg’s term by a year. 

    Jones Hayden

    Source link

  • West after Wagner rebellion: Talk softly and help Ukraine carry a bigger stick

    West after Wagner rebellion: Talk softly and help Ukraine carry a bigger stick

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    As the United States and its European allies work to make sense of last weekend’s chaos in the Kremlin, they’re urging Kyiv to seize a “window” of opportunity that could help its counteroffensive push through Russian positions.

    The forming response: Transatlantic allies are hoping, largely by keeping silent, to de-escalate the immediate political crisis while quietly pushing Ukraine to strike a devastating blow against Russia on the battlefield. It’s best to hit an enemy while it’s down, and Kyiv would be hard-pressed to find a more wounded Russia, militarily and politically, than it is right now. 

    In public, American and European leaders stressed that they are preparing for any outcome, as it still remained unclear where the mercenary rebellion would ultimately lead. Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, who led the revolt, resurfaced on Monday, claiming he had merely wanted to protest, not topple the Russian government — while simultaneously insisting his paramilitary force would remain operational. 

    “It’s still too early to reach a definitive conclusion about where this is going,” U.S. President Joe Biden said Monday afternoon. “The overall outcome of this remains to be seen.” 

    For the moment, European officials see no greater threat to the Continent even as they watch for signs that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s two-decade hold on power might be slipping. 

    Western allies attribute the relative calm to how they managed Prigozhin’s 24-hour tantrum. 

    During the fighting, senior Biden administration figures and their European counterparts agreed on calls that they should remain “silent” and “neutral” about the mutiny, said three U.S. and European officials, who like others were granted anonymity to discuss fast-moving and sensitive deliberations.

    In Monday’s meeting of top EU diplomats in Luxembourg, officials from multiple countries acted with a little-to-see-here attitude. No one wanted to give the Kremlin an opening to claim Washington and its friends were behind the Wagner Group’s targeting of senior Russian military officials. 

    “We made clear that we were not involved. We had nothing to do with it,” Biden said from the White House Monday, relaying the transatlantic message. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled on Monday that his regime would still look into the potential involvement of Western spies in the rebellion.

    The broader question is how, or even if, the unprecedented moment could reverse Ukraine’s fortunes as its counteroffensive stalls.

    The U.S. and some European nations have urged Ukraine for weeks to move faster and harder on the front lines. The criticism is that Kyiv has acted too cautiously, waiting for perfect weather conditions and other factors to align before striking Russia’s dug-in fortifications. 

    Now, with Moscow’s political and military weaknesses laid bare, there’s a “window” for Ukraine to push through the first defensive positions, a U.S. official said. Others in the U.S. and Europe assess that Russian troops might lay down their arms if Ukraine gets the upper hand while command and control problems from the Kremlin persist.

    British Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    “Russia does not appear to have the uncommitted ground forces needed to counter the multiple threats it is now facing from Ukraine, which extend over 200 kilometers [124 miles] from Bakhmut to the eastern bank of the Dnipro River,” U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said in the House of Commons Monday.

    Ukrainian officials say there’s no purposeful delay on their part. Russia’s air power, minefields and bad weather have impeded Kyiv’s advances, they insist, conceding that they do wish they could move faster. 

    “We’re still moving forward in different parts of the front line,” Yuri Sak, an adviser to Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, said in an interview.

    “Earlier it was not possible to assess the solidity of the Russian defenses,” Sak added. “Only now that we are doing active probing operations, we get a better picture. The obtained information will be factored into the next stages of our offensive operations.”

    Analysts have long warned that, despite the training Ukrainian forces have received from Western militaries, it was unlikely that they would fight just like a NATO force. Kyiv is still operating with a strategy of attrition despite recent drills on combined-arms operations, maneuver warfare and longer-range precision fires.

    During Monday’s gathering of top EU diplomats, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said now was the time to pump more artillery systems and missiles into Kyiv’s arsenal, place more sanctions on Russia and speed up the training of Ukrainian pilots on advanced fighter jets. 

    “Together, all these steps will allow the liberation of all Ukrainian territories,” he asserted.

    In the meantime, European officials will keep an eye on Russia as they consider NATO’s own security. 

    “I think that nobody has yet understood what is going on in Russia — frankly I have a feeling also that the leadership in Moscow has no clue what is going on in their own country,” quipped Latvia’s Foreign Minister and President-elect Edgars Rinkēvičs in a phone interview on Monday afternoon. 

    “We are prepared, as we always would be, for a range of scenarios,” U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told reporters Monday.

    NATO allies will continue to watch for whether Russia starts to crumble or if the autocrat atop the Kremlin can hold his nation together with spit and tape. 

    “The question is how Putin will now react to his public humiliation. His reaction — to save his face and reestablish his authority — may well be a further crackdown on any domestic dissent and an intensified war effort in Ukraine,” said a Central European defense official. The official added that there’s no belief Putin will reach for a nuclear option during the greatest threat to his rule in two decades.

    In the meantime, an Eastern European senior diplomat said, “we will increase monitoring, possibly our national vigilance and intelligence efforts. Additional border protection measures might be feasible. We need more allied forces in place.”

    Alexander Ward reported from Washington. Lili Bayer reported from Brussels. Suzanne Lynch reported from Luxembourg. Cristina Gallardo reported from London. 

    Alexander Ward, Lili Bayer, Suzanne Lynch and Cristina Gallardo

    Source link

  • Zelenskyy, Sunak push forward on ‘fighter jet coalition’

    Zelenskyy, Sunak push forward on ‘fighter jet coalition’

    LONDON — Britain will be ready to train Ukrainian pilots to use Western fighter jets “relatively soon,” but supplying Ukraine with the warplanes it craves is “not a straightforward thing,” U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Monday.

    Speaking to broadcasters alongside Volodymyr Zelenskyy following talks with the Ukrainian president at his Chequers country retreat, Sunak said Britain would continue to play a “key part” in the Western coalition providing aid to Kyiv.

    Zelenskyy arrived in Britain on Monday morning, the latest stop in a European tour which has also seen him meet leaders in Berlin, Rome and Paris.

    The Ukrainian president confirmed the pair discussed the provision of fighter jets — a crucial Kyiv demand from Western allies.

    “We want to create this jet coalition,” Zelenskyy said, speaking in English. “I’m very positive with it, we spoke about it.”

    “Some very important decisions” on jets will be heard “in the closest time,” he added.

    The Ukrainian president was at pains to stress his gratitude to Sunak, praising the “very important” U.K. government for the support it has provided his conflict-hit country. Sunak tweeted a picture of himself embracing the Ukrainian president as he arrived for face-to-face talks Monday morning.

    Ahead of the talks, No. 10 Downing Street announced the U.K. would commence “an elementary flying phase for cohorts of Ukrainian pilots to learn basic training.”

    The training would go “hand in hand with U.K. efforts to work with other countries on providing F16 jets,” which Ukraine has been pushing for since Western nations agreed to supply Kyiv with battle tanks earlier this year, Downing Street said.

    No. 10 also confirmed it would provide new long-range attack drones and more air defense missiles to Ukraine, ahead of the widely expected counteroffensive Kyiv is expected to launch in an effort to liberate Russian-occupied territories.

    The pledge to provide more aid follows U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace’s announcement last week that Storm Shadow missiles, which will enable Kyiv to strike targets in Russian-occupied Crimea, are being delivered to Ukraine.

    Asked by British journalists if he had any update on the timing of a counteroffensive, Zelenskyy said Ukraine needed “more time.”

    But “not too much,” he added. “I want to be very honest with you, [but] I can’t share with you.”

    “There are no secrets from our friends,” Zelenskyy said, gesturing at Sunak. “But there are some secrets from our neighbors.”

    Source link

  • UK confirms it’s delivered long-range missiles to Ukraine

    UK confirms it’s delivered long-range missiles to Ukraine

    LONDON — The U.K. has delivered long-range missiles to Ukraine in a move which grants Kyiv the ability to strike targets in Russian-occupied Crimea.

