ReportWire

Tag: Foreign policy

  • The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict explained

    The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict explained

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Fierce firefights and heavy shelling echo once again around the mountains of Nagorno-Karabakh, an isolated region at the very edge of Europe that has seen several major wars since the fall of the Soviet Union.

    On Tuesday, the South Caucasus nation of Azerbaijan announced its armed forces launched “local anti-terrorist activities” in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is inside Azerbaijan’s borders but is controlled as a breakaway state by its ethnic Armenian population.

    Now, with fighting raging and allegations of an impending “genocide” reaching fever pitch, all eyes are on the decades-old conflict that threatens to draw in some of the world’s leading military powers.

    What is happening?

    For weeks, Armenia and international observers have warned that Azerbaijan was massing its armed forces along the heavily fortified line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh, preparing to stage an offensive against local ethnic Armenian troops. Clips shared online showed Azerbaijani vehicles daubed with an upside-down ‘A’-symbol, reminiscent of the ‘Z’ sign painted onto Russian vehicles ahead of the invasion of Ukraine last year.

    In the early hours of Tuesday, Karabakh Armenian officials reported a major offensive by Azerbaijan was underway, with air raid sirens sounding in Stepankert, the de facto capital. The region’s estimated 100,000 residents have been told by Azerbaijan to “evacuate” via “humanitarian corridors” leading to Armenia. However, Azerbaijani forces control all of the entry and exit points and many locals fear they will not be allowed to pass safely.

    Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s top foreign policy advisor, Hikmet Hajiyev, insisted to POLITICO the “goal is to neutralize military infrastructure” and denied civilians were being targeted. However, unverified photographs posted online appear to show damaged apartment buildings, and the Karabakh Armenian human rights ombudsman, Gegham Stepanyan, reported several children have been injured in the attacks.

    Concern is growing over the fate of the civilians effectively trapped in the crossfire, as well as the risk of yet another full-blown war in the former Soviet Union.

    How did we get here?

    During the Soviet era, Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous region inside the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic, home to both ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis, but the absence of internal borders made its status largely unimportant. That all changed when Moscow lost control of its peripheral republics, and Nagorno-Karabakh was formally left inside Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory.

    Amid the collapse of the USSR from 1988 to 1994, Armenian and Azerbaijani forces fought a grueling series of battles over the region, with the Armenians taking control of swathes of land and forcing the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Azerbaijanis, razing several cities to the ground. Since then, citing a 1991 referendum — boycotted by Azerbaijanis — the Karabakh-Armenians have unilaterally declared independence and maintained a de facto independent state.

    For nearly three decades that situation remained stable, with the two sides locked in a stalemate that was maintained by a line of bunkers, landmines and anti-tank defenses, frequently given as an example of one of the world’s few “frozen conflicts.”

    However, that all changed in 2020, when Azerbaijan launched a 44-day war to regain territory, conquering hundreds of square kilometers around all sides of Nagorno-Karabakh. That left the ethnic Armenian exclave connected to Armenia proper by a single road, the Lachin Corridor — supposedly under the protection of Russian peacekeepers as part of a Moscow-brokered ceasefire agreement.

    What is the blockade?

    With Russia’s ability to maintain the status quo rapidly dwindling in the face of its increasingly catastrophic war in Ukraine, Azerbaijan has moved to take control of all access to the region. In December, as part of a dispute supposedly over illegal gold mining, self-declared “eco-activists” — operating with the support of the country’s authoritarian government — staged a sit-in on the road, stopping civilian traffic and forcing the local population to rely on Russian peacekeepers and the Red Cross for supplies.

    That situation has worsened in the past two months, with an Azerbaijani checkpoint newly erected on the Lachin Corridor refusing to allow the passage of any humanitarian aid, save for the occasional one-off delivery. In August, amid warnings of empty shelves, malnourishment and a worsening humanitarian crisis, Luis Moreno Ocampo, the former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, published a report calling the situation “an ongoing genocide.”

    Azerbaijan denies it is blockading Nagorno-Karabakh, with Hajiyev telling POLITICO the country was prepared to reopen the Lachin Corridor if the Karabakh-Armenians accepted transport routes from inside Azerbaijani-held territory. Aliyev has repeatedly called on Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh to stand down, local politicians to resign and those living there to accept being ruled as part of Azerbaijan.

    Why have things escalated now?

    Over the past few months, the U.S., EU and Russia have urged Azerbaijan to keep faith during diplomatic talks designed to end the conflict once and for all, rather than seeking a military solution to assert control over the entire region.

