Pakistan’s former prime minister Imran Khan (R) addresses his supporters during an anti-government march towards capital Islamabad, demanding early elections, in Gujranwala on November 1, 2022.
Arif Ali | AFP | Getty Images
Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan on Thursday was shot and wounded while leading a massive protest march in the country’s eastern city of Wazirabad.
Mohammad Atif Khan, a close aide of the former PM and senior leader in his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, said Khan was shot in the leg and taken to hospital. Another PTI leader, Faisal Khan, was also injured, Atif Khan told NBC.
He said that two armed men opened fire and were immediately taken into custody by police. He also said that one of the assailants was beaten by the mob and reportedly died, according to NBC. An as-yet-unknown number of Imran Khan’s supporters who were present at the rally were also reportedly injured.
The PTI party called the shooting an “assassination attempt” in a tweet posted shortly after Khan was taken for treatment. Senior PTI member and former information minister Fawad Ahmed Chaudhry said in an impromptu speech following the shooting: “This is not only an assassination attempt on Imran Khan, but attack on Pakistan itself.”
Within an hour of the shooting, videos were being shared on social media which appeared to show Khan standing up with one bandaged leg and waving to supporters, holding one fist inthe air.
Ousted Pakistan’s prime minister Imran Khan (C) waves at his party supporters during a rally in Islamabad on May 26, 2022.
Aamir Qureshi | Afp | Getty Images
The protest on Thursday was part of a week-long tour aimed at drumming up support for toppling the current government of opponent Shehbaz Sharif and forcing early elections.
The 70-year-old Khan, a former cricket star who became Pakistan’s prime minister in 2018, was ousted from power in April of this year after a no-confidence vote by opposition lawmakers alleging corruption and unconstitutional actions, charges backed up by the country’s Supreme Court.
In October, Pakistan’s election commission passed a ruling barring Khan from holding office again, sparking outrage among his many supporters who claim foul play.
Khan and his supporters say his ousting was a conspiracy planned by current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the United States, the latter of which has a long and complicated relationship with the Pakistani government. Sharif and Washington deny the accusations.
In the months since his removal from office, Khan has soared in popularity among Pakistanis, many of whom across the country of 225 million are struggling given rising inflation and living costs.
Pakistan was plunged into greater turmoil after floods in June caused by abnormally heavy monsoon rains and melting glaciers engulfed some 30% of the country, killing nearly 2,000 people and potentially pushing as many as 9 million into poverty, according to the World Bank.
Khan, the former cricket captain, is seen by many in and around Pakistan as something of a common man’s hero. He is openly critical of the United States — a major military aid provider — and Pakistan’s own powerful military, which has been responsible for leadership coups in the past.
“For six months I have been witnessing a revolution taking over the country,” Khan wrote on Monday, describing the crowds of protesters supporting him. “Only question is will it be a soft one through the ballot box or a destructive one through bloodshed?”
Khan’s legal troubles only seem to have made him more popular among his base, who believe he will make a comeback and become prime minister again in elections that would be held by next year. Some political analysts see him as a likely favorite as well, and many expect the charges against him to be dropped.
Khan is one of the most famous figures in Pakistan and the wider South Asian region, known for leading Pakistan’s national cricket team to glory in the 1980s and 90s. He later transitioned to politics, founding the PTI in 1996.
Khan’s political career was marked by losses until his party, running on a populist platform, won the most seats in Pakistan’s National Assembly in 2018 and he led the governing coalition as prime minister.
An electric car being charged in Germany. The European Union is moving forward with plans to ramp up the number of EVs on its roads.
Tomekbudujedomek | Moment | Getty Images
The EU’s plans to phase out the sale of new diesel and gasoline cars and vans took a big step forward this week after the European Council and European Parliament came to a provisional agreement on the issue.
In a statement Thursday evening, the European Parliament said EU negotiators had agreed on a deal related to the European Commission’s proposal for “zero-emission road mobility by 2035.”
The plan seeks to slash CO2 emissions from new vans and passenger cars by 100% from 2021 levels and would constitute an effective ban on new diesel and gasoline vehicles of these types. The European Commission is the EU’s executive branch.
Read more about electric vehicles from CNBC Pro
The parliament said smaller automakers producing up to 10,000 new cars or 22,000 new vans could be granted a derogation, or exemption, until the end of 2035.
It added that “those responsible for less than 1,000 new vehicle registrations per year continue to be exempt.”
Formal approval of the deal from the European Council and European Parliament is required before it takes effect.
Thursday’s news was welcomed by Transport & Environment, a Brussels-based campaign group. “The days of the carbon spewing, pollution belching combustion engine are finally numbered,” said Julia Poliscanova, T&E’s senior director for vehicles and e-mobility.
Others commenting on the plans included the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. In a statement, it said it’s now urging “European policy makers to shift into higher gear to deploy the enabling conditions for zero-emission mobility.”
“This extremely far-reaching decision is without precedent,” said its chair, Oliver Zipse, who is the CEO of BMW. “It means that the European Union will now be the first and only world region to go all-electric.”
“Make no mistake, the European automobile industry is up to the challenge of providing these zero-emission cars and vans,” he added.
“However, we are now keen to see the framework conditions which are essential to meet this target reflected in EU policies.”
“These include an abundance of renewable energy, a seamless private and public charging infrastructure network, and access to raw materials.”
During an interview with CNBC earlier this month, Carlos Tavares, the CEO of Stellantis, was asked about the EU’s plans to phase out the sale of new ICE cars and vans by 2035. ICE vehicles are powered by a regular internal combustion engine.
It’s “clear that the decision to ban pure ICEs is a purely dogmatic decision,” said Tavares, who was speaking to CNBC’s Charlotte Reed at the Paris Motor Show.
He added that Europe’s political leaders should be “more pragmatic and less dogmatic.”
“I think there is the possibility — and the need — for a more pragmatic approach to manage the transition.”
BERLIN/PARIS — Relations are now so icy between Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, the leaders of the EU’s two economic powerhouses, that they are even struggling to agree on whether to be seen together in front of the press.
As the French president and German chancellor prepared for a tête-à-tête in Paris on Wednesday, Berlin announced that they would make a joint appearance in front of the cameras, which is normally the driest of routine diplomatic courtesies after bilateral meetings.
But on Tuesday evening, a statement from the French Elysée Palace contradicted the German announcement, saying there was no press conference planned.
If confirmed, it would be quite a snub for Scholz, who’s traveling with an entire press corps to Paris, and from there continuing to Athens for another state visit. Denying a press conference to a visiting leader is a political tactic that’s generally applied to deliver a rebuke, as was recently done by Scholz when Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán visited Berlin.
“Presumably, there has so far been a lack of contact and exchange between the respective new government teams of Scholz and Macron,” said Sandra Weeser from Germany’s liberal Free Democratic Party, who sits on the board of the Franco-German Parliamentary Assembly. “So, we are certainly also at the beginning of new interpersonal political relations, for which trust must first be built.”
The tussle over a media show is just the latest episode of a deepening row between the EU’s two biggest powers.
In recent weeks, Scholz and Macron have clashed over how to tackle the energy crisis, how to overcome Europe’s impotence on defense and the best approach to dealing with China.
Last week, those tensions spilled into public when a planned Franco-German Cabinet meeting in the French town of Fontainebleau was postponed to January amid major differences on the text of a joint declaration, as well as conflicting holiday plans of some German ministers. Disagreement between the two governments was also broadly visible at last week’s EU summit in Brussels.
As Scholz and Macron meet in Paris on Wednesday for a “working lunch,” which has been hastily set up as a downgraded replacement for the scrapped Cabinet meeting, politicians and officials across Europe will be closely watching to see whether the bloc’s two heavyweights can find a way back to much-needed unity. The war in Ukraine and the inflation and energy crisis have strained European alliances, just when they are most needed.
French officials complain that Berlin isn’t sufficiently treating them as a close partner. For example, the French claim they weren’t briefed in advance of Germany’s domestic €200 billion energy price relief package — and they have made sure their counterparts in Berlin are aware of their frustration.
“In my talks with French parliamentarians, it has become clear that people in Paris want more and closer coordination with Germany,” said Chantal Kopf, a lawmaker from the Greens, one of the three parties in Germany’s ruling coalition, and a board member of the Franco-German Parliamentary Assembly.
“So far, this cooperation has always worked well in times of crisis — think, for example, of the recovery fund during the coronavirus crisis — and now the French also rightly want the responses to the current energy crisis, or how to deal with China, to be closely coordinated,” Kopf said.
Late last month, Paris felt snubbed by Berlin when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz found no time to speak to French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne | Jens Schlueter/AFP via Getty Images
A similar conclusion is being drawn by Weeser from the FDP, another coalition partner in the Berlin government. “Paris is irritated by Germany’s go-it-alone on the gas price brake and the lack of support for joint European defense technology projects,” she said. At the same time, she accused the French government of having until recently dragged its feet on a new pipeline connection between the Iberian peninsula and Northern Europe.
Unprecedented tensions
Most recently, the French government was irritated by the news that Scholz plans to visit Beijing next week to meet Xi Jinping in what would be the first visit by a foreign leader since the Chinese president got a norm-breaking third term. Germany and China also plan their own show when it comes to planned government consultations in January.
The thinking at the Elysée is that it would have been better if Macron and Scholz had visited China together — and preferably a bit later rather than straight after China’s Communist Party congress where Xi secured another mandate. According to one French official, a visit shortly after the congress would “legitimize” Xi’s third term and be “too politically costly.”
Germany and France’s uncoordinated approach to China contrasts with Xi’s last visit to Europe in 2019 when he was welcomed by Macron, who had also invited former Chancellor Angela Merkel and former European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to Paris to show European unity.
Macron has refrained from directly criticizing a controversial Hamburg port deal with Chinese company Cosco, which Scholz is pushing ahead of his Beijing trip. But the French president last week questioned the wisdom of letting China invest in “essential infrastructure” and warned that Europe had been “naive” toward Chinese purchases in the past “because we thought Europe was an open supermarket.”
Jean-Louis Thiériot, vice president of the defense committee in the French National Assembly, said Germany was increasingly focusing on defense in Eastern Europe at the expense of joint German-French projects. For example, Berlin inked a deal with 13 NATO members, many of them on the Northern and Eastern European flank, to jointly acquire an air and missile defense shield — much to the annoyance of France.
“The situation is unprecedented,” Thiériot said. “Tensions are now getting worse and quickly. In the last couple of months, Germany decided to end work on the [Franco-German] Tiger helicopter, dropped joint navy patrols … And the signature of the air defense shield is a deathblow [to the defense relationship],” he said.