    Britain’s Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told the House of Commons Thursday that the Storm Shadow missiles, promised by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in February, “are now going into or are in the country itself” and will complement other long-range systems already gifted to the country including HIMARS and Harpoon missiles.

    “The donation of these weapons systems gives the Ukrainians the best chance to defend themselves against Russia’s continued brutality, especially the deliberate targeting of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, which is against international law,” Wallace said.

    The Storm Shadow missiles, jointly developed by Britain and France, have arrived in time for Ukraine’s long-anticipated spring counter-offensive against Russian forces. They have a range of about 560 kilometers — the necessary range to strike deep into Russian-occupied territories in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, including Crimea.

    Wallace said these systems “are not even in the same league” as some missiles being used by Russia, including its AS-24 or Killjoy hypersonic missiles or even the Kalibr-cruise missile with a range of over 2,000 km.

    And the British defense secretary described the move to donate these weapons as a “calibrated and proportionate response to Russia’s escalations.”

    Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, warned Britain’s move would “demand an adequate response from our military, which will, naturally, from a military point of view, find corresponding solutions.” He did not provide further details.

    ‘Push back’

    Kyiv has long lobbied allies, including Britain and the U.S., for longer-range missiles — and it is still trying to obtain U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile Systems {ATACMS). But some Western allies harbor concerns Ukraine could use long-range missiles to strike against Russian territory, potentially triggering a further escalation in Moscow’s response.

    Wallace stressed that “the use of Storm Shadow will allow Ukraine to push back Russian forces based within Ukrainian sovereign territory” — but stopped short of clarifying whether this meant the British government now expects Ukraine to use them to strike Russian-occupied regions.

    The British move has U.S. President Joe Biden’s team breathing a quiet sigh of relief, according to multiple U.S. officials who spoke to POLITICO. They hope it will silence critics who want the U.S. to send ATACMS since Ukraine may soon get the long-range capability from London.

    Asked if the administration might follow Britain’s lead in sending long-range missiles, one U.S. official, who like others wasn’t authorized to detail internal deliberations, said “our policy on ATACMS has not changed.” Instead, the official said the U.S. will continue to provide air-defense capabilities like Patriots, ammunition and armored vehicles.

    Alexander Ward contributed reporting from Washington D.C.

    Cristina Gallardo

    Source link

  • Here’s what the leaked US war files tell us about Europe

    Here’s what the leaked US war files tell us about Europe

    Europe has special forces on the ground in Ukraine. Poland and Slovenia are providing nearly half of the tanks heading to Kyiv. And Hungary may be letting arms through its airspace.

    Those are just a few of the eye-catching details about Europe’s participation in the war buried in a 53-page dossier POLITICO reviewed from a leak of unverified U.S. military intelligence documents. 

    The disclosure has generated a tempest of head-spinning revelations that has the U.S. playing clean-up with allies. The documents detail American doubts about Ukraine’s spring offensive, suggest it was spying on South Korea and display intelligence accusing Egypt of plotting to prop up Russia’s quixotic war.

    Yet Europe, for the most part, has been spared these relationship-damaging divulgences.

    That doesn’t mean there isn’t knowledge to be gleaned about Europe’s war effort from the documents, however. The leaked files contain insights on everything from a U.K.-dominated special forces group in Ukraine to how — and when — France and Spain are getting a key missile system to the battlefield. The documents also contain allegations that Turkey is a potential source of arms for Russian mercenaries.

    POLITICO has not independently verified the documents, and there have been indications that some of the leaked pages were doctored. But the U.S. has acknowledged the intelligence breach and arrested a suspect late on Thursday.

    Here are a few of POLITICO’s findings after poring over the file.

    Europe has boots on the ground

    There is a Europe-heavy special forces group operating in Ukraine — at least as of March 23 — according to the documents. 

    The United Kingdom dominates the 97-person strong “US/NATO” contingent with 50 special forces members. The group also includes 17 people from Latvia, 15 from France and one from the Netherlands. Fourteen U.S. personnel round out the team.

    The leaked information does not specify which activities the forces are carrying out or their location in Ukraine. The documents also show the U.S. has about 100 personnel in total in the country.

    Predictably, governments have remained mostly mum on the subject. The Brits have refused to comment, while the White House has conceded there is a “small U.S. military presence” at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, stressing that the troops “are not fighting on the battlefield.” France previously denied that its forces were “engaged in operations in Ukraine.”

    The rest of the countries did not reply to a request for comment. 

    Europe is providing the bulk of the tanks

    A Ukrainian tank drives down a street in the heavily damaged town of Siversk | Spencer Platt/Getty Images

    Tanks are one area where Europe — collectively — is outpacing America.

    Within the file, one page gives an overview of the 200 tanks that U.S. allies have committed to sending Ukraine — 53 short of what the document says Ukraine needs for its spring offensive. 

    Poland and Slovenia appear to be the largest contributors, committing nearly half of the total, according to an assessment dated February 23. France and the U.K. are also key players, pitching in 14 tanks each. 

    Then there’s the Leopard 2 crew, which is donating versions of the modern German battle tanks that Ukraine spent months convincing allies it needed. That lineup includes Germany, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Finland. 

    The document indicates Germany had committed just four Leopard 2s — the most high-end model — but Berlin said in late March that it had delivered 18 Leopards to Ukraine. It also shows Sweden pledging 10 tanks of an “unknown type,” which media reports suggest may be Leopards. 

    Separately, the U.S. has said it will send Ukraine 31 of its modern tanks, though those aren’t expected to arrive until at least the fall. 

    Europe’s deliveries are lagging, too

    The idea behind Europe taking the lead on tanks was partly that it could get the tanks to Ukraine and ready for battle swiftly — ideally in time for the spring offensive.

    But the document shows that as of February 23, only 31 percent of the 200 tanks pledged had gotten to the battlefield. It did note, however, that the remaining 120 tanks were on track to be transferred.

    Separately, another leaked page recounts that France told Italy on February 22 that a joint missile system would not be ready for Ukraine until June. That’s the very end of a timeline the Italian defense ministry laid out in February, when officials said the anti-aircraft defense system would be delivered to Ukraine “in the spring of 2023.”

    Hungary sees America as the enemy — but might be letting allies use its airspace

    Hungary pops up a couple of times in the pile of creased pages, offering more insights into a country that regularly perplexes its own allies.

    The most eye-popping nugget is buried in a “top secret” CIA update from March 2, which says Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán branded the U.S. “one of his party’s top three adversaries during a political strategy session” on February 22.

    The remarks, it notes, constitute “an escalation of the level of anti-American rhetoric” from Orbán.

    Indeed, Orbán’s government has charted its own course during the war, promoting Russia-friendly narratives, essentially calling on Ukraine to quit and caustically dismissing allied efforts to isolate Russia’s economy. 

    However, the leaked U.S. documents also indicate Hungary — which shares a small border with Ukraine — may be secretly letting allies use its airspace to move arms toward the battlefield, despite pledges to bar such transfers.

    Intelligence leaks suspect Jack Teixeira reflected in an image of the Pentagon in Washington, DC | Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

    One of the leaked documents details a plan for Ukrainian pilots to fly donated helicopters from Croatia to Ukraine “through Hungarian air space.” If true, the information would not only show Hungary is letting arms pass through its skies, but also contradict press reports indicating the helicopters would be transferred on the ground or through flights into Poland. 

    Hungarian and Croatian officials didn’t reply to requests for comment.

    Did the Brits downplay a confrontation with Russia?

    Publicly, the U.K. has told a consistent story: A Russian fighter jet “released” a missile “in the vicinity” of a U.K. surveillance plane over the Black Sea last September. A close call, to be sure, but not a major incident.