    As part of the talks in Washington, Brussels and Moscow, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made a series of unprecedented concessions, going as far as recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory. However, his government maintains it cannot sign a peace deal that does not include internationally guaranteed rights and securities for the Karabakh-Armenians.

    The situation has worsened in the past two months, with an Azerbaijani checkpoint newly erected on the Lachin Corridor refusing to allow the passage of any humanitarian aid | Tofik babayev/AFP via Getty Images

    Aliyev has rejected any such arrangement outright, insisting there should be no foreign presence on Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory. He insists that as citizens of Azerbaijan, those living there will have the same rights as any other citizen — but has continued fierce anti-Armenian rhetoric including describing the separatists as “dogs,” while the government issued a postage stamp following the 2020 war featuring a worker in a hazmat suit “decontaminating” Nagorno-Karabakh.

    Unwilling to accept the compromise, Azerbaijan has accused Armenia of stalling the peace process. According to former Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, a military escalation is needed to force an agreement. “It can be a short-term clash, or it can be a war,” he added.

    Facing growing domestic pressure amid dwindling supplies, former Karabakh-Armenian President Arayik Harutyunyan stood down and called elections, lambasted as a provocation by Azerbaijan and condemned by the EU, Ukraine and others.

    Azerbaijan also alleged Armenian saboteurs were behind landmine blasts it says killed six military personnel in the region, while presenting no evidence to support the claim.

    What’s Russia doing?

    Armenia is formally an ally of Russia, and a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) military bloc. However, Russian peacekeepers deployed to Nagorno-Karabakh have proven entirely unwilling or unable to keep Azerbaijani advances in check, while Moscow declined to offer Pashinyan the support he demanded after strategic high ground inside Armenia’s borders were captured in an Azerbaijani offensive last September.

    Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko previously said Azerbaijan has better relations with the CSTO than Armenia, despite not being a member, and described Aliyev as “our guy.”

    Since then, Armenia — the most democratic country in the region — has sought to distance itself from the Kremlin, inviting in an EU civilian observer mission to the border. That strategy has picked up pace in recent days, with Pashinyan telling POLITICO in an interview that the country can no longer rely on Russia for its security. Instead, the South Caucasus nation has dispatched humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Pashinyan’s wife visited Kyiv to show her support, while hosting U.S. troops for exercises.

    Moscow, which has a close economic and political relationship with Azerbaijan, reacted furiously, summoning the Armenian ambassador.

    In a message posted on Telegram on Tuesday, Dmitry Medvedev, former president of Russia and secretary of its security council, said Pashinyan “decided to blame Russia for his botched defeat. He gave up part of his country’s territory. He decided to flirt with NATO, and his wife took biscuits to our enemies. Guess what fate awaits him…”

    Who supports whom?

    The South Caucasus is a tangled web of shifting alliances.

    Russia aside, Armenia has built close relations with neighboring Iran, which has vowed to protect it, as well as India and France. French President Emmanuel Macron has previously joined negotiations in support of Pashinyan and the country is home to a large and historic Armenian diaspora.

    Azerbaijan, meanwhile, operates on a “one nation, two states” basis with Turkey, with which it has deep cultural, linguistic and historical ties. It also receives large shipments of weaponry and military hardware from Israel, while providing the Middle Eastern nation with gas.

    The EU has turned to Azerbaijan to help replace Russia as a provider of energy. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made an official visit to the capital, Baku, last summer in a bid to secure increased exports of natural gas, describing the country as a “reliable, trustworthy partner.”

    [ad_2]

    Gabriel Gavin

    Source link

  • North Korea’s Kim views Russian nuclear-capable bombers, hypersonic missiles

    North Korea’s Kim views Russian nuclear-capable bombers, hypersonic missiles

    [ad_1]

    In this pool photo distributed by Sputnik agency, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (centre L) and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un (centre R) visit the Vostochny Cosmodrome in Amur region on September 13, 2023.

    Mikhail Metzel | Afp | Getty Images

    North Korean leader Kim Jong Un inspected Russian nuclear-capable strategic bombers, hypersonic missiles and warships on Saturday, accompanied by President Vladimir Putin’s defense minister.

    A smiling Kim was greeted in Russia’s Knevichi airfield, about 50 km (30) miles from the Pacific city of Vladivostok, by Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, who saluted Kim. The North Korean leader then inspected a guard of honor.

    The United States and South Korea fear the revival of Moscow’s friendship with Pyongyang could give Kim access to some of Russia’s sensitive missile and other technology while helping arm Russia in its war in Ukraine.