Germany’s massive investment through a €100 billion military upgrade fund, as well as Scholz’s commitment to the NATO goal of putting 2 percent of GDP toward defense spending, will likely raise the annual defense budget to above €80 billion and means Berlin will be on course to outgun France’s €44 billion defense budget.
Sick note
Last week’s suspension of the joint Franco-German Cabinet meeting wasn’t by far the first clash between Berlin and Paris when it comes to high-level meetings.
Back in August, the question was whether Scholz and Macron would meet in Ludwigsburg on September 9 for the 60th anniversary of a famous speech by former French President Charles de Gaulle in the palatial southwestern German town. But despite the highly symbolic nature of that ceremony, the leaders’ meeting never happened — with officials presenting conflicting accounts of why that was the case, from appointment conflicts to alleged disagreements over who should shoulder the costs.
French President Emmanuel Macron has refrained from directly criticizing a controversial Hamburg port deal with Chinese company Cosco | Pool photo by Aurelien Morissard/AFP via Getty Images
Late last month, Paris felt snubbed by Berlin when Scholz found no time to speak to French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne: A meeting between both leaders in Berlin had been canceled because the chancellor had tested positive for coronavirus. But several French officials told POLITICO that a subsequently arranged videoconference was also canceled, allegedly because the Germans told Borne’s office that Scholz felt too sick.
Paris was even more surprised — and annoyed — when Scholz then appeared the same day via video at a press conference, in which he didn’t seem to be quite so sick, but instead confidently announced his €200 billion energy relief package. The French say they weren’t even briefed beforehand. A German spokesperson could not be reached for a comment on the incident.
Yannick Bury, a lawmaker from Germany’s center-right opposition who focuses on Franco-German relations, said Scholz must use his visit to Paris to start rebuilding ties with Macron. “It’s important that France receives a clear signal that Germany has a great interest in a close and trusting exchange,” Bury said. “Trust has been broken.”
LONDON — It took one bruising campaign defeat and six weeks of exile — but on Tuesday, Rishi Sunak will finally become U.K. prime minister.
He faces the toughest in-tray of any British leader since World War II, entering No. 10 Downing Street as the country hurtles into winter with energy bills, hospital waiting lists, borrowing costs and inflation all soaring.
The challenge has been magnified by Liz Truss’ brief crash-and-burn premiership. As a result of her now-infamous mini-budget, which was scrapped almost in its entirety after causing chaos in financial markets, the Conservatives are trailing the opposition Labour Party by over 30 percentage points in opinion polls.
On Monday, Sunak told MPs he was ready to hit the ground running as he addressed them for the first time since becoming Tory leader. Over the days and months ahead, he will need to carry out his first ministerial reshuffle without further fracturing his party; oversee the first budget since the last one wreaked havoc on the economy; and determine what support to offer voters with their energy bills past this spring.
Prime ministers tend to think of their first 100 days as a way to set the tone for their premierships. For Sunak, who has just over two years to govern before he is required to face a general election, that first impression is going to be particularly important.
October 25 — Meeting with the king and first speech outside No. 10 Downing Street
Sunak will become the prime minister Tuesday after an audience with King Charles III, where he will ask the monarch for permission to form a government.
Sunak will then address the country for the first time as prime minister from the steps outside No. 10 Downing Street at around 11.35 a.m.
To much of the British public, the former chancellor is a familiar face who announced the wildly-popular furlough scheme during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.
His task now will be to reassure people that the government will support them during another difficult economic period — only this time he is in a much tougher position. The popularity he gained during the pandemic has waned, and he is taking over after a major government crisis — the third Tory prime minister to hold office within three months.
October 25 — First reshuffle
The first big political test for Sunak will be his Cabinet reshuffle. Tory MPs believe he will learn the lesson from Truss’ first and only one, where she divvied up roles between her allies and left almost everyone who didn’t back her out in the cold.
“I think his reshuffle will be more unifying, bringing in people from all wings and will not be as destabilizing as Liz’s,” an MP who did not back Sunak predicted.
Sunak’s leadership rival Penny Mordaunt is expected to be handed a major Cabinet position | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Sunak is likely to make at least his major Cabinet appointments Tuesday afternoon, so they are in place to line up alongside him on the House of Commons’ front bench when MPs grill him during so-called prime minister’s questions (PMQs) on Wednesday.
His biggest decision will be whether to keep Jeremy Hunt — who was drafted in by Truss in a last-ditch effort to save her premiership — as chancellor. He is also likely to hand a big job to his leadership rival Penny Mordaunt.
Close Sunak allies who are likely to get promotions include Mel Stride, the current chairman of the Treasury select committee, Craig Williams, Claire Coutinho and Laura Trott. Tory big beast Michael Gove could see a return to Cabinet.
October 26 — First PMQs
Sunak will go head-to-head as prime minister with Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, for the first time on Wednesday.
Unlike his predecessor, Sunak won’t have much to worry about from his own side — Tory MPs have largely rowed behind him since he became their leader on Monday, with many expressing relief that the perpetual state of crisis of the Truss government has ended.
But MPs will want him to demonstrate that he can land blows against Starmer at a time when Labour is streets ahead in the polls. Sunak told Tory MPs on Tuesday that their party faced an “existential threat” as a result of its low poll ratings.
October 28 — Deadline to form a government in Belfast
If a power-sharing arrangement is not in place at Stormont by Friday, a fresh set of elections to the Northern Irish assembly will have to be triggered.
Calling these elections — the second set in seven months — could be one of the Sunak government’s first acts and an indication of successive Tory prime ministers’ failure to deal with the political crisis in Northern Ireland.
The Democratic Unionist Party issued a fresh warning on Monday night that it would not participate in the assembly unless Sunak takes action on the post-Brexit Northern Ireland protocol agreed with the EU.
October 31 — First budget
The next budget was penciled in for October 31 by Kwasi Kwarteng, the Truss-era chancellor who wanted to use it to reassure financial markets still reeling from his last one.
The timing of the budget — widely derided by Tory MPs because of the optics of holding it on Halloween — was intended to give the Bank of England time to react before its own key meeting on November 3, where it will set interest rate levels for the weeks ahead.
In its biggest test so far, Sunak’s government will have to decide whether to stick with that date; what actions to take to reassure the markets; and how to fill the enormous hole in the U.K. public finances.
Carl Emmerson, deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “If his chancellor is Jeremy Hunt and Sunak is comfortable with the way things are proceeding for next Monday, then going ahead has lots of advantages.
“You get the announcement out before the Bank of England makes its next inflation figure, and you get the Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecasts out there, which helps show the markets you are serious about them.
“The case for changing that date is much stronger if Sunak says, ‘Actually, I want to do something different to what Jeremy Hunt has been planning, and I need more time,’” Emmerson added.
November 3 — Bank of England rates meeting
The Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is expected to raise interest rates at its meeting on November 3, triggering a fresh hike in people’s mortgages.
This is the point when many people will realize for the first time that they will have to make much larger mortgage repayments once their current fixed-rate deals come to an end.
Sunak made combating inflation and keeping mortgages low a central theme of his leadership campaign over the summer. Reacting to the rates decision and ensuring the government works closely with the Bank of England to combat inflation will be a key test of his premiership.
November 6 — COP27 summit in Egypt
Sunak made a point of telling Tory MPs on Tuesday that he is committed to the U.K.’s goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The question now is whether he attends the COP27 climate summit in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. Truss reportedly planned to go, despite her skepticism of aspects of the net-zero agenda.
If Sunak does go to Egypt, it could be his first foreign trip in office (unless he decides to make a quick visit to Ukraine beforehand) and his first opportunity to present himself on the world stage.
November 8 — Boundary changes
The Boundary Commission for England will publish its new constituency map on November 8.
At this point, some Tory MPs will know with near certainty that their constituencies are being carved up between neighboring areas, with some forced to jostle with colleagues over who will get to stand where.
It will be a political headache for Sunak to deal with, and any MPs whose safe seats become marginal will sense their political careers coming to an end — and will have less of an incentive to support him in key votes in the months ahead.
November 13 — G20 meeting in Indonesia
The next big foreign trip coming down the track is the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia.
The meeting will be an opportunity for Western powers to present a united front against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine and against China’s increased aggression toward Taiwan, but also to hold talks behind closed doors. There have been reports that both China’s Xi Jinping and Russian Vladimir Putin will attend.
Sophia Gaston, the head of foreign policy at the Policy Exchange think tank, said this was shaping up to be “one of the most extraordinary summits of modern history, with a violent war raging in Ukraine and the leading protagonist, Vladimir Putin, on the guest list alongside other autocratic leaders and outraged democratic allies.”
“As well as promoting free trade and the rules-based international order, Sunak would likely see the G20 as an opportunity to build support for his proposed ‘NATO-style’ technology alliance,” Gaston said. “He may well also debut a new U.K. message on the net-zero transition.”
Late November or early December — Chester by-election
Labour whips are preparing to trigger a by-election in the city of Chester in late November or December.
The by-election is taking place because the city’s MP Christian Matheson resigned after a parliamentary watchdog recommended he be suspended for sexual misconduct.
Matheson sits on a 6,164-vote majority, and the seat has traditionally been a swing seat flipping between the Tories and Labour. It was Conservative up until 2010.
Based on current polling figures, Labour should win a significantly larger majority than it currently has, though by-elections do suffer from small turnouts and so unexpected results are not uncommon. A dramatic Tory defeat would set alarm bells ringing in the party.
Another by-election could be triggered in the coming months if, as expected, Boris Johnson elevates his ally and MP Nadine Dorries to the House of Lords in his resignation honors. That would likely be the first by-election in a Tory-held seat fought with Sunak as party leader.
December 31 — U.K. deadline for joining trans-Pacific trade bloc
The U.K. government has said it hopes to conclude negotiations on joining the CPTPP — a trade agreement signed by 11 countries including Australia and New Zealand — by the end of the year.
Securing this deal was one of Truss’ priorities. For Sunak it would represent both a concrete foreign policy achievement and an indication that the U.K. is successfully building closer diplomatic ties with countries in the Indo-Pacific after Brexit.
Talks around the partnership have thrown up some diplomatic obstacles, with China reacting angrily to U.K. trade officials meeting Taiwanese counterparts. Both China and Taiwan have applied to join the CPTPP.
There have been suggestions that the evidence against him is so damning that Johnson could face temporary suspension from parliament or even be kicked out as an MP. The inquiry may have formed part of Johnson’s decision not to stand for the Tory leadership contest.
If the privileges committee says Johnson should be sanctioned once it concludes its inquiry, Sunak will have to judge his response and decide whether to whip Tory MPs to back its recommendations even if that provokes Johnson’s ire. There is also the risk that Sunak himself will be dragged into the probe, given he too was fined over the Partygate scandal.
Among other things, the probe will examine the impact of the economic policies that Sunak designed as chancellor during the pandemic, putting his decisions under scrutiny.