    The leaked U.S. dossier, however, hints at something more serious. It describes the incident as a “near shoot-down” of the British aircraft. The language appears to go beyond what U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told lawmakers last October. This week, The New York Times reported that the Russian pilot had locked on the British aircraft before the missile failed to fire properly.

    The document also details several other close encounters in recent months between Russian fighter jets and U.S., U.K. and French surveillance aircraft — a subject that jumped into the news last month when a Russian fighter jet collided with a U.S. drone, sending it crashing into the Black Sea. 

    Wallace has not commented on the leaked description, and a ministry spokesperson on Thursday pointed to a prior statement saying there was a “serious level of inaccuracy” in the divulged dossier. 

    Turkey is the war’s middleman in Europe

    Turkey has portrayed itself as a conciliator between Ukraine and Russia, helping negotiate a deal to keep grain shipments flowing through the Black Sea and maintaining diplomatic ties with Russia while also providing Ukraine with drones. 

    The leaked pile of clandestine U.S. intelligence reports, however, shows a darker side to Turkey’s position as a middleman that distinctly favors Russia. 

    One page describes how Turkey helped both Russia and its ally Belarus evade strict Western sanctions — a concern U.S. officials have expressed publicly.

    For Belarus, the document says, “Turkish companies purchased sanctioned goods” and then “sold them in European markets.” In the opposite direction, it adds, these companies “resold goods from Europe to Russia.” 

    More alarming is another leaked document that describes a meeting in February between “Turkish contacts” and the Wagner Group, the private militia firm fighting for the Kremlin. It says Wagner was seeking “to purchase weapons and equipment from Turkey” for the group’s “efforts in Mali and Ukraine.”

    The information, which the document says came from “signals intelligence” — a euphemism for digital surveillance — does not explain whether the purchases have occurred.

    The Turkish Foreign Ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

    Cristina Gallardo and Jacopo Barigazzi

    Source link

  • A wartime NATO struggles to replace its chief

    A wartime NATO struggles to replace its chief

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    It’s the rumor inflating the Brussels bubble: The EU’s top executive, Ursula von der Leyen, could be crossing town to run NATO. 

    The rationale makes sense. She has a good working relationship with Washington. She is a former defense minister. And as European Commission president, she has experience working with most NATO heads of government. Plus, if chosen, she would become the alliance’s first-ever female leader. 

    The conversation has crested in recent weeks, as people eye current NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s pending exit at the end of September.

    Yet according to those inside NATO and at the Commission, the murmurings are more wish-casting than hints of a pending job switch. There is no evidence von der Leyen is interested in the role, and those in Brussels don’t expect her to quit before her first presidential term ends in 2024.

    The chatter is similar to the rumblings around Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, a long-serving leader who checks every box but insists he doesn’t want the job. 

    The speculation illustrates how much Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has changed NATO — and who can lead it. The war has put a new spotlight on the alliance, making the job more politically sensitive and high-profile than in the past. And allies are suddenly much more cautious about who they want on the podium speaking for them. 

    In short, the chatter seems to be people manifesting their ideal candidates and testing ideas rather than engaging in a real negotiation. 

    “The more names, the clearer there is no candidate,” said one senior European diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal alliance dynamics. 

    A second senior European diplomat agreed: “There is a lot of backroom gossip,” this person said, “but no clear field at this stage.”

    The (very) short list

    The next NATO chief, officials say, needs to be a European who can work closely with whoever is in the White House. 

    But that’s not all. The next NATO chief needs to be someone who backs Ukraine but is not so hawkish that it spooks countries worried about provoking Russia. And the person has to have stature — likely a former head of state or government — who can get unanimous support from 31 capitals and, most importantly, the U.S.

    There are several obstacles to Usula von der Leyen’s candidacy | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images

    That’s not a long list. 

    Von der Leyen is on it, but there are several obstacles to her candidacy. 

    The first is simply timing. If Stoltenberg leaves office in the fall as scheduled, his replacement would come into the office a year before von der Leyen’s term at the Commission ends in late 2024. She may even seek another five-year term. 

    “I don’t think she will move anywhere before the end of her mandate,” said one senior Commission official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters. 

    Speculation is rife that the current NATO chief may be asked to stay on, at least for a little while longer, to allow for a candidate such as von der Leyen to come in at a later stage. 

    “If Stoltenberg is prolonged until next summer, Ursula von der Leyen’s candidature would look logical,” said a third senior European diplomat. 

    But in an interview with POLITICO last week, Stoltenberg appeared keen to go home. The NATO chief has been in the job for over eight years, the second-longest tenure in the alliance’s seven-decade history.

    Asked about gossip that he may stay on, the secretary-general shot back sarcastically: “First of all, there are many more questions in the world that are extremely more important than that.” 

    “My plan is to go back to Norway,” he added, “I have been here for now a long time.” 

    The alliance is divided on the matter. Some countries — particularly those outside the EU — would prefer a quick decision to avoid running into the EU’s own 2024 elections. The fear, a fourth European diplomat said, is that NATO becomes a “consolation prize in the broader European politics” as leaders haggle over who will run the EU’s main institutions. 

    Another challenge for von der Leyen would be Germany’s track record on defense spending — and her own record as Germany’s defense minister. 

    A decade ago, NATO countries pledged to move toward spending 2 percent of their economic output on defense by 2024. But Germany, despite being Europe’s largest economy, has consistently missed the mark, even after announcing a €100 billion fund last year to modernize its military. 

    From the German government’s perspective, keeping von der Leyen at the helm of the Commission might be a bigger priority than NATO | Kenzo Tribuillard/AFP via Getty Images

    Additionally, some observers say von der Leyen bears some responsibility for the relatively poor state of Germany’s defenses. 

    From the German government’s perspective, keeping von der Leyen at the helm of the Commission might also be a bigger priority than NATO — even if she comes from the current center-right opposition. The EU executive is arguably more powerful than the NATO chief within Europe, pushing policies that affect nearly every corner of life.  

    Predictably, the Commission is officially dismissive of any speculation.

    “The president is not a candidate for the job” of NATO secretary-general, a Commission spokesperson told POLITICO on Monday. “And she has no comment on the speculation.” 

    Who else can do it?

    As with von der Leyen, it is unclear if some other names floated are actually available. 

    Dutch Prime Minister Rutte has dismissed speculation about a NATO role, telling reporters in January that he wanted to “leave politics altogether and do something completely different.” 

    A spokesperson for the prime minister reiterated this week that the his view has not changed. 

    Insiders, however, say the Dutch leader shouldn’t be counted out. In office since 2010, Rutte has significant experience working with leaders across the alliance and promotes a tight transatlantic bond.

    The Netherlands is also relatively muscular on defense — it has been one of Europe’s largest donors to Ukraine — but not quite as hawkish as countries on the eastern flank. 

    “Rutte’s name keeps popping up,” said the second senior European diplomat, “but no movement on this beyond gossip.” 

    Others occasionally mentioned as possible candidates are Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, and to a lesser extent British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis and Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová. 

    But despite the gossip, officials acknowledge many of these names are not politically feasible at this stage. 

    Kallas, for instance, is perceived as too hawkish. And conversely, Canada and some southern European countries are viewed within the alliance as laggards on defense investment. Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.

    As a result, a senior figure from a northern or western EU country appears the most likely profile for a successful candidate. Yet for now, who that person would be remains murky. Officials do have a deadline, though: the annual NATO summit in July. 

    “Either a new secretary general will be announced,” said a fifth senior European diplomat, “or the mandate of Jens Stoltenberg will be prolonged.”

    Lili Bayer

    Source link

  • UK to train Ukrainian pilots as ‘first step’ toward sending fighter jets

    UK to train Ukrainian pilots as ‘first step’ toward sending fighter jets

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    WAREHAM, Dorset — Ukrainian fighter pilots will soon be trained in Britain — but Kyiv will have to wait a little longer for the modern combat jets it craves.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy left the U.K. Wednesday with a firm British commitment to train fighter jet pilots on NATO-standard aircraft, along with an offer of longer-range missiles.

    U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace has now been tasked with investigating which jets the U.K. might be able to supply to Ukraine, Downing Street announced — but Prime Minister Rishi Sunak fell short of making actual promises on their supply, which his spokesman said would only ever be a “long-term” option.

    Speaking at a joint press conference at the Lulworth military camp in Wareham, southern England, Sunak said the priority must be to “arm Ukraine in the short-term” to ensure the country is not vulnerable to a fresh wave of Russian attacks this spring.

    Standing alongside Zelenskyy in front of a British-made Challenger 2 tank, Sunak restated that “nothing is off the table” when it comes to provision of military assistance to Ukraine, and said fourth-generation fighter jets were part of his conversation with the Ukrainian president “today, and have been previously.”

    These talks also covered the supply chains required to support such sophisticated aircraft, Sunak said.

    But he cautioned a decision to deliver jets would only be taken in coalition with allies, and said training pilots must come first and could take “some time.”

    “That’s why we have announced today that we will be training Ukrainian air force on NATO-standard platforms, because the first step in being able to provide advanced aircrafts is to have soldiers or aviators who are capable of using them,” Sunak said. “We need to make sure they are able to operate the aircraft they might eventually be using.”

    The first Challenger 2 tanks pledged by Britain will arrive in Ukraine by next month, Sunak added.

    President Zelenskyy ramped up the pressure on Rishi Sunak joking that he had left parliament two years earlier grateful for “delicious English tea”, but this time he would be “thanking all of you in advance for powerful English planes” | Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

    Describing his private conversations with Sunak as “fruitful,” Zelenskyy said he was “very grateful” that Britain had finally heard Kyiv’s call for longer-range missiles.

    But he warned that without fighter jets, there is a risk of “stagnation” in his country’s battle against Russian occupation.

    “Without the weapons that we are discussing now, and the weapons that we just discussed with Rishi earlier today, and how Britain is going to help us, you know, all of this is very important,” he said. “Without this, there would be stagnation, which will not bring anything good.”

    Rolling out the red carpet

    The U.K. had rolled out the red carpet for Zelenskyy’s surprise day-long visit, which alongside the visit to the military base included talks with Sunak at Downing Street, a meeting with King Charles at Buckingham Palace and a historic address to the U.K. parliament in Westminster.

    Only a handful of leaders have made such an address in Westminster Hall over the past 30 years, including Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama.

    “We have freedom. Give us wings to protect it,” Zelenskyy told British lawmakers, after symbolically handing House of Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle a helmet used by one of Ukraine’s fighter pilots. The message written upon it stated: “Combat aircraft for Ukraine, wings for freedom.”

    Zelenskyy’s call was backed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who urged Sunak to meet his request.

    “We have more than 100 Typhoon jets. We have more than 100 Challenger 2 tanks,” he said. “The best single use for any of these items is to deploy them now for the protection of the Ukrainians — not least because that is how we guarantee our own long-term security.”

    Western defense ministers will gather to discuss further military aid to Ukraine on February 14, at a meeting at the U.S. base of Ramstein in southwest Germany.

    Sunak’s spokesman said that while Britain has made no decision on whether to send its own jets, “there is an ongoing discussion among other countries about their own fighter jets, some of which are more akin to what Ukrainian pilots are used to.”

    Training day

    Britain’s announcement marks the first public declaration by a European country on the training of Ukrainian pilots, and could spur other European nations into following suit. France is already considering a similar request from Kyiv.

    Yuriyy Sak, an adviser to Ukrainian Minister of Defence Oleksii Reznikov, praised the U.K.’s decision and said allies “know very well that in order to defeat Russia in 2023, Ukraine needs all types of weaponry,” short of nuclear.

    “A few weeks ago, the U.K. showed leadership in the issue of providing tanks to Ukraine, and then other allies have followed their example,” he said. “Now the U.K. is again showing leadership in the pilot training issue. Hopefully other countries will follow.”

    The British scheme is likely to run in parallel to an American program to train Ukrainian pilots to fly U.S. fighters, for which the U.S. House of Representatives approved $100 million last summer. In October Ukraine announced a group of several dozen pilots had been selected for training on Western fighter jets.

    The first Ukrainian pilots are expected to arrive in Britain in the spring, with Downing Street warning the instruction program could last up to five years. Military analysts, however, say the length of any such scheme could vary significantly depending on the pilots’ previous expertise and the type of fighter they learn to operate.

    The U.K. announcement is therefore of “significant value” but “does not suggest the provision of fighter jets is imminent,” said Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow for airpower at the British think tank RUSI.

    The British program is likely to involve simulators and focus on providing training on NATO tactics and basic cockpit procedures to Ukrainian pilots who already have expertise in flying Soviet-era jets, Bronk said.

    The new training programs come in addition to the expansion in the numbers of Ukrainian early recruits being trained on basic tactics in the U.K., from 10,000 to 20,000 soldiers this year.

    ‘Unimaginable hardships’

    Wednesday’s visit marked Zelenskyy’s first trip to the U.K. since Russia’s invasion almost a year ago and only his second confirmed journey outside Ukraine during the war, following a visit to the United States last December.

    The Ukrainian president arrived on a Royal Air Force plane at an airport north of London Wednesday morning, the entire trip a closely guarded secret until he landed.

    Recounting his first visit to London back in 2020, when he sat in British wartime leader Winston Churchill’s armchair, Zelenskyy said: “I certainly felt something — but it is only now that I know what the feeling was. It is a feeling of how bravery takes you through the most unimaginable hardships to finally reward you with victory.”

    Zelenskyy travelled to Paris Wednesday evening for talks with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. In a short statement, Zelenskyy said France and Germany “can be game-changers,” adding: “The earlier we get heavy weapons, long-range missiles, aircraft, alongside tanks, the sooner the war will end.”

    Macron said Ukraine “can count on France and Europe to [help] win the war,” while Scholz added that Zelenskyy expected attendance at a summit of EU leaders in Brussels Thursday “is a sign of solidarity.”

    Dan Bloom and Clea Caulcutt provided additional reporting.

    Esther Webber, Dan Bloom and Clea Caulcutt

    Source link

  • West struggles to deliver on Zelenskyy’s defense wish list

    West struggles to deliver on Zelenskyy’s defense wish list

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BRUSSELS — With Ukraine’s partners racing to send more weapons to Kyiv amid an emerging Russian offensive, fulfilling Ukrainian requests is becoming trickier.

    Ukraine is still waiting for promised deliveries of modern tanks. Combat jets, though much discussed, are mired in the throes of government hesitation.

    On top of that, Kyiv is using thousands of rounds of ammunition per day — and Western production simply can’t keep up.

    As members of the U.S.-led Ukraine Defense Contact Group gather in Brussels on Tuesday to coordinate arms assistance to Ukraine, they face pressure to expedite delivery and provide even more advanced capabilities to Ukrainian forces. 

    “We have received good signals,” Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a video address following visits to London, Paris and Brussels. 

    “This applies both to long-range missiles and tanks, and to the next level of our cooperation — combat aircraft,” he said, however adding, “We still need to work on this.”

    And while most of Ukraine’s partners are committed to responding to Zelenskyy’s stump tour with expanded support as the conflict threatens to escalate, Western governments will have to overcome political and practical hurdles. 

    “It is clear that we are in a race of logistics,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Monday. “Key capabilities like ammunition, fuel, and spare parts must reach Ukraine before Russia can seize the initiative on the battlefield.”

    Existing and future supply of weapons to Ukraine will both be on the table when the defense group — made up of about 50 countries and popularly known at the Ramstein format — meets at NATO headquarters.

    NATO allies will also hold a meeting of defense ministers directly afterward to hear the latest assessment from Ukrainian counterparts and discuss the alliance’s future defense challenges. 