His “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme — which encouraged people to dine in restaurants during the post-lockdown summer of 2020 — could become a focus, with critics claiming it drove up coronavirus-related infections and deaths.
February — Energy support nears its end
By the time Sunak’s first 100 days are up, there will be pressure on the government to explain how it will support people with their energy bills past the spring if wholesale gas prices haven’t drastically fallen. Hunt has already rolled back the Truss government’s two-year guarantee and instead capped people’s energy bills at an average of £2,500 for just six months. That policy ends in April.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Emmerson said: “We’ve got a big generous offer from the government through this winter — although prices are still a lot higher than they were last year, they will be nowhere near as high as they would have otherwise been.
“The prime minister and chancellor will spend a lot of time thinking about how they replace that scheme. In some ways, it’s very similar to the kind of furlough scheme that Sunak had during the pandemic — very generous, big scheme with lots of crude edges to it,” he said.
“It’s understandable wanting to get in place quickly to support people, but how do you get out of it? Do it too quickly and that’s too much pain for too many people — keep it in place for too long, and that’s very expensive to the government.”
It’s just one of so many enormous decisions the new PM faces in his first 100 days.
A kiosk in Istanbul on April 17, 2017, showing Turkish newspapers a day after Turkey’s referendum. Turkey currently ranks 149 out of 180 countries in the world press freedom index, with 90% of national media under government control, according to international non-profit organization Reporters Without Borders.
Yasin Akgul | Afp | Getty Images
Seven years ago, Sevgi Akarcesme reported on a series of police raids on Turkey’s media industry, which left a trail of newsrooms being shut down one by one — until the time for her own outlet came.
Akarcesme, then the editor-in-chief for what used to be Turkey’s number one English daily, Today’s Zaman, told CNBC on Tuesday that it was evident then that the police would start coming for her. That prompted her to leave in 2016 to take up a teaching role in the United States.
“Turkey has long been hell for journalists. It’s one of the largest prisons for journalists in the world in a way,” she said.
Turkey’s Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure — which also oversees communication services — did not immediately respond to a CNBC request for comment on the remarks in this article.
Turkey’s Parliament last week ratified a law introducing jail terms for journalists and social media users who spread “fake news,” or disinformation. The term “fake news” is often defined, more broadly, as misleading or fabricated information peddled as legitimate news.
The law, proposed by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling AK Party, comes eight months before the country’s general election.
The bill, which still needs to be approved by Erdogan, stated that anyone who spreads false information about Turkey’s security to “create fear and disturb public order” will face a prison sentence of up to three years.
“With this new law … the goal is to control social media because conventional media is already under Erdogan’s control,” said Akarcesme.
Protesters holding Turkey’s Cumhuriyet daily newspapers during a demonstration before the trial of staff from the country’s main opposition daily on Sept. 11, 2017 at the Silivri district in Istanbul. The case, which opened in Istanbul in July, involved 17 current and former writers, cartoonists and executives from Cumhuriyet (“Republic”) who were tried on “terror” charges.
Ozan Kose | Afp | Getty Images
The law includes articles such as press card issuances and a procedure on correcting online disinformation. On top of that, sentences can be increased by up to half if the disinformation is spread through anonymous accounts.
“The haste with which this law was passed may indicate that the government’s objective is to increase pressure on journalists and social media users before the elections,” Turkish Journalists’ Association’s General Secretary Mustafa Kuleli wrote in an email to CNBC.
He added that it is unclear how prosecutors will mete out punishment against perpetrators as the crime is defined in “vague and open-ended terms” and lacks clear legal definitions.
“This law does not only affect journalists, it does not only affect social media users. This law is a threat to anybody who has the ability to speak, or read and write,” Turkey representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Ozgur Ogret, told CNBC.
He added that the lack of aconcrete definition of disinformation will lead to self-censorship — even when it comes to facts.
Supporters of Turkish newspaper Bugun gather outside its headquarters in Istanbul during a protest against the Turkish government’s crackdown on media outlets on Oct. 27, 2015.
Ozan Kose | Afp | Getty Images
“The bill provides a framework for extensive censorship of online information and the criminalization of journalism, which will enable the government to further subdue and control public debate in the lead up to Turkey’s general elections in 2023,” said a coalition of 22 press freedom organizations from around the world.
The statement released by the press freedom groups mentioned that the bill’s “vaguely-formulated definition” of what constitutes disinformation will subject millions of internet users to the risk of criminal sanction.
Turkey’s Transport and Infrastructure Deputy Minister Omer Fatih Sayan tweeted last week that he “regrets to see” that “hate speech, disinformation, manipulation” are growing “like an avalanche” on social media platforms.
“We must establish a cleaner and safer internet for our citizens, this is our most important duty,” he tweeted.
The bill is seen as another step in an already deteriorating environment for free speech. Turkey’s media climate hasn’t improved in over a decade, according to Ogret.
“Turkey’s media climate today has very much less color … especially after the 2016 coup attempt,” he said.
Ever since the military’s attempted coup in 2016, 189 media outlets have shut down, according to online media tracker Turkey Purge. Revocations of press cards and arrests of members of the press were a common occurrence at the time.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan declaring a three-month state of emergency and vowing to hunt down the “terrorist” group behind the 2016 coup attempt during a news conference following the National Security Council and cabinet meetings at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, Turkey, July 20, 2016. Following the coup, a newsroom crackdown ensued and a series of trials against journalists were launched.
Adem Altan | Afp | Getty Images
Following the coup, newsroom crackdowns ensued and a series of trials against journalists were launched.
Akarcesme added that in the wake of the July 15 coup attempt, no media outlets challenged the regime’s rhetoric.
“A lot of the variety in the media landscape has been lost in the last five to 10 years,” Ogret said.
Turkey currently ranks 149 out of 180 countries in the global Press Freedom Index, with 90% of national media under government control, according to international non-profit organization Reporters Without Borders.
“There isn’t a time where Turkey did not have journalists imprisoned or outlets harassed, however … the last decade has been brutal for the Turkish media environment,” said Ogret.
UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council planned to vote Friday on a resolution that would demand an immediate end to violence and criminal activity in Haiti and impose sanctions on a powerful gang leader.
The United States and Mexico, which drafted the 10-page resolution, delayed the vote from Wednesday so they could revise the text in hopes of gaining more support from the 15 council members.
The final text, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday, eliminated a reference to an Oct. 7 appeal by Haiti’s Council of Ministers for the urgent dispatch of an international military force to tackle the country’s violence and alleviate its humanitarian crisis.
Also dropped was mention of an Oct. 8 letter from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres outlining options to help Haiti’s National Police combat high levels of gang violence.
A second resolution, which was still being worked on late Thursday, would address the issue of combating Haiti’s violence. It would authorize an international force to help improve security in the country if approved.
U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfields said Monday that the “non-U.N.” mission would be limited in time and scope and would be led by unspecified “partner country” with a mandate to use military force if necessary.
The sanctions resolution being put to a vote Friday named only a single Haitian — Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherizier, whose gang has blocked a key fuel terminal leading to severe shortages. Cherizier, a former police officer who leads an alliance of gangs known as the G9 Family and Allies, would be hit with a travel ban, asset freeze and arms embargo if the resolution passes.
The resolution, however, would also establish a Security Council committee to impose sanctions on other Haitian individuals and groups whose actions threaten the peace, security or stability of the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nation. Targeted actions would include criminal activity, violence and arms trafficking, human rights abuses and obstruction of aid deliveries.
Political instability has simmered in Haiti since last year’s still-unsolved assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, who had faced opposition protests calling for his resignation over corruption charges and claims that his five-year term had expired. Moïse dissolved Parliament in January 2020 after legislators failed to hold elections in 2019 amid political gridlock.
Daily life in Haiti began to spin out of control last month just hours after Prime Minister Ariel Henry said fuel subsidies would be eliminated, causing prices to double. Cherizier’s gang blocked the Varreux fuel terminal to demand Henry’s resignation and to protest a spike in petroleum prices.
Haiti already was gripped by inflation, causing rising prices that put food and fuel out of reach for many, and protests have brought society to the breaking point. Violence is raging, making parents afraid to send their kids to school. Hospitals, banks and grocery stores are struggling to stay open. Clean water is scarce and the country is trying to deal with a cholera outbreak.
“Cherizier and his G9 gang confederation are actively blocking the free movement of fuel from the Varreux fuel terminal — the largest in Haiti,” the draft resolution said. “His actions have directly contributed to the economic paralysis and humanitarian crisis in Haiti.”
It added that Cherizier “has engaged in acts that threaten the peace, security, and stability of Haiti and has planned, directed, or committed acts that constitute serious human rights abuses.”
While serving in the police, it said, Cherizier planned and participated in a November 2018 attack by an armed gang on the capital’s La Saline neighborhood that killed at least 71 people, destroyed over 400 houses and led to the rapes of at least seven women.
He also led armed groups “in coordinated, brutal attacks in Port-au-Prince neighborhoods throughout 2018 and 2019” and in a five-day attack in multiple neighborhoods in the capital in 2020 in which civilians were killed and houses set on fire, the resolution said.
In a video posted on Facebook last week, Cherizier called on the government to grant him and G9 members amnesty. He said in Creole that Haiti’s economic and social situation was worsening by the day, so “there is no better time than today to dismantle the system.”
He outlined a transitional plan for restoring order in Haiti. It would include creation of a “Council of Sages,” with one representative from each of Haiti’s 10 departments, to govern with an interim president until a presidential election could be held in February 2024. It also calls for restructuring Haiti’s National Police and strengthening the army.
The draft resolution expresses “grave concern about the extremely high levels of gang violence and other criminal activities, including kidnappings, trafficking in persons and the smuggling of migrants, and homicides, and sexual and gender-based violence including rape and sexual slavery, as well as ongoing impunity for perpetrators, corruption and recruitment of children by gangs and the implications of Haiti’s situation for the region.”
It demands “an immediate cessation of violence, criminal activities, and human rights abuses which undermine the peace, stability and security of Haiti and the region.” And it urges “all political actors” to engage in negotiations to overcome the crisis and allow legislative and presidential elections to be held “as soon as the local security situation permits.”
Europe is waking up to a troubling reality: It may soon lose its NATO benefactor in Ukraine.
With conservatives poised to make gains in the upcoming U.S. elections, NATO’s most generous donor to Ukraine’s war effort may suddenly seem much more parsimonious in 2023.
The possibility has put the spotlight on the gap between American and European aid.
Already, it’s been a tough sell to get all of Europe’s NATO members to dedicate 2 percent of their economic output to defense spending. Now, they are under increasing pressure from the U.S. to go even further than that. And that comes amid an already tough conversation across Europe about how to refill its own dwindling military stockpiles while simultaneously funding Ukraine’s rebuild.