    Ukrainian officials will use the session, which would typically be held at the U.S. base in Ramstein, Germany, to share their latest needs with Western officials — from air defense to ground logistics — while it will also be a venue for Kyiv’s supporters to check in on implementation of earlier pledges and availabilities in the near future.

    The aim of the session, said a senior European diplomat, is “to step up military support as much as needed — not only commitments, but actual speedy deliverables is of particular significance.”

    “Tanks are needed not on paper but in the battlefield,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of discussions.

    Ammo, ammo, ammo 

    One of the most pressing issues on the table in Brussels this week is how to keep the weapons already sent to Ukraine firing. 

    “Of course it is important to discuss new systems, but the most urgent need is to ensure that all the systems which are already there, or have been pledged, are delivered and work as they should,” Stoltenberg said.

    During meetings with EU heads on Thursday, Zelenskyy and his team provided each leader with an individualized list requesting weapons and equipment based on the country’s known stocks and capabilities. 

    But there was one common theme. 

    “The first thing on the list was, everywhere, the ammunition,” Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said.

    “If you have the equipment and you don’t have the ammunition, then it’s no use,” the Estonian leader told reporters on Friday. 

    And while Ukraine is in dire need of vast amounts of ammo to keep fighting, Western countries’ own stocks are running low. 

    “It’s a very real concern,” said Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army Europe. “None of us, including the United States, is producing enough ammunition right now,” he said in a phone interview on Sunday.

    Munitions will also be top of mind at the session of NATO defense ministers on Wednesday, who will discuss boosting production of weapons, ammunition and equipment, along with future defense spending targets for alliance members.

    Boosting stockpiles and production, Stoltenberg emphasized on Monday, “requires more defense expenditure by NATO allies.” 

    Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty images

    And while the NATO chief said some progress has been made on work with industry on plans to boost stockpile targets, some current and former officials have expressed frustration about the pace of work. 

    Kallas last week raised the idea of joint EU purchases to help spur production and hasten deliveries of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, although it’s not clear whether this plan would enjoy sufficient support within the bloc — and how fast it could have an impact.

    Hodges thinks companies need a clearer demand signal from governments. “We need industry to do more,” he said. 

    But he noted, “These are not charities … they are commercial businesses, and so you have to have an order with money before they start making it.”

    Jets fight fails to take off (for now

    Fighter jets are a priority ask for Ukrainian officials, although Western governments seem not yet ready to make concrete commitments. 

    Numerous countries have expressed openness to eventually providing Ukraine with jets, indicating that the matter is no longer a red line. Regardless, hesitation remains. 

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg | Valeria Mongelli/AFP via Getty Images

    The U.K. has gone the furthest so far, announcing that it will train Ukrainian pilots on fighter jets. But when it comes to actually providing aircraft, British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace cautioned that “this is not a simple case of towing an aircraft to the border.”

    Polish President Andrzej Duda, meanwhile, said sending F-16 aircraft would be a “very serious decision” which is “not easy to take,” arguing that his country does not have enough jets itself.

    For some potential donors, the jets debate revolves around both timing and utility. 

    “The essential question is: What do they want to do with planes? It’s not clear,” said one French diplomat, who was unauthorized to speak publicly. “Do they think that with 50 or 100 fighter jets, they can retake the Donbas?” the diplomat said.

    The diplomat said there is no point in training Ukrainians on Western jets now. “It’ll take over six months to train them, so it doesn’t respond to their immediate imperatives.”

    But, the diplomat added, “maybe some countries should give them MiGs, planes that they can actually fly.”

    Slovakia is in fact moving closer to sending MiG-29 jets to Ukraine. 

    “We want to do it,” said a Slovak official who was not at liberty to disclose their identity. “But we must work out the details on how,” the official said, adding that a domestic process and talks with Ukraine still need to take place. 

    No big jet announcements are expected at the Tuesday meeting, though the issue is likely to be discussed. 

    Where are the tanks?

    And while Western governments have already — with great fanfare — struck a deal to provide Ukraine with modern tanks, questions over actual deliveries will also likely come up at Tuesday’s meeting.

    Germany’s leadership in particular has stressed it’s time for countries that supported the idea of sending tanks to live up to their rhetoric. 

    “Germany is making a very central contribution to ensuring that we provide rapid support, as we have done in the past,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said last week. 

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is shown an anti-aircraft gun tank Gepard | Morris MacMatzen/Getty Images

    “We are striving to ensure that many others who have come forward in the past now follow up on this finger-pointing with practical action,” he went on. Germany’s goal is for Ukraine to receive tanks by the end of March, and training has already begun. 

    Along with tanks, another pending request that Ukrainian officials will likely bring up this week is long-range missiles. 

    Hodges, who has been advocating for the West to give Ukraine the weapons it would need to retake Crimea, said he believes long-range precision weapons are the key. “That’s how you defeat mass with precision.” 

    Any such weapon, he argued, “has got to be at the top of the list.” 

    Clea Caulcutt contributed reporting from Paris and Hans von der Buchard contributed from Berlin.


    Lili Bayer

    Source link

  • Veterans of UK nuclear weapons tests win battle for medal

    Veterans of UK nuclear weapons tests win battle for medal

    LONDON — Seven decades after Britain detonated a nuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean, troops who took part — sometimes unknowingly — in the country’s atomic weapons tests are being recognized with a medal.

    The U.K. government’s announcement on Monday of the Nuclear Test Medal is a victory for veterans and their families, who have campaigned for years for recognition. Now, many want recognition of the health problems they believe they suffered as a result of exposure to radiation.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the medal was “an enduring symbol of our country’s gratitude” to the test veterans.

    “Their commitment and service has preserved peace for the past 70 years, and it is only right their contribution to our safety, freedom and way of life is appropriately recognized with this honor,” he said.

    Sunak attended the first-ever ceremony for the nuclear veterans at the National Memorial Arboretum in central England, marking the 70th anniversary of the U.K.’s first atmospheric atomic test on Oct. 3, 1952. The detonation of a plutonium implosion device aboard a Royal Navy ship in the Montebello Islands off Western Australia, dubbed Operation Hurricane, made Britain the world’s third nuclear-armed nation, after the United States and Russia.

    Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said those who took part had made an “invaluable contribution to the safety and security of the U.K.”

    The U.K. set off further nuclear explosions in Australia and ocean territories including Christmas Island over the following years. Veterans groups say about 22,000 U.K. military personnel were involved in British and American tests in the 1950s and 60s, many of them conscripts doing postwar national service.

    Veterans, scientists and civil servants from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Kiribati who served under British command during the tests between 1952 and 1967 will also be eligible for the U.K. medal.

    Many veterans and their families are convinced there is a link between the tests and health problems they have suffered, and are pressing the U.K. to hold a public inquiry into the tests. Some allege they were deliberately exposed to radiation to see how their bodies would react, and claim their medical records were later suppressed.

    John Morris, who saw nuclear blasts on Christmas Island as a young conscript in the 1950s, told the BBC earlier this year that “I felt like I had seen the end of the world.”

    “I saw right through my hands as the light was so intense,” he said. “It felt like my blood was boiling. The palm trees — which had been 20 miles away — were scorched.”

    Numerous studies over the decades have probed allegations of high cancer rates among the test veterans, and of birth defects in their children, but have failed to establish an ironclad connection with the nuclear tests.

    Successive British governments have denied troops were exposed to unsafe levels of radiation.

    Alan Owen, founder of the Labrats International charity for atomic test survivors, welcomed the government’s recognition, but said “we want more.”

    “It’s great the government is starting to recognize the veterans,” said Owen, whose father James was present during nuclear testing on Christmas Island in 1962. James Owen died in 1994, aged 52.

    “For me it is going to be an emotional day because I will be representing him and my sister will be there and we will be laying flowers in his memory.”

    Source link

  • Russia’s retreat from Kherson hailed by the West

    Russia’s retreat from Kherson hailed by the West

    Western officials welcomed Russia’s retreat from the Ukrainian city of Kherson, labeled a “big moment” by the White House and “another strategic failure” for Moscow by the U.K.

    Ukrainian troops on Friday entered Kherson, the only provincial capital to be taken by Russia in its invasion. The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed in a video that Moscow’s troops had been withdrawn from the Ukrainian city and other territories on the western bank of the Dnipro River, in a huge blow to President Vladimir Putin’s war effort.

    “It has broader strategic implications as well,” U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said, “because being able to push the Russians across the river means that the longer-term threat to places like Odesa and the Black Sea coastline are reduced from where they were before.”

    “And so this is a big moment. And it’s certainly not the end of the line, but it’s a big moment,” the top White House official told reporters while flying to a Southeast Asian summit in Cambodia, according to a readout published online.

    French President Emmanuel Macron called it a “critical step towards the restoration of [Ukraine’s] sovereign rights.”

    U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said Russia’s retreat “marks another strategic failure for them. In February, Russia failed to take any of its major objectives except Kherson,” according to a statement.

    The Ukrainian military said it was overseeing “stabilization measures” around Kherson to make sure it was safe, the Associated Press reported on Saturday. Kyiv was making speedy but cautious efforts to make the city liveable after months of occupation, as one official described it as “a humanitarian catastrophe,” the news outlet said.

    “We will restore all conditions of normal life – as much as possible,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. “Our defenders are immediately followed by policemen, sappers, rescuers, energy workers,” he said. “Medicine, communications, social services are returning.’

    Roman Holovnya, an adviser to Kherson’s mayor, said humanitarian aid and supplies had begun to arrive, but that many residents still lacked water, medicine, food and electricity, the AP reported.

    “The occupiers and collaborators did everything possible so that those people who remained in the city suffered as much as possible over those days, weeks, months of waiting” for Ukraine’s forces to arrive, Holovnya said. “Water supplies are practically nonexistent,” he said.

    “I am moved to tears to witness freedom returning to Kherson,” Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas tweeted on Saturday. “Ukrainians hugging their soldiers, and blue and yellow flags raised.”

    Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on Saturday said that the “war goes on” after the Ukrainian army’s success. Ahead of a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Cambodia, Kuleba also thanked Washington for helping Kyiv against Moscow’s invasion.

    “It’s only together that we will be able to prevail and to kick Russia out of Ukraine. We are on the way. This is coming, and our victory will be our joint victory — victory of all peace-loving nations across the world,” Kuleba said.

    Laura Kayali

    Source link

  • Rishi Sunak’s ‘keep calm and carry on’ Cabinet

    Rishi Sunak’s ‘keep calm and carry on’ Cabinet

    Press play to listen to this article

    LONDON — If his key appointments are any indication, the Rishi Sunak era in Britain could actually be … kind of dull.

    The new U.K. leader reappointed existing ministers, brought back old hands and largely kept critics on side as he sought to reassure nervous markets, allies and enemies that the U.K. is no longer a hotbed of chaos.

    But the prime minister did, at least, have room to take revenge on a number of his most vocal detractors, and refused to offer any kind of promotion to his defeated leadership rival, Penny Mordaunt.

    Sunak entered No. 10 Downing Street Tuesday with a promise to “fix” the “mistakes” made by his predecessor Liz Truss, after her radical economic prospectus spooked financial markets and helped jack up U.K. borrowing costs — swiftly bringing down her government amid bitter Tory recriminations and sparking a second Tory leadership race in two months.

    Emerging from the wreckage of the Conservative Party, Sunak had pledged to put politics aside and “build a government that represents the very best traditions of my party.”

    Nothing to see here

    The biggest news of the reshuffle was that there wasn’t much news. Multiple figures who served under Sunak’s predecessor Liz Truss, including some who backed his rival Boris Johnson in the latest Conservative leadership race, kept their posts or were moved to other senior roles.

    Sunak’s most important appointment was to keep Jeremy Hunt in post as chancellor, sticking by a Cabinet veteran who Truss had brought in from the cold just two weeks earlier to rip up her failed economic agenda.

    James Cleverly was kept on as foreign secretary, while Ben Wallace remained as defense secretary — keeping two key ministries tasked with shaping Britain’s foreign policy intact. Chris Heaton-Harris stayed on as Northern Ireland secretary, while Nadhim Zahawi was moved from the Cabinet Office to become the Conservative Party chairman. All four men had backed Johnson in the leadership contest last week, leaving fellow Boris supporters in the party relieved.

    “At this early stage of the reshuffle it looks as if Rishi is aiming to unite the party rather than divide it,” said Tory MP and Johnson ally Michael Fabricant. “Perhaps one of the mistakes Liz Truss made was to pack the Cabinet only with her supporters. That always creates a volatile situation.”

    In an eyebrow-raising move, Suella Braverman, a darling of the party’s right who made her own bid for the leadership earlier this year, returned as home secretary less than a week after being fired over a sensitive information leak. Her reappointment looked like a debt being repaid following her unexpected backing of Sunak at the weekend.

    Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch and Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan, both Truss picks over the summer, kept their jobs too.

    One Cabinet minister who did not back Sunak in either leadership race said the appointments were clearly a bid for unity: “He has put people in positions with a track record of delivery.”

    Senior figures from other wings of the party were impressed too. “The new prime minister is clearly serious about including people from all sides of the party in his new Cabinet,” said Nicky Morgan, a former chair of the centrist One Nation Conservatives grouping in parliament and now a member of the House of Lords. “This is a very encouraging start to his term.”

    Soft revenge

    Others key allies of Sunak’s opponents were handed demotions, but allowed to remain in Sunak’s top team.

    Thérèse Coffey, a close friend of Truss who served as her deputy prime minister and health secretary, was demoted to the environment, food and farming brief. Alok Sharma, who backed Johnson in the second race, kept his job overseeing the COP climate summits, but will no longer attend Cabinet — a clear step down.

    But it was the treatment of Mordaunt, the last candidate standing against Sunak in the latest leadership race, that most ruffled feathers. She kept her relatively junior Cabinet-attending job as leader of the House of Commons, a decision seen in Westminster as a snub given widespread expectations that she was due a major promotion.

    One former Cabinet minister argued the failure to promote Mordaunt looked like “an act of revenge, or small-mindedness.” Mordaunt had refused to drop out of the latest leadership race until it was clear she did not have sufficient nominations from fellow MPs to make the next round. 

    Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt leaves No. 10 Downing Street following Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s cabinet reshuffle | Leon Neal/Getty Images

    Yet some argued the very act of keeping her in post was in itself an olive branch, while one person familiar with the discussions on her appointment said she had been offered a different role, but refused it. One of Mordaunt’s allies insisted she was pleased to keep her existing brief.

    A Downing Street official insisted: “This Cabinet brings the talents of the party together. It reflects a unified party and a Cabinet with significant experience, ensuring that at this uncertain time there is continuity at the heart of government.”

    But there were plenty of rewards too for key Sunak supporters. Close allies Oliver Dowden, Michael Gove and Steve Barclay were handed roles in the Cabinet Office, communities department and health department respectively, just weeks after Truss made clear they had no place in her administration.

    Simon Hart was made chief whip, while Gillian Keegan was promoted to the Cabinet for the first time as education secretary and Grant Shapps was moved from his week-long stint heading up the Home Office (to replace the sacked Braverman) to the business department. 

    To make space for the new appointments, Sunak allowed himself a few ruthless sackings — although he did permit Cabinet ministers to technically resign to spare their blushes.

    Ministers seen as close to Johnson, including Brandon Lewis and Kit Malthouse, were fired, as was Robert Buckland, who supported Sunak in the first leadership race only to shamelessly switch to Truss when it became clear she would win.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg, one of Sunak’s most vocal critics and a cheerleader for Johnson, was also dispensed with, as well as top Truss lieutenants Ranil Jayawarenda and Simon Clarke. Rees-Mogg had once branded Sunak a “socialist” — although he hastily recanted that criticism Tuesday morning as the new PM picked his top team.