Still, the mantra among U.S. Republicans — whom polls show are favored to take control of one of two chambers of Congress after the November elections — has been that Europe needs to step up.
“Our allies,” said Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “need to start addressing the problem in their own backyard before they ask us for any more involvement.”
While European governments have opened their wallets and military stockpiles to Ukraine at record levels, Washington’s military assistance to Kyiv still dwarfs Europe’s efforts. It’s a disparity Republicans are keen to highlight as they argue Russia’s war in Ukraine is a much greater threat to Europe than it is to the U.S.
The result could be a changing tenor out of Washington if Congress falls into conservative control.
“It’s horrible what the Russians are doing,” Burchett added, but said he sees China and drug cartels as “more threatening to the United States of America than what’s going on in Ukraine.”
2 percent becomes the baseline
Since Moscow launched its assault on Ukraine, European capitals have pledged over €200 billion in new defense spending.
NATO allies pledged in 2014 to aim to move towards spending 2 percent of GDP on defense within a decade, and an increasing number of governments are taking this promise seriously. But the Biden administration wants them to go even further.
The 2 percent benchmark is just “what we would expect” from allies, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said earlier this month. “We would encourage countries to go above that 2 percent because we’re gonna have to invest more in expanding industrial bases and making sure that we’re doing the right things to replace” some of what was provided to Ukraine.
“As we step up our own sizable contributions to NATO capabilities and readiness,” the document says, “we will count on our Allies to continue assuming greater responsibility by increasing their spending, capabilities, and contributions.”
It’s an aspiration that will be hard for many European policymakers, who themselves face economic woes at home. The U.K., for instance, has committed to hitting a 3 percent defense spending target but recently acknowledged the “shape” of its increase could change as recent policy changes roil the economy.
The Biden administration has taken a path of friendly encouragement toward Europe, rather than haranguing its partners.
But Republicans are not as keen to take such a convivial tone. And if they take control of Congress, Republicans will have more of a say over the U.S. pursestrings — and the tone emerging from Washington.
“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy told Punchbowl news earlier this week.
“There’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically,” he added. “Not doing the border and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check.”
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said earlier this month that the benchmark of 2 percent of GDP spent on defense is what is expected from allies | Omar Havana/Getty Images
Republicans are likely eyeing the polls, which show a slim but growing chunk of Americans saying the U.S. is providing too much support to Ukraine. The figure has risen from 7 percent in March to 20 percent in September, according to a Pew Research Center poll. And it now stands at 32 percent among Republican-leaning voters.
So while President Joe Biden continues to ask Congress to approve more Ukraine aid packages, observers say there could be more skepticism in the coming months.
“It’s becoming harder because the sense is that we’re doing it all and the Europeans aren’t,” said Max Bergmann, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
And while noting that “in some ways, that’s unfair” due to the economic cost of the war to Europe, he said that on the military side aid for Ukraine and spending on defense industrial capacity is now “the new 2 percent.”
In European capitals, policymakers are watching Washington closely.
“For Europeans, the idea that U.S. politics matters — that what happens in the midterm election will have implications for what will be expected of us from [our] U.S. ally — is something that is taken more and more seriously,” said Martin Quencez, a research fellow at the German Marshall Fund’s Paris office.
The Brussels view
But back in Brussels, some officials insist there’s little reason for worry.
“There is broad, bipartisan support for Ukraine,” said David McAllister, chair of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.
Indeed, while the more Donald Trump-friendly wing of the Republican Party is opposed to continuing aid to Ukraine, more traditional Republicans have actually supported Biden’s aid for Kyiv.
“If there was a Republican majority in congressional committees, I expect an impact on debates about which weapons to supply to Ukraine, for example,” McAllister said in an email. “Ultimately, though, the president maintains considerable control over foreign policy.”
McAllister, a member of Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, said Europe is already increasing its defensive investments and aid to Kyiv, pointing to an EU initiative to train Ukrainian soldiers and a recent bump up for an EU fund that reimburses countries for military supplies sent to Ukraine.
Polish MEP Witold Waszczykowski, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s vice chair, also said in an email that he doesn’t expect a Republican-dominated Congress to shift Ukraine policy — while urging Washington to put more pressure on Europe.
“Poland and other Eastern flank countries cannot persuade Europeans enough to support Ukraine,” said Waszczykowski, a member of the conservative ruling Law and Justice party.
The “smell of appeasement and expectations to come back to business as usual with Russia,” the Polish politician said, “dominates in European capitals and European institutions.”
Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held at the Hilton Anatole on August 06, 2022 in Dallas, Texas. CPAC began in 1974, and is a conference that brings together and hosts conservative organizations, activists, and world leaders in discussing current events and future political agendas.
Brandon Bell | Getty Images
Former President Donald Trump was deposed Wednesday for a civil lawsuit accusing him of defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of raping her, her representation confirmed.
The timing of Trump’s deposition and its location were not immediately available Wednesday.
“As we have said all along, my client was pleased to set the record straight today. This case is nothing more than a political ploy like many others in the long list of witch hunts against Donald Trump,” Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, said in a statement.
Carroll was scheduled to have been deposed for the case last Friday.
Even if that trial is put on hold, or outright canceled as the result of the pending appeal, Carroll plans to sue the 76-year-old Trump in New York state court next month under a new law that lifted the statute of limitations for claims of rape and sexual abuse.
Carroll’s lawyers could use Trump’s Wednesday deposition in that planned suit.
The deposition comes two months after Trump refused to answer questions under oath in a deposition by attorneys for New York Attorney General Letitia James in connection with a civil investigation of his company, the Trump Organization. Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 440 times in that deposition.
James last month sued Trump, his company, three of his adult children and others, alleging widespread fraud involving allegedly false financial statements related to the company’s business. James is seeking at least $250 million in damages in that case, as well as sanctions.
Carroll, 78, in a 2019 New York magazine article, accused Trump of raping her in a dressing room in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s after a chance encounter in the store.
Trump, who was president at the time the article appeared, responded that Carroll was lying and motivated by money and political considerations to concoct the account.
The case was transferred a year later to U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the Department of Justice, then under the control of the Trump-appointed Attorney General William Barr, sought to replace Trump as the defendant in the case. The department argued that because Trump was president at the time he allegedly defamed Carroll, the government had the power to step in and act as the defendant because he was a government employee.
If the DOJ was allowed to do so, it would effectively end the lawsuit. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal government has the power to deny plaintiffs the right to sue it.
Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected that bid. “The President of the United States is not an employee of the Government within the meaning of the relevant statutes,” he said in a ruling.
“Even if he were such an employee, President Trump’s allegedly defamatory statements concerning Ms. Carroll would not have been within the scope of his employment,” wrote Kaplan, who is not related to Carroll’s attorney.
The DOJ appealed Kaplan’s ruling.
In September, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Kaplan’s ruling on the question of whether Trump was acting as a government employee at the time he replied to Carroll’s article. But the appeals court also asked its sister appeals court in Washington, D.C., to rule on whether Trump made the statements about Carroll within the scope of his employment, as defined by local District of Columbia law.
The D.C. federal appeals court has not yet ruled on that question.
Kaplan, in his decision last week, said that Trump was not entitled to delay his deposition pending the outcome in the D.C. court because he had not shown a required strong likelihood of success on that question.
Kaplan also wrote that there was reason to believe that Trump was continuing to engage in delaying tactics in the litigation and that the “advanced age” of both Trump and Carroll was a reason not to further postpone action in the case.
“The defendant should not be permitted to run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong,” Kaplan wrote.
The U.K.’s Suella Braverman is resigning from her position as interior minister after just 43 days in the role, she announced Wednesday, citing a breach of rules as well as concerns over the direction of the government.
She will be succeeded by former Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, Downing Street confirmed roughly an hour after her announcement. Notably, Shapps did not back Prime Minister Liz Truss in this summer’s leadership race and has criticized some of her policies.
In a resignation letter posted to Twitter, Braverman said, “It is with the greatest regret that I am choosing to tender my resignation.”
In the letter, she said she had sent an official document — a draft written ministerial statement that had not been published — from her personal email to a parliamentary colleague in order to get support for her policy. This, she said, “constitutes a technical infringement of the rules.”
Braverman said that she had realized her mistake and reported it to official channels, but that resigning was the right thing to do.
In a letter to Braverman posted on the Downing Street website, Truss wrote: “I accept your resignation and respect the decision you have made. It is important that the Ministerial Code is upheld, and that Cabinet confidentiality is respected.”
The departure is the latest surprise turn of events for the U.K.’s Conservative Party, whose government led by Prime Minister Liz Truss has come under increasing fire for throwing markets into turbulence and drastically changing policy plans within the span of a few days.
Braverman ran against Truss for the Conservative leadership race this summer but was knocked out in an early stage. She has held past roles as attorney general, from 2020 to 2022, and in the “Brexit” department in 2018.
In her short time as home secretary, beginning with the Truss government on Sept. 6, she has made headlines for outspoken comments on reducing net migration, affirming the controversial policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, and just on Wednesday morning defending the government’s Public Order Bill.
It comes at a hugely turbulent time for the government, with Truss under intense pressure to resign just two months into her premiership after a budget on Sept. 23 sparked chaos in financial markets.
On Friday, Truss fired her finance minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, over the incident, despite having campaigned on the program of tax cuts which set off the chaos.
Kwarteng was succeeded by former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who on Monday proceeded to reverse the majority of the economic policies laid out in the government’s mini-budget announced on Sept. 23. Brought in in a bid to calm markets and project an image of stability, Hunt has provoked rumor of being more in control of government than Truss and even a potential successor.
Shapps, Braverman’s successor, was not initially given a so-called front bench role by Truss. He was also among the Conservative voices who criticized elements of her tax cut program, saying that the removal of the top rate of income tax had “jarred for people in a way which was unsustainable.”
In her letter, Braverman referred to the wider government, adding that it was “obvious to everyone that we are going through a tumultuous time” and said she had “concerns about the direction of this government.”
Braverman said she was concerned about the breaking of key pledges to voters, though did not specifically highlight the recent U-turn on fiscal policy, instead citing pledges to reduce overall migration numbers and small boat crossings to the U.K. Truss and Braverman had been reportedly clashing behind the scenes on revising U.K. migration policy as the nation faces acute worker shortages.
In what could also be read as a message to the embattled prime minister, Braverman said: “The business of government relies upon people accepting responsibility for their mistakes. 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. I have made a mistake; I accept responsibility; I resign.”
JERUSALEM — The Iranian-made drones that Russia sent slamming into central Kyiv this week have complicated Israel’s balancing act between Russia and the West.