    Having told the Tories at the weekend they must “Back Boris” or go “bust”, it was not enough to save him from his fate.

    An earlier version of this story included an inaccurate previous ministerial brief.

    Emilio Casalicchio

    Source link

  • Russia defense chief makes unfounded claims of Kyiv ready to use ‘dirty bomb’

    Russia defense chief makes unfounded claims of Kyiv ready to use ‘dirty bomb’

    Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on Sunday had telephone calls with his French, British and Turkish counterparts in which he made unfounded claims that Ukraine might be preparing to use a “dirty bomb,” according to Russian readouts of the conversations.

    The conversations took place after Russian President Vladimir Putin recently raised the prospect of using nuclear weapons in the war he launched against Ukraine. And after Shoigu faced intensifying political pressure over a series of disorderly retreats in Ukraine.

    The calls came as Russia continues a mass evacuation of civilians from occupied Kherson in southern Ukraine and defense analysts believe that the movement of people is setting the scene for Moscow to withdraw its troops from a significant part of the region. But among EU diplomats, there are fears that Moscow is only setting the scene for things to get worse.

    During the call with French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, they discussed the situation in Ukraine, “which is rapidly deteriorating,” according to the Russian readout of the call. And Shoigu conveyed “his concerns about possible provocations by Ukraine with the use of a ‘dirty bomb’,” the Russian ministry said without giving any further detail.

    The same content of the readout was provided on the call with Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar.

    The Russian readout of the call with U.K. Defense Minister Ben Wallace talks only about the risk of a “dirty bomb.” However, in none of the readouts does Moscow provide any evidence for its claims.

    The U.K. said that “Shoigu alleged that Ukraine was planning actions facilitated by Western countries, including the U.K., to escalate the conflict in Ukraine,” according to a U.K. statement. “The Defense Secretary refuted these claims and cautioned that such allegations should not be used as a pretext for greater escalation,” it said.

    No statement on the call was immediately made available by the defense ministries of France and Turkey.

    On Friday, Shoigu spoke with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for the first time since May, and, according to a Pentagon readout, in the call “Austin emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication amid the ongoing war against Ukraine.”

    Shoigu spoke with Austin again on Sunday, according to the Russian defense ministry. In this case, the Russian readout says only that “they discussed situation in Ukraine.”

    A dirty bomb is a bomb that combines conventional explosives, such as dynamite, with radioactive materials. For Dara Massicot, an analyst at U.S. research company Rand Corporation, “this reads like Russian false flag groundwork.”

    Jacopo Barigazzi

    Source link

  • Boris Johnson vs Rishi Sunak: The mother of all leadership battles

    Boris Johnson vs Rishi Sunak: The mother of all leadership battles

    Press play to listen to this article

    LONDON — They were once close allies — two Tory Brexiteers working at the very top of government to steer Britain through the pandemic.

    They then became the deadliest of enemies, when the apprentice knifed his master in the back and embarked on a fruitless campaign to pinch his job.

    Now the poisonous rivalry between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak has reached its dramatic third act — an extraordinary struggle to take back control of the Conservative Party following the disaster of Liz Truss’ brief tenure.

    “Rishi is the acceptable face of the Conservatives,” said one party insider who knows both men well, “whereas Boris has a monstrous appetite and a huge ego — he wouldn’t have got where he is without it.” 

    For Sunak, victory would mark an improbable comeback, just six weeks after he was roundly defeated in the last leadership contest.

    Yet for Johnson, the comeback would be even more unlikely. No ousted prime minister has returned to No. 10 in nearly 40 years, since Labour’s Harold Wilson in 1974. Nobody since Bonar Law in the 1920s has led the Conservative Party twice.

    The leadership contest has been truncated to last just a single week this time, and nominees must secure the backing of at least 100 Tory MPs by Monday afternoon to go forward to a final ballot of the party grassroots. 

    MPs have begun declaring their allegiances already, with Sunak currently in the lead and Johnson in second place. For both men, there is all to play for ahead of Monday’s 2 p.m. deadline.

    The love I lost

    A final head-to-head dual between Johnson and Sunak would be a gripping moment even by the standards of a modern-day Conservative Party which seems endlessly embroiled in psychodrama.

    It was Johnson who gave Sunak his big break, promoting him first to a senior ministerial role in the Treasury and then, six months later, making him chancellor, the second-biggest job in government.

    At first, the pair seemed to work well, with Johnson’s allies heaping praise on his young protege as the pair battled their way through the COVID pandemic which struck just a few weeks after Sunak was appointed chancellor in early 2020.

    The PM and chancellor initially had a joint unit of advisers, but it gradually became dominated by Sunak’s people and the pair increasingly found themselves at loggerheads over tax-and-spend decisions. Sunak tacked to a more traditional Conservative view of fiscal responsibility and Johnson was comfortable with higher spending and borrowing. 

    “There had been mounting tension between the PM and Rishi for a while,” said one member of Johnson’s No. 10 team. “[Johnson] wanted a more adventurous, ambitious economic policy.”

    By the time Sunak resigned, relations between the two men had deteriorated bitterly. Johnson’s team had long believed Sunak was plotting to oust their boss, and the same former aide claimed Sunak had not even phoned Johnson to warn him he was quitting.

    During the summer leadership contest Sunak frequently distanced himself from his old boss, while allies of Johnson made clear they were prepared to stop Sunak’s march to No. 10 at any cost.

    If they do end up as the final two contenders, nobody in the party will be able to say they are not getting a genuine choice. 

    Grassroots’ choice

    Many of those who backed Sunak last time, largely from the moderate or centrist wing of the party, have immediately flocked back to his side. A few right-wingers, too — fed up of the Johnson circus — have joined them. 

    For his part, Johnson has garnered support mainly from loyalist former ministers, along with a cohort of ardent Brexiteers. But he has already demonstrated he still has the power to attract party big hitters, despite his checkered record in office. 

    Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, well-regarded for his handling of the Ukraine invasion, ruled himself out of the race Friday and said he was inclined to support Johnson as he “wins elections.” Ben Houchen, the Tees Valley mayor seen as a quasi-spokesman for the post-industrial areas in northern England won by the Tories in 2019, also switched allegiance to Johnson Friday, having previously backed Sunak in his head-to-head with Truss. 

    Crucially, Johnson has another weapon in his armory, in the form of thousands of grassroots activists who believe he was wrongfully defenestrated in the summer and could yet rise again to save the party. If Johnson can make it onto the members’ ballot, he would fancy his chances against Sunak — or any of his other rivals — in a final head-to-head.

    “It’s very similar to the Liz vibes of ‘we’re gonna win, it’s gonna be amazing’ and sunlit uplands,” said one Tory activist. “They all still think that absolutely nothing has happened since 2019, and Boris is still this hugely popular lovable buffoon that wins elections.”

    Two rival Whatsapp groups have already sprung up for councillors and other local members: a ‘Back Boris’ group containing more than 500 people and a ‘Ready4Rishi’ group which is closer to 300. 

    Stumbling blocks

    Sunak faces two major obstacles in his quest for Downing Street. The first — a major problem in his last campaign — is a perception of untrustworthiness among the grassroots, still angry that he turned on Johnson in July and triggered the sequence of events that led to the PM’s exit.

    Second, Sunak is widely seen to have fought a lackluster campaign against Truss last time around — and the Conservative Party prides itself on picking winners. In the words of Tory focus group guru James Frayne, Sunak was “technocratic” where Truss was punchy and bold. 

    For his part, Johnson comes with enough baggage to fill the Downing Street flat several times over. Most pressingly, he is facing a parliamentary inquiry into whether he misled the House of Commons over the so-called Partygate scandal — a potentially serious offense which could see him temporarily suspended as an MP.