Israel has stayed largely on the sidelines since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last February so as not to damage its strategic relationship with the Kremlin. Although Israel has sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine, it has refused Kyiv’s frequent requests to send air defense systems and other military equipment and refrained from enforcing strict economic sanctions on Russia and the many Russian-Jewish oligarchs who have second homes in Israel.
But with news of Moscow’s deepening ties with Tehran, Israel’s sworn foe, pressure is growing on Israel to back Ukraine in the grinding war. Israel has long fought a shadowy war with Iran across the Middle East by land, sea and air.
Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, a military spokesman, said the suicide drone attack in Ukraine had raised new concerns in Israel.
“We’re looking at it closely and thinking about how these can be used by the Iranians toward Israeli population centers,” he said.
The debate burst into the open on Monday, as an Israeli Cabinet minister called on the government to take Ukraine’s side. Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen have threatened Israel with the same delta-shaped, low-flying Shahed drones now exploding in Kyiv.
The Iranian government has denied providing Moscow with the drones, but American officials say it has been doing so since August.
“There is no longer any doubt where Israel should stand in this bloody conflict,” Nachman Shai, Israel’s minister of diaspora affairs, wrote on Twitter. “The time has come for Ukraine to receive military aid as well, just as the USA and NATO countries provide.”
His comments set off a storm in Russia. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Telegram that providing military aid to Ukraine would be “a very reckless move” by Israel.
“It will destroy all interstate relations between our countries,” he wrote.
But Shai doubled down on Tuesday, while stressing his view did not reflect the government’s official stance.
“We in Israel have a lot of experience in protecting our civilian population over 30 years. We’ve been attacked by missiles from Iraq and rockets from Lebanon and Gaza,” Shai, a former military spokesman, told The Associated Press. “I’m speaking about defense equipment to protect Ukraine’s civilian population.”
The Israeli prime minister’s office and Defense Ministry both declined to comment.
For years, Russia and Israel have enjoyed good working relations and closely coordinated to avoid run-ins in the skies over Syria, Israel’s northeastern neighbor, where Russian air power has propped up embattled President Bashar Assad. Russia has let Israeli jets bomb Iran-linked targets said to be weapons caches destined for Israel’s enemies.
Israel has also been keen to stay neutral in the war over concern for the safety of the large Jewish community in Russia. Israel frets about renewed antisemitic attacks in the country, with its long history of anti-Jewish pogroms under Russian czars and purges in the Soviet era. Over 1 million of Israel’s 9.2 million citizens have roots in the former Soviet Union.
Israel’s former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett maintained strict neutrality after the invasion, refraining from condemning Russia’s actions and even trying to position himself as a mediator in the conflict. As the U.S. and European Union piled sanctions on Russia, Bennett became the only Western leader to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
But in recent months, Israel’s cautious stance has grown more fraught.
Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who took over as caretaker leader over the summer, has been more vocal than his predecessor. As foreign minister, he described reports of atrocities in Bucha, Ukraine as possible war crimes. After Russia bombarded Kyiv last week, he “strongly” condemned the attacks and sent “heartfelt condolences to the victims’ families and the Ukrainian people,” sparking backlash from Moscow.
Tensions rose further when a Russian court in July ordered that the Jewish Agency, a major nonprofit that promotes Jewish immigration to Israel, close its offices in the country. Israel was rattled. A hearing to decide the future of the agency’s operations in Russia is set for Wednesday. “Anything could happen,” said Yigal Palmor, the agency’s spokesman.
Now, Israeli alarm about the Iranian drones buzzing over Kyiv has heightened the debate.
“I think Israel can help even more,” said Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israeli military intelligence. He described Israel’s “knowledge on how to handle aerial attacks,” its “intelligence about Iranian weapons” and “ability to jam them” as potentially crucial to Ukraine.
Iran is battle testing weapons that could be used against Israel’s northern and southern borders, argued Geoffrey Corn, an expert on the law of war at South Texas College of Law in Houston.
Iran backs Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group and Hamas in the Gaza Strip — both of which have fought lengthy wars against Israel.
If the drones prove effective in Ukraine, Iran will “double down on their development,” Corn said. If they are shot down, Iran will have an “opportunity to figure out how to bypass those countermeasures.”
Israel’s air defense system, the Iron Dome, has boasted a 90% interception rate against incoming rocket fire from Gaza. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has hit out at Israel for not providing Kyiv with the anti-rocket system.
Former Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, a onetime Soviet dissident, criticized his country’s reluctance to help Ukraine in an interview with the Haaretz daily on Tuesday, deriding Israel as “the last country in the free world which is still afraid to irritate Putin.”
Still, some insist that Israel must not enter the fray precisely because it differs from its Western allies.
“We are not Germany or France,” said Uzi Rubin, a former head of Israel’s missile defense program. “We are a country at war.”
———
Associated Press writers Eleanor Reich and Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
Russian citizens drafted during the partial mobilization begin their military trainings after a military call-up for the Russia-Ukraine war in Rostov, Russia on October 04, 2022.
Anadolu Agency | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
Gunmen shot dead 11 people at a Russian military training ground, the defense ministry said, in the latest blow to President Vladimir Putin’s forces since the invasion of Ukraine.
RIA news agency cited the ministry as saying 15 others were wounded in the shooting on Saturday, in Russia’s southwestern Belgorod region that borders Ukraine, when two men gunned down a group who had volunteered to take part in the war.
It said the two assailants – nationals from an unspecified former Soviet republic – had been shot dead. Some Russian independent media outlets reported that the number of casualties was higher than the official figures.
“A terrible event happened on our territory, on the territory of one of the military units,” the governor of Belgorod region Vyacheslav Gladkov said early on Sunday.
“Many soldiers were killed and wounded … There are no residents of the Belgorod region among the wounded and killed,’ Gladkov said in a video post on the Telegram messaging app.
The attack took place a week after a blast damaged a bridge in Crimea, the peninsula annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014. Earlier in the war, Russia’s flagship in the Black Sea blew up and sank.
“During a firearms training session with individuals who voluntarily expressed a desire to participate in the special military operation (against Ukraine), the terrorists opened fire with small arms on the personnel of the unit,” RIA cited a defense ministry statement as saying.
Just a day earlier, Putin said Russia should be finished calling up reservists in two weeks, promising an end to a divisive mobilization that has seen hundreds of thousands of men summoned to fight in Ukraine and huge numbers flee the country.
Oleksiy Arestovych, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said in a YouTube interview that the attackers were from the Central Asian nation of Tajikistan and had opened fire on the others after an argument over religion.
Tajikistan is a predominantly Muslim nation, while around half of Russians follow various branches of Christianity. The Russian ministry had said the attackers were from a nation in the Commonwealth of Independent States, which groups nine ex-Soviet republics, including Tajikistan.
Reuters was not immediately able to confirm the comments by Arestovych, a prominent commentator on the war, or independently verify casualty numbers and other details of the incident.
Elsewhere, Zelenskiy said that Ukrainian troops were still holding the strategic eastern town of Bakhmut despite repeated Russian attacks while the situation in the larger Donbas region remained very difficult.
Russian forces have repeatedly tried to seize Bakhmut, which sits on a main road leading to the cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. Both are situated in the Donetsk region.
In the 24 hours to Sunday morning, Russian forces targeted more than 30 towns and villages across Ukraine, launching five missile and 23 air strikes and up to 60 rocket attacks, the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces said on Sunday.
In response, Ukraine’s air forces carried out 32 strikes, hitting 24 Russian targets.
Fighting is particularly intense in the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, and the strategically important Kherson province in the south, three of the four provinces Putin proclaimed as part of Russia last month.
Shelling by Ukrainian forces damaged the administration building in the city Donetsk, capital of the Donetsk region, its Russian-backed administration said on Sunday.
Kirill Stremousov, a Russian-installed official in the Kherson region, said on the Telegram messaging app on Sunday that Russian forces had quashed an offensive by Ukrainian troops in the area and that the situation there was “under control”.
Ukraine’s Southern Command said its forces’ positions had come under repeated attack on Saturday and a small “shooting battle” had taken place near the village of Tryfonivka in the Kherson region.
Russian forces also fired nearly 20 Russian-made Grad rockets on the right bank of the Dnipro River in the Kherson region, it said.
Russia’s defense ministry said on Saturday its forces had killed more than 50 Ukrainian soldiers and destroyed five tanks near the Kakhovka Reservoir on the Dnipro River.
Reuters was not able to independently verify the battlefield reports.
Although Ukrainian troops have recaptured thousands of square miles of land in recent offensives in the east and south, officials say progress is likely to slow once Kyiv’s forces meet more determined resistance.
Ukrainian forces and civilians are relying on Starlink internet service provided by Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket company. Musk said on Friday he could no longer afford to fund the service but on Saturday said he would continue to do so.
Zelenskiy said almost 65,000 Russians had been killed so far since the Feb. 24 invasion, a figure far higher than Moscow’s official Sept. 21 estimate of 5,937 dead. In August the Pentagon said Russia has suffered between 70,000 and 80,000 casualties, either killed or wounded.
Zelenskiy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak said on Telegram on Sunday that Ukraine would prevail in the war because of the continued military aid it is receiving from the West and the cumulative impact of Western sanctions on Russia’s economy.
“Ukraine’s offensive is strategic and the defeat of Russia is inevitable,” Yermak said.
China’s President Xi Jinping kicks off the ruling party’s 20th National Congress — held once every five years — with an opening speech at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Oct. 16, 2022. The week-long event is expected to pave the way for him to stay on for an unprecedented third five-year term.
Noel Celis | AFP | Getty Images
BEIJING — Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed Sunday the country’s recent shift away from rapid growth and greater focus on national self-sufficiency, especially in technology.
Xi was speaking at the opening ceremony of the ruling Communist Party of China’s 20th National Congress, held once every five years. His same speech in 2017 had begun with much discussion of China’s economic growth.
In contrast, Xi on Sunday began his remarks with greater emphasis on China’s “national rejuvenation” and opposition to Taiwan independence.
Xi briefly mentioned in that opening section how the country’s Covid policy has achieved “positive results” in coordination with economic development. He did not state whether the policy would end or continue.
China’s Covid controls helped the country quickly return to growth in 2020. But the controversial “zero-Covid” policy has become increasingly stringent this year, prompting investment banks to repeatedly slash growth estimates for China.
Looking ahead, Xi emphasized the country needed a solid technological foundation in order to achieve its modernization goals. Some areas he mentioned included boosting the quality of China’s manufactured products, the country’s capabilities in space transportation and digital development.
“Without solid material and technological foundations we cannot hope to build a great modern socialist country,” Xi said in Chinese, according to an official English translation.
Since the party’s 19th National Congress, the U.S. has increased its pressure on China. The Biden administration has called China a strategic competitor and this month announced new export controls on semiconductors — in an effort to maintain a U.S. edge in tech over China.
Xi did not mention specific countries in his nearly two-hour-long speech.
However, he dedicated one section to stating how the country would emphasize education for developing its own talent in science, and accelerate the launch of national projects with “strategic” and “long-term importance.” He did not provide further details.
He also did not leave out growth plans altogether. Xi said the country would aim to boost productivity, make its supply chains more resilient and expand overall economic output.
The speech in general laid out a framework for Xi’s near-term plan for China, which he said is to “basically realize socialist modernization” between the years 2020 and 2035.
He cast prior success — in building the world’s second-largest economy and becoming a “major destination for global investment” — as achievements already in the books.
The Chinese Communist Party has already announced 100-year development goals — to “build a moderately prosperous society in all respects” by 2021 and “build a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious” by 2049.
Xi’s list of “essential requirements” for Chinese modernization began with upholding the leadership of the Communist Party of China, followed by “high-quality development.”
The list included achieving common prosperity — moderate wealth for all rather than just a few — and “harmony between humanity and nature.”
On Sunday, Xi spoke of promoting a “healthy” online environment. He said the country would encourage getting rich through hard work and expand its middle class. He indicated China would standardize an unspecified mechanism for wealth accumulation.
He did not specifically address China’s ongoing troubles in real estate, but repeated prior statements about speeding up measures to encourage both house purchases and rentals.
Xi warned of “dangerous storms” on the journey ahead, and called for commitment to the party’s leadership, “reform and opening up” and other principles.
With Russia expected to soon carry out large-scale drills of its nuclear forces as President Vladimir Putin threatens to use them, the United States and its allies will be challenged to ensure they can spot the difference between exercises and the real thing.
Russia typically holds major annual nuclear exercises around this time of year, and U.S. and Western officials expect them perhaps in just days. They will likely include the test launch of ballistic missiles, U.S. officials say.
But with Putin having openly threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia in its unraveling invasion of Ukraine, some Western officials are worried Moscow could deliberately try to muddy the waters about its intentions.
“This is why you don’t want to have extraordinarily overheated rhetoric at the same time you’re going to do a nuclear exercise,” a Western official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“Because then we do have an additional challenge to really be sure that the actions that we see, the things that are occurring, are actually an exercise and not something else.”
Still, the official expressed “high confidence” in the West’s ability to make this distinction.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg assured a news conference in Brussels that the alliance would monitor Russia’s annual nuclear drills very closely, as it has for decades.
At the White House, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said Russia’s so-called “Grom” drills would involve large scale maneuvers of its strategic nuclear forces, including live missile launches. He described them as “routine.”
“While Russia probably believes this exercise will help it project power, particularly in light of recent events, we know that Russian nuclear units train extensively at this time of year,” Kirby said, adding the United States would “monitor that accordingly.”
A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Russian drills were expected to be carried out about the same time as NATO’s own annual nuclear preparedness exercise, which is dubbed “Steadfast Noon” and will begin next week.
“We believe that Russian nuclear rhetoric and its decision to proceed with this exercise while at war with Ukraine is irresponsible,” the official told Reuters.
“Brandishing nuclear weapons to coerce the United States and its allies is irresponsible.”
The Russian Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.
Officials have so far said Putin has not yet taken steps to suggest he’s preparing to launch a nuclear strike, but Moscow’s nuclear rhetoric has intensified following a successful counter-offensive by Ukraine’s military over the past month.
In recent weeks Putin has proclaimed the annexation of Ukrainian territories and threatened to defend Russian land with nuclear weapons. A senior NATO official said on Wednesday any use of nuclear weapons by Russia might trigger a “physical response” from the alliance.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Thursday after a meeting of NATO’s nuclear planning group in Brussels that he had not seen any “indications and warnings” that would cause a change to the U.S. nuclear posture.
Russia last exercised its nuclear forces in February, shortly before its invasion of Ukraine, in a move officials at the time believed was meant to discourage the West from supporting Kyiv.
The Western official expected drills meant to test “the Kremlin’s ability to provide control over the forces and to issue direction, and of the forces themselves to respond to that direction.”
The official anticipated that Russia would publicize aspects of the drills, and use them to drive home Moscow’s threats.
“We should expect that there will be nuclear rhetoric during the exercise, so that they can take advantage, strategic communications advantage, of the exercise itself,” the Western official said.
NATO’s own annual nuclear exercise was planned before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. officials said, adding it has been held regularly at around the same time of the year for over a decade. The bulk of the drills will take place more than 1,000 kilometers (625 miles) from Russia, the U.S. defense official said.
Fourteen NATO nations are expected to be involved in the alliance’s drills, which include fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads — but does not involve live bombs, the U.S. officials said, adding U.S. military B-52 bombers will participate.
“While we will continue routine activities to sustain our (nuclear) deterrent, there will be no special messaging around our exercises,” the U.S. defense official said.
“We think nuclear saber rattling is reckless and irresponsible. Russia may choose to play that game – but we won’t.”
Kwarteng told reporters Thursday that he was returning from the U.S. ahead of schedule, without providing further details. Reuters reported, citing unnamed sources, that the finance minister planned to meet with colleagues to work on the government’s medium-term budget plan.
Earlier, Kwarteng insisted that he is “not going anywhere” and that he and Truss would “100%” still be in their jobs next month.
Kwarteng’s abrupt departure from a series of international finance meetings in Washington, D.C. comes amid a growing political backlash against the Conservative government’s proposed tax cuts.
Sky News reported Thursday that discussions were underway in Downing Street over whether to reconsider some of the tax cuts that Kwarteng announced in the government’s so-called “mini-budget.” It is thought changes to corporation tax and dividend tax could be in the cards.
The British pound rose by 2% to trade at $1.1319 on Thursday, shrugging off stronger-than-expected U.S. inflation data. Sterling was last seen trading down 0.3% at $1.129.
Meanwhile, long-dated U.K. government bonds — known as gilts — rallied on Friday morning, with 30-year yields trading at 4.38%.
Truss is under immense pressure to rethink her economic policies as opinion polls show support for her government has collapsed.
Jacob King | Pa Images | Getty Images
Truss and Kwarteng have repeatedly defended the government’s radical spending plan, insisting the proposals are necessary to stimulate economic growth.
Last week, Kwarteng reversed a plan to scrap the top 45% rate of income tax paid on earnings above £150,000 ($167,646) a year.
Speaking from the U.S. on Thursday, Kwarteng responded to questions about a possible U-turn by saying he is “totally focused on delivering the growth plan.”
Asked by Sky News Friday morning if reversals on some aspects of the government’s mini-budget were possible, U.K. International Trade Minister Greg Hands replied: “Let’s wait and see. You won’t have long to wait for the 31st of October for the chancellor to lay out those plans.”
Hands said both Truss and Kwarteng were “absolutely resolute” on their plans to grow the economy.
“The growth plan [is] the centerpiece, but we’ll have to see some of the detail including a full forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility on the 31st of October.”
Downing Street and the Bank of England have taken steps to try to reassure financial markets throughout the week, albeit with limited success.
Kwarteng on Monday sought to assuage lingering concerns by bringing forward the date of his plan to balance the government’s finances to Oct. 31. The decision was welcomed by the International Monetary Fund. Kwarteng had initially said the government would not offer more details on its fiscal plan until Nov. 23.
The Bank of England on Tuesday announced an extension of its emergency bond-buying operation as the pound fell and borrowing costs soared. It warned that “the prospect of self-reinforcing ‘fire sale’ dynamics pose a material risk to UK financial stability.”
The Bank of England on Tuesday warned that “the prospect of self-reinforcing ‘fire sale’ dynamics pose a material risk to UK financial stability.”
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The intervention marked the second expansion of the Bank’s rescue package in as many days after it increased the limit for its daily gilt purchases on Monday ahead of the planned end of the purchase scheme on Friday.
By the middle of the week, Truss told lawmakers in the House of Commons that she would not be making cuts to public spending to help pay for the government’s tax cuts.
US President Joe Biden being welcomed by Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at Alsalam Royal Palace in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on July 15, 2022.
Anadolu Agency | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The Biden administration asked Saudi Arabia, the de-facto leader of oil producer group OPEC, to delay its decision on oil output by a month, the kingdom said in a statement.
The Saudis declined, and in early October OPEC+ — which includes non-OPEC oil exporters like Russia — announced its largest supply cut since 2020, to the tune of 2 million barrels per day starting from November. That means tighter supplies and higher prices at a time of already high inflation and worries of a global recession, which angered U.S. lawmakers who are now calling for a “reevaluation” of relations with the Saudi kingdom.
Notably, the White House’s request would have delayed the decision until after the U.S. midterm elections.
In a statement dated Wednesday, the Saudi government defended its move and said all OPEC decisions are based on economic forecasts and needs.
“The Government of the Kingdom clarified through its continuous consultation with the US Administration that all economic analyses indicate that postponing the OPEC+ decision for a month, according to what has been suggested, would have had negative economic consequences,” the statement read.
Responding to the Saudi claims, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby reframed the exchange and accused the kingdom of aiding Russia’s revenues and hampering the impact of Western sanctions on Moscow for its war in Ukraine.
“In recent weeks, the Saudis conveyed to us – privately and publicly – their intention to reduce oil production, which they knew would increase Russian revenues and blunt the effectiveness of sanctions. That is the wrong direction,” Kirby said. “We presented Saudi Arabia with analysis to show that there was no market basis to cut production targets, and that they could easily wait for the next OPEC meeting to see how things developed.”
Kirby said, without giving examples, that other OPEC members opposed Saudi Arabia’s move, and reiterated the Biden administration’s vow to reexamine its relationship with Riyadh.
“Other OPEC nations communicated to us privately that they also disagreed with the Saudi decision, but felt coerced to support Saudi’s direction,” he said. “As the President has said, we are reevaluating our relationship with Saudi Arabia in light of these actions, and will continue to look for signs about where they stand in combatting Russian aggression.”
On Tuesday, President Joe Biden said that there would be “consequences” for Saudi Arabia’s oil production cut, which the kingdom is carrying out in coordination with other OPEC members and non-OPEC allies like Russia. Many in Washington saw this as a snub and a blatant display of siding with Moscow.
U.S. lawmakers have urged the cutting of military sales to Saudi Arabia, America’s top weapons buyer, and are encouraging the passing of anti-trust legislation that would go after OPEC.
Riyadh rejected the accusations of making any politically-motivated moves.
“The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would first like to express its total rejection of these statements that are not based on facts, and which are based on portraying the OPEC+ decision out of its purely economic context. This decision was taken unanimously by all member states of the OPEC+ group,” the Saudi government statement said.
“The Kingdom affirms that the outcomes of the OPEC+ meetings are adopted through consensus among member states, and that they are not based on the unilateral decision by a single country. These outcomes are based purely on economic considerations that take into account maintaining balance of supply and demand in the oil markets.”