    One MP elected in 2019 under Johnson’s banner said: “This inquiry would rip us apart if Boris was in No. 10.” An ex-aide to Johnson predicted that choosing him would prove to be “short-term gain for long-term pain,” as Johnson would provide a temporary bounce for the Tories “only to be then mired in months of crap” around the inquiry. 

    The Johnson myth 

    But there are good reasons, too, why these two former allies are the leading contenders for No. 10.

    “[Johnson] does just make people feel good about themselves,” said a senior Conservative official who has known him since his time as mayor of London. “He has that quality.”

    A former Sunak campaign member who has worked in frontline politics since the David Cameron era said he was “the hardest working politician I’ve ever seen in my life,” adding: “I don’t think anyone comes close to him in understanding the economy.”

    Henry Hill, deputy editor of ConservativeHome, said the two men’s electoral appeal was radically different. Sunak would enable a “blue wall”-centered strategy at the next election — appealing to more affluent seats in the South — while “the best version of a Boris case is that it’s leaning into the realignment which accepts the Conservative Party’s future is more based on working-class constituencies in the North.”

    Despite the persistent view among many Tories that Johnson is an election winner, however, pollsters warn the picture has shifted since his thumping 80-seat victory in 2019. 

    Keiran Pedley of IPSOS said Johnson’s net satisfaction rating with the general public on leaving office was worse than that of past PMs John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron, while a recent poll found most people rated Sunak above Johnson when it came to doing a better job than Truss. 

    Perhaps more important than their personal ratings, Pedley added, the Tory Party “probably needs to consider that their problem is that people have lost confidence in them on the economy and are looking anew at Labour.”

    None of the above

    It is not beyond the realms of imagination that a third candidate surges through the middle and defeats the two biggest hitters in the race.

    Brexiteer darlings Penny Mordaunt, Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman would all be hopeful of beating Sunak in a members’ ballot — although of these, Mordaunt is probably the only one likely to attract enough support from MPs to reach a final head-to-head. 

    Intriguingly, rumors abound — denied by both camps — of the possibility of a deal between the two men; one perhaps accepting a senior position in the other’s administration in return for their support.

    “I reckon he wants a big job,” one former adviser to Johnson said. “Home secretary, or foreign secretary maybe.”

    While Johnson was photographed flying back to the U.K. from his Caribbean holiday late Friday night, many expect he will only reenter the fray if he is confident he can win. 

    “Him losing a leadership contest is just ignominious — that’s not how the myth is meant to end,” said Hill. “In that circumstance, he’d probably be much happier always being able to think ‘oh, it could have been me.’”

    This story was updated to include Boris Johnson’s return to the U.K.

    CORRECTION: This story has been updated to say that nobody since Bonar Law in the 1920s has led the Conservative Party twice.

    Esther Webber

    Source link

  • UK PM Truss vows to stay, but is on brink as minister quits

    UK PM Truss vows to stay, but is on brink as minister quits

    LONDON — British Prime Minister Liz Truss described herself as “a fighter and not a quitter” Wednesday as she faced a hostile opposition and fury from her own Conservative Party over her botched economic plan. Within hours of the defiant statement, her government was teetering on the verge of collapse.

    A senior member of the government left her post with a fusillade of criticism at Truss, and a House of Commons vote descended into acrimony and accusations of bullying,

    Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she resigned after breaching rules by sending an official document from her personal email account. She used her resignation letter to lambaste Truss, saying she had “concerns about the direction of this government.”

    “The business of government relies upon people accepting responsibility for their mistakes,” she said. “Pretending we haven’t made mistakes, carrying on as if everyone can’t see that we have made them and hoping that things will magically come right is not serious politics.”

    Braverman is a popular figure on the Conservative Party’s right wing and a champion of more restrictive immigration policies who ran unsuccessfully for party leader this summer, a contest won by Truss.

    Braverman was replaced as home secretary, the minister responsible for immigration and law and order, by former Cabinet minister Grant Shapps. He’s a high-profile supporter of Rishi Sunak, the former Treasury chief defeated by Truss in the final round of the Conservative leadership race.

    Truss faced more turmoil in Parliament Wednesday evening on a vote over fracking for shale gas — a practice that Truss wants to resume despite opposition from many Conservatives.

    With a large Conservative majority in Parliament, an opposition call for a fracking ban was easily defeated by 326 votes to 230, but some lawmakers were furious that Conservative Party whips said the vote would be treated as confidence motion, meaning the government would fall if the motion passed.

    There were angry scenes in the House of Commons during and after the vote, with party whips accused of using heavy-handed tactics to gain votes. Labour lawmaker Chris Bryant said he “saw members being physically manhandled … and being bullied.”

    Some lawmakers reported that that Conservative Chief Whip Wendy Morton, who is responsible for party discipline, and her deputy had resigned. But Truss’ office later said both remained in their jobs.

    Conservative officials denied there had been manhandling, but in the chaos Truss herself failed to vote, according to the official record. Many Tory lawmakers were left despondent by the state of their party.

    Conservative lawmaker Charles Walker said it was “a shambles and a disgrace.”

    “I hope that all those people that put Liz Truss in (office), I hope it was worth it,” he told the BBC. “I hope it was worth it to sit around the Cabinet table, because the damage they have done to our party is extraordinary.”

    The dramatic developments came days after Truss fired her Treasury chief, Kwasi Kwarteng, on Friday after the economic package the pair unveiled Sept. 23 spooked financial markets and triggered an economic and political crisis.

    The plan’s 45 billion pounds ($50 billion) in unfunded tax cuts sparked turmoil on financial markets, hammering the value of the pound and increasing the cost of U.K. government borrowing. The Bank of England was forced to intervene to prevent the crisis from spreading to the wider economy and putting pension funds at risk.

    On Monday Kwarteng’s replacement, Treasury chief Jeremy Hunt, scrapped almost all of Truss’ tax cuts, along with her flagship energy policy and her promise of no public spending cuts. He said the government will need to save billions of pounds and there are “many difficult decisions” to be made before he sets out a medium-term fiscal plan on Oct. 31.

    Speaking to lawmakers for the first time since the U-turn, Truss apologized Wednesday and admitted she had made mistakes during her six weeks in office, but insisted that by changing course she had “taken responsibility and made the right decisions in the interest of the country’s economic stability.”

    Opposition lawmakers shouted “Resign!” as she spoke in the House of Commons.

    Asked by opposition Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, “Why is she still here?” Truss retorted: “I am a fighter and not a quitter. I have acted in the national interest to make sure that we have economic stability.”

    Official figures released Wednesday showed U.K. inflation rose to 10.1% in September, returning to a 40-year high first hit in July, as the soaring cost of food squeezed household budgets. While inflation is high around the world — driven up by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its effect on energy supplies — polls show most Britons blame the government for the country’s economic pain.

    With opinion polls giving the Labour Party a large and growing lead, many Conservatives now believe their only hope of avoiding electoral oblivion is to replace Truss. But she insists she is not stepping down, and legislators are divided about how to get rid of her.

    A national election does not have to be held until 2024. Truss appeared to rule out calling an early election, saying Wednesday that “what is important is we work together … to get through this winter and protect the economy.”

    Under Conservative Party rules, Truss technically is safe from a leadership challenge for a year, but the rules can be changed if enough lawmakers want it. There is fevered speculation about how many lawmakers have already submitted letters calling for a no-confidence vote, and tensions rose further on Wednesday evening.

    As yet, there is no front-runner to succeed her. Sunak, House of Commons leader Penny Mordaunt and popular Defense Secretary Ben Wallace all have supporters, as does Hunt, whom many see as the de facto prime minister already.

    Some even favor the return of Boris Johnson, who was ousted in the summer after becoming enmeshed in ethics scandals.

    ———

    Follow AP’s coverage of British politics at https://apnews.com/hub/liz-truss

    Source link