The developments spotlight the growing tensions in the nearly 80-year-old U.S.-Saudi relationship, as both parties suggest the other is failing to uphold their end of the bargain in a friendship broadly based on the principle of energy for security.
They also highlight how little control Washington has on Saudi and OPEC energy policy.
“The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has soured after OPEC+ opted to cut oil quotas – Saudi Arabia is clearly leaning away from the US orbit,” James Swanston, Middle East and North Africa economist at London-based consultancy Capital Economics, said in a client note Thursday.
Still, the Saudi government stressed the continued importance of its relationship with the U.S.
“The Kingdom affirms that it [views] its relationship with the United States of America as a strategic one that serves the common interests of both countries,” it said in its statement.
“The Kingdom also stresses the importance of building on the solid pillars upon which the Saudi-US relationship had stood over the past eight decades. These pillars include mutual respect, enhancing common interests, actively contributing to preserve regional and international peace and security, countering terrorism and extremism, and achieving prosperity for the peoples of the region.”
People gather in protest against the death of Mahsa Amini along the streets on September 19, 2022 in Tehran, Iran. Anti-government uprisings are to remain a sticking point and increase in frequency in Iran’s political landscape as dissatisfaction with other factors like the country’s economic conditions surface, according to analysts.
Getty Images | Getty Images News | Getty Images
More than 180 people have reportedly been killed in Iran’s crackdown since protests ripped through the country following the death of a Kurdish Iranian woman — analysts say such protests are expected to intensify.
Protests have spread to more than 50 cities in the one month since the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who was arrested for allegedly breaking Iran’s strict hijab rules. She died while in the custody of morality police.
“Expect anti-government protests to remain a feature of [Iran’s] political landscape and to increase in frequency, scale and violence as economic conditions worsen and social restrictions are tightened,” said Pat Thaker, Economist Intelligence Unit’s editorial director of Middle East and Africa.
These protests will be met with force, and increase the Islamic Republic’s dependence on Iran’s elite armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, she told CNBC.
Since early on in the protests, the chants of “women, life, freedom” has echoed through the streets.
Videos showing women burning their headscarves, cutting their hair and crowds chanting “death to the dictator” amid burning cars have flooded social media, despite the Iranian government’s intermittent shutdown of the country’s internet.
“It’s triggered by a violent act against a woman, so it started as a movement to revive women rights, and freedom,” an Iranian currently based in Toronto, who wanted to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the situation, told CNBC.
While the current protests stand apart from previous ones due to their focus on freedom, women’s rights and demanding the end of the Islamic Republic regime, Iran has a history of protests sparked by socioeconomic and political issues, such as the 2019 protests over fuel prices, and in 2017 when people took to the street over rising inflation and economic hardship.
“In more recent years, we’ve seen protests over economic grievances. Those have been driven primarily by the working class and lower middle class,” said Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution.
Young Iranians are frustrated by decades of economic mismanagement alongside the impact of international sanctions and they hold the Iranian leadership accountable…
Sanam Vakil
Royal Institute of International Affairs
She said the past periods of unrest have built up into the fierce fervor seen in current protests and could “culminate in something that is going to provide a very persistent and difficult challenge for the Islamic Republic to withstand.”
The decreasing likelihood of a successful Iran nuclear deal could also mean that various economic sanctions will continue to weigh on the country’s economy.
“There is no question that underlying the current tensions are issues that go beyond the forced hijab [situation],” said Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, professor of economics at Virginia Tech.
Iranians take part in a pro-government rally in Tajrish square north of Tehran, on October 5, 2022, condemning recent anti-government protests over the death of Mahsa Amini. Anti-government uprisings are to remain a sticking point and increase in frequency in Iran’s political landscape as dissatisfaction with other factors like the country’s economic conditions surface, according to analysts.
AFP | Afp | Getty Images
“Young Iranians are frustrated by decades of economic mismanagement alongside the impact of international sanctions and they hold the Iranian leadership accountable for both issues,” said Sanam Vakil, deputy director and senior research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
“There is no economic justice or prospect of hope for the future, and this is driving widespread anger that is violently spilling over on the streets,” Vakil said.
What makes these economic conditions more difficult to bear for young people is that they are “better educated” than their older counterparts who are the ones who make the rules and run the country, according to Salehi-Isfahani.
This is very much a turning point for the Islamic Republic. The social movement we see underway today has the capacity to grow and continue.
Maloney
economics professor, Virginia Technology
“[The] average years of schooling for people under 40 is 11 years, compared to 6 for older Iranians. But education has not helped youth get a more favorable treatment in the labor market,” he said in an email.
The social movement that’s underway has the capacity to develop and persist even in the face of repression attempts, but it’s not likely to escalate into a civil war, Maloney said.
“This is very much a turning point for the Islamic Republic. The social movement we see underway today has the capacity to grow and continue,” she said.
A group of students burned some veils as a form of protest. Protest in front of the embassy of Iran organized by Iranian students living in Rome to protest against violence of Iranian regime and against death of Mahsa Amini. What makes these economic conditions more “difficult to bear” for the young is that they are “better educated” than their older counterparts who are the ones who make the rules and run the country, according to a professor at Virginia Tech.
Despite Iranians exhibiting more willingness to be more confrontational with security forces than before, Maloney expressed hesitancy at the prospect of regime change.
“This is a theocracy, it has a monopoly over the levers of power. And it has survived significant unrest throughout the course of the past 43 years,” Maloney said, citing the invasion by late Iraq president Saddam Hussein in 1980, and the latest Covid-19 challenges.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised tests of long-range cruise missiles, which he described as a successful demonstration of his military’s expanding nuclear strike capabilities and readiness for “actual war,” state media said Thursday.
Wednesday’s tests extended a record number of weapons demonstrations this year by North Korea, which has punctuated its testing activity with threats to preemptively use nuclear weapons against South Korea and the United States if it perceives its leadership as under threat.
Analysts say Kim is exploiting the distraction created by Russia’s war on Ukraine, using it as a window to accelerate arms development as he pursues a full-fledged nuclear arsenal that could viably threaten regional U.S. allies and the American homeland.
South Korean officials say Kim may also conduct a nuclear test in the coming weeks or months, escalating a pressure campaign aimed at forcing the United States to accept the idea of North Korea as a nuclear power that can negotiate economic and security concessions from a position of strength.
North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency said the two missiles during Wednesday’s tests flew for nearly three hours, drawing oval and figure eight-shaped patterns above its western seas, and showed that they can hit targets 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) away. The tests demonstrated the accuracy and war-fighting efficiency of the weapon system that has already been deployed at army units operating “tactical” battlefield nuclear weapons, the agency said.
Kim after the tests praised the readiness of his nuclear combat forces, which he said were fully prepared for “actual war to bring enemies under their control at a blow” with various weapons systems that are “mobile, precise and powerful,” according to the report.
He said that the tests send “another clear warning to enemies” and vowed to further expand the operational realm of his nuclear armed forces to “resolutely deter any crucial military crisis and war crisis at any time and completely take the initiative in it.”
The missiles’ flight details and characteristics described in state media resembled what North Korea reported in January following the previous demonstration of its long-range cruise missile system, which was first revealed in September last year.
State media photos of Wednesday’s test showed a missile leaving an orange tail of flame as it shot out of a launch vehicle. Kim is seen smiling and clapping from a viewing station established inside an arched structure that appears to be a highway tunnel. Experts say the North may intend to use such structures to conceal its weapons before launch.
South Korea’s military didn’t immediately comment on the latest tests.
The tests were the first known weapons demonstrations by North Korea after it launched 12 ballistic missiles in a span of two weeks through Oct. 9 in what it described as simulated nuclear attacks on South Korean and U.S. targets. Those weapons included a new intermediate range ballistic missile that flew over Japan while demonstrating potential range to reach Guam, a major U.S. military hub in the Pacific, and a short-range missile fired from an unspecified platform inside an inland reservoir.
North Korea said those drills were meant as a warning to Seoul and Washington for staging “dangerous” joint naval exercises involving the nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan in recent weeks, which were intended as the allies’ show of strength in the face of growing North Korean threats.
Concerns about Kim’s expanding nuclear arsenal has grown since his rubber-stamp parliament last month passed a new law that authorized preemptive use of nuclear weapons over a broad range of scenarios, including non-war situations, where it may perceive its leadership as under threat. South Korea’s military has since warned North Korea that it would “self-destruct” if it uses its bombs by triggering an “overwhelming” response from the allies.
While Kim’s intercontinental ballistic missiles targeting the American homeland have gathered much international attention, he has also been expanding his arsenal of shorter-range weapons aimed at overwhelming missile defenses in South Korea. The North describes some of those weapons as “tactical,” which experts say communicate a threat to arm them with small battlefield nukes and proactively use them during conflicts to blunt the stronger conventional forces of South Korea and the United States, which stations about 28,500 troops in the South.
North Korea has fired more than 40 ballistic and cruise missiles over more than 20 launch events this year, exploiting a divide in the U.N. Security Council deepened over Russia’s war on Ukraine. The council’s permanent members Moscow and Beijing have rejected U.S.-led proposals to impose tighter sanctions on Pyongyang over its intensified testing activity. Experts say the North’s next nuclear test, which would be its seventh overall since 2006, is likely to be the first that the Security Council fails to meet with new sanctions.
Nuclear negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang have stalled since early 2019 over disagreements in exchanging the release of crippling U.S.-led sanctions against the North and the North’s denuclearization steps.
An image showing Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting to discuss the Ukrainian peace process at the German federal Chancellery on October 19, 2016 in Berlin, Germany.
Adam Berry | Getty Images News | Getty Images
U.S. President Joe Biden said he doesn’t think Russian President Vladimir Putin will use nuclear weapons despite repeated threats to do so — even as the Russian leader continues to press on in the war in Ukraine.
“Well, I don’t think he will,” Biden said in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper that was aired Tuesday. “But I think that it’s irresponsible for him to talk about it.”
Putin has indirectly threatened to use nuclear weapons. In a televised speech in September, he announced a partial military mobilization and said he would “certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people.” He added that he was not bluffing.
The White House has repeatedly said it takes Russia’s threats of nuclear war seriously but does not see indications of a present threat. Biden on Thursday warned of the “prospect of Armageddon” if Russia were to use nuclear weapons.
“The whole point I was making was, it could leader to just a horrible outcome,” Biden said Tuesday referencing his previous comments. “And not because anybody intends to turn it into a world war or anything, but… once you use a nuclear weapon, the mistakes that can be made, the miscalculations. Who knows what would happen?”
Biden said he believed Putin is a “rational actor who’s miscalculated significantly.”
He clarified that he believes Putin is rational but his objectives are not, and added that he believes the Russian leader has committed war crimes in Ukraine.
“He’s acted brutally. I think he’s committed war crimes.”
CNBC Politics
Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:
On Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Biden said: “I think he thought … he was going to be welcomed with open arms. That this was, this has been, the home of Mother Russia and Kyiv and, therefore, he was going to welcomed.”
“I think he just totally miscalculated it.”
Leaders of the Group of 7 met virtually Tuesday morning with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and agreed they would continue to back the besieged country against Russian aggression for “as long as it takes.”
In a statement released after the meeting G-7 leaders said Russia will face “severe consequences” if it uses chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Biden told CNN he has no intention of meeting with Putin at the upcoming G-20 summit but would be open to talking if Putin approached him there about releasing imprisoned American Brittney Griner.
Any meeting with Putin regarding Ukraine, as the G-7 agreed to earlier Tuesday, would not happen without Ukrainian officials present, he added.
KYIV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s State Emergency Service says that 12 S-300 missiles have slammed into public facilities in Zaporizhzhia, setting off a large fire in the area.
It says that one person was killed in the attack early Tuesday.
The S-300 was originally designed as a long-range surface-to-air missile. Russia has increasingly resorted to using repurposed versions of the weapon to strike targets on the ground.
———
KEY DEVELOPMENTS:
Missiles hit Ukrainian city, alarms elsewhere keep up fear
Kremlin war hawks demand more devastating strikes on Ukraine
Worried UN meets on Ukraine hours after Russian strikes
Hong Kong nixes US sanctions on Russian-owned superyacht
Follow all AP stories on the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine
———
PRAGUE — The presidents of NATO members in central and eastern Europe are condemning Monday’s Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities and saying that they “constitute war crimes under international law.”
The presidents of the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Montenegro said in a statement that war crimes and crimes against humanity aren’t subject to any statute of limitations and are covered by the “jurisdiction of courts all over the world.”
They demanded that Russia immediately stop attacking civilian targets and said that “We will not cease our efforts to bring to court persons responsible of yesterday’s crimes.” The presidents said that “any threats by Russian representatives to use nuclear weapons” are unacceptable.
———
KYIV, Ukraine — Air raid warnings throughout Ukraine have sent some residents back into shelters after months of relative calm in the capital and many other cities. That lull had led many Ukrainians to ignore the regular sirens, but Monday’s attacks gave them new urgency.
Besides the usual sirens, Kyiv residents were jolted early Tuesday by a new type of loud alarm that blared automatically from mobile phones. The caustic-sounding alert was accompanied by a text warning of the possibility of missile strikes.
The Ukrainian Air Force said Russian Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers operating over the Caspian Sea launched missiles over Ukrainian territory around 7 a.m. Tuesday. It did not provide information about the targets.
It said four inbound missiles were shot down by the Ukrainian southern air command around 9 a.m.
The governor of the Vinnytsia region, Serhiy Borzov, said there was an air strike there in the morning. There was no word on casualties.
———
BERLIN — German Chancellor Olaf Scholz says he plans to discuss how to bring down soaring fossil fuel prices with his counterparts in the Group of Seven industrial powers.
Scholz told a conference of Germany’s machinery industry Tuesday that “the very first task must be to ensure that the prices for fossil resources, for gas, for oil and coal come back down.” But he noted that can’t be done unilaterally.
Scholz said he plans to bring up “mutual responsibility,” particularly on gas prices, in all his international talks — including at a videoconference of G-7 leaders planned later Tuesday.
He said that “we need a negotiated process in which prices sink to a sensible level again.” Scholz said that it was the same idea that led to the foundation of the G-7 in the 1970s.
———
MOSCOW — The speaker of the lower house of Russian parliament has likened the Ukrainian president to former al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin asserted Tuesday that “the Kyiv regime has become a terrorist one,” pointing to the weekend attack on a bridge linking Russia with Crimea, which it annexed from Ukraine 2014, other attacks and the killings of public figures in Ukraine and Russia.
He said that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has “put himself on par with Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists.”
Volodin argued that “Western politicians supporting Zelenskyy’s regime are effectively sponsoring terrorism.” He added that there is “a rule known worldwide: there can be no talks with terrorists.”
———
MOSCOW — A senior Russian diplomat has issued a new warning to the U.S. and its allies that their support for Ukraine could draw them into an open conflict with Russia.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Western military assistance to Kyiv, the training of Ukrainian personnel in NATO countries, and the provision of real-time satellite data allowing the Ukrainian military to designate targets for artillery strikes have “increasingly drawn Western nations into the conflict on the part of the Kyiv regime.”
He warned in remarks carried by the state RIA-Novosti news agency that “Russia will be forced to take relevant countermeasures, including asymmetrical ones.”
Ryabkov added that “Russia isn’t interested in a direct clash with the U.S. and NATO, and we hope that Washington and other Western capitals are aware of the danger of an uncontrollable escalation.”
———
LONDON — The head of GCHQ, Britain’s electronic intelligence agency, says Russia is running short of weapons and its troops are “exhausted.”
Jeremy Fleming said Tuesday that “we believe Russia is running short of munitions.”
Fleming is due to give a public speech later, arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin has made “strategic errors in judgment” throughout the war.
According to GCHQ, he will say that “we know – and Russian commanders on the ground know – that their supplies and munitions are running out.”
“Russia’s forces are exhausted. The use of prisoners to reinforce, and now the mobilization of tens of thousands of inexperienced conscripts, speaks of a desperate situation.”
GCHQ did not disclose the sources of its intelligence.
———
KYIV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s State Emergencies Service says that 19 people were killed and 105 others were wounded in Monday’s Russian missile strikes across Ukraine.
It said Tuesday that critical infrastructure facilities were hit in Kyiv and 12 other regions, and 301 cities and towns were without power.
Russia on Monday retaliated for an attack on a critical bridge by unleashing its most widespread strikes against Ukraine in months. They hit at least 14 regions, from Lviv in the west to Kharkiv in the east. Many of the attacks occurred far from the war’s front lines.
———
TALLINN, Estonia — Moscow’s barrage of missile strikes on cities across Ukraine has elicited celebratory comments from Russian officials and pro-Kremlin pundits, who in recent weeks have actively criticized the Russian military for a series of embarrassing setbacks on the battlefield.
Commentators lauded Monday’s large-scale attack as an appropriate and long-awaited response to Kyiv’s successful counteroffensives and a weekend attack on a key bridge between Russia and the annexed Crimean Peninsula.
Many argued, however, that Moscow should keep up the intensity of the strikes in order to win the war. Some analysts suggested that President Vladimir Putin is becoming a hostage of his own allies’ views on how the military campaign in Ukraine should unfold.
———
HONG KONG — Hong Kong leader John Lee says he will only implement United Nations sanctions, after the U.S. warned the territory’s status as a financial center could be affected if it acts as a safe haven for sanctioned individuals.
Lee’s statement Tuesday came days after a luxury yacht connected to Russian tycoon Alexey Mordashov docked in the city.
Mordashov, who is believed to have close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, was sanctioned by the U.S., U.K. and the European Union in February after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Hong Kong authorities have said that they do not implement unilateral sanctions imposed by other governments.
“We cannot do anything that has no legal basis,” Lee told reporters. “We will comply with United Nations sanctions, that is our system, that is our rule of law,” he said.
A U.S. State Department spokesperson said in a statement Monday that “the possible use of Hong Kong as a safe haven by individuals evading sanctions from multiple jurisdictions further calls into question the transparency of the business environment.”
HONG KONG — Hong Kong’s leader John Lee said Tuesday he will only implement United Nations sanctions, after the U.S. warned the territory’s status as a financial center could be affected if it acts as a safe haven for sanctioned individuals.
Lee’s statement Tuesday came days after a luxury yacht connected to Russian tycoon Alexey Mordashov docked in the city.
Mordashov, who is believed to have close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, was sanctioned by the U.S., U.K. and the European Union in February after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Hong Kong authorities have said that they do not implement unilateral sanctions imposed by other governments.
“We cannot do anything that has no legal basis,” Lee told reporters. “We will comply with United Nations sanctions, that is our system, that is our rule of law,” he said.
A U.S. State Department spokesperson said in a statement Monday that “the possible use of Hong Kong as a safe haven by individuals evading sanctions from multiple jurisdictions further calls into question the transparency of the business environment.”
The State Department spokesperson also said the city’s reputation as a financial center “depends on its adherence to international laws and standards” and that U.S. companies “increasingly view Hong Kong’s business environment with wariness” due to an erosion of Hong Kong’s once high degree of autonomy and its freedoms.
The $500-million superyacht Nord, allegedly owned by Mordashov, moored in Hong Kong’s harbor on Wednesday following a weeklong journey from the Russian city of Vladivostok.
Mordashov is one of Russia’s richest men, with an estimated wealth of about $18 billion. He also is the main shareholder and chairman of Severstal, Russia’s largest steel and mining company. Mordashov has tried to challenge the sanctions against him in European courts.
U.S. and European authorities have seized over a dozen yachts belonging to sanctioned Russian tycoons to prevent them from sailing to other ports that are not affected by the sanctions. So Russian oligarchs have begun docking their yachts at ports in places like Turkey, which has maintained diplomatic ties with Russia since the war began.
The Nord measures 141.6 meters (464.6 feet), has two helipads, a swimming pool and 20 cabins. It is operating under a Russian flag.
Beijing sets foreign policy for Hong Kong and has demurred from participating in sanctions against Russia for its attack on Ukraine.
Britain handed control over its colony Hong Kong to China in 1997, promising to respect its semi-autonomous status as a separate economic and customs territory. The semi-autonomous city’s status as an international business hub and financial center has suffered in recent years after Beijing imposed a tough national security law on the city, aimed primarily at stamping out dissent following months of antigovernment protests in 2019.
Critics say the security law, which in certain cases allows for suspects to be transferred to mainland China for trial in its opaque legal system, could threaten Hong Kong’s rule of law.
Following passage of the law in 2020, the United States sanctioned Lee, then Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam and other Hong Kong and mainland Chinese government officials, for “undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and restricting the freedom of expression or assembly.”
Lee blasted the ban on personal and official travel to the U.S. and access to the American financial system.
He was responding to a question of whether he is paid in cash, as was the case for Lam, who was also placed under U.S. sanctions that limit the ability of those designated for such penalties to transfer funds across national boundaries or convert them into different currencies.
“The second thing about the so-called sanction imposed on people in Hong Kong without justification, it is a very barbaric act, and I’m not going to comment on the effect of such barbaric act, because officials in Hong Kong do what is right to protect the interests of the country, and the interests of Hong Kong, so we will just laugh off the so-called sanctions,” Lee said.