    Shoigu showed Kim Russia’s strategic bombers – the Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 – which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons and form the backbone of Russia’s nuclear air attack force, Russia’s defense ministry said.

    “It can fly from Moscow to Japan and then back again,” Shoigu told Kim of one aircraft.

    Kim was shown asking about how the missiles were fired from the aircraft, at times nodding and smiling.

    Shoigu showed him the MiG-31I supersonic interceptor aircraft equipped with “Kinzhal” hypersonic missiles. The Kinzhal, or dagger, is an air-launched ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear or conventional warheads.

    It has a reported range of 1,500 to 2,000 km (930-1,240 miles) while carrying a payload of 480 kg (1,100 pounds). It may travel at up to 10 times the speed of sound (12,000 kph, 7,700 mph).

    After the aircraft and missiles, Kim inspected the warship of Russia’s Pacific fleet in Vladivostok, where he was due to watch a demonstration by the Russian navy.

    South Korea and the United States said on Friday that military cooperation between North Korea and Russia violated U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang and that the allies would ensure there was a price to pay.

    Russia has gone out of its way to publicize Kim’s visit and drop repeated hints about the prospect of military cooperation with North Korea, which was formed in 1948 with the backing of the Soviet Union.

    For Putin, who says Moscow is locked in an existential battle with the West over Ukraine, courting Kim allows him to needle Washington and its Asian allies while potentially securing a deep supply of artillery for the Ukraine war.

    Washington has accused North Korea of providing arms to Russia, which has the world’s biggest store of nuclear warheads, but it is unclear whether any deliveries have been made.

    Kim on Friday inspected a Russian fighter jet factory that is under Western sanctions.

    He and Putin discussed military matters, the war in Ukraine and deepening cooperation when they met on Wednesday. Putin told reporters Russia was “not going to violate anything”, but would keep developing relations with North Korea.

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters there had not been a plan to sign any formal agreements during the visit.

    Russian diplomats said Washington had no right to lecture Moscow after the United States had bolstered its allies across the world, including with a visit of a U.S. nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine to South Korea in July.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • To counter China, Biden is backing the World Bank for a bigger role on the global stage

    To counter China, Biden is backing the World Bank for a bigger role on the global stage

    [ad_1]

    During the G20 leaders’ summit, U.S. President Joe Biden called on G20 leaders to support the World Bank and other multilateral development banks to increase their ability to support low and middle-income countries. From left, World Bank President Ajay Banga, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and U.S. President Joe Biden in New Delhi on Sept. 9, 2023.

    Evan Vucci | Afp | Getty Images

    World leaders have called for the World Bank’s expansion to boost its lending capacity — but that can’t happen without funding from the private sector, the bank said. 

    The World Bank is no longer just focused on eradicating poverty, but also on other impending global challenges — like pandemics, climate change and food insecurity, its president Ajay Banga told CNBC’s Tanvir Gill on Saturday. 

    “There’s no way there’s enough money in the multilateral development bank, or even in governments … that can drive the kinds of changes we need for this polycrisis. Getting the private sectors’ capital and ingenuity into the game is going to be very important,” he told CNBC in an exclusive interview on the sidelines of the Group of 20 nations leaders’ summit in New Delhi.

    “We are digging deep to boost our lending capacity, but we are going further, creating new mechanisms that would allow us to do even more,” Banga said at the G20 leaders summit

    “We’re working to expand concessional financing to help more low-income countries achieve their goals, while thinking creatively about how to encourage cooperation across borders and tackle shared challenges,” he added. 

    Biden backs World Bank

    Leaders at the summit agreed that this isn’t something the World Bank can tackle alone. 

    During the summit, U.S. President Joe Biden called on G20 leaders to further support the World Bank and other multilateral development banks over the next year in order to increase the institution’s ability to support low and middle-income countries. 

    Biden has asked Congress to increase the World Bank’s financing by more than $25 billion, a move that will enable the bank to further help developing countries achieve their development and economic goals. 

    The world needs institutions to work together.

    Kristalina Georgieva

    Managing Director, IMF

    “This initiative will make the World Bank a stronger institution that is able to provide resources at the scale and speed needed to tackle global challenges and address the urgent needs of the poorest countries,” the White House said. 

    The World Bank was created in 1944 to help rebuilding efforts in Europe and Japan after the Second World War. It started with just 38 members but today includes most of the countries in the world.

    World Bank president: China has been a very consistent partner

    Biden has previously said that developing countries need more funding options to reduce their dependency on China, and help them recover from the effects of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The administration asked for $3.3 billion to increase development and infrastructure finance by the World Bank.

    “It is essential that we offer a credible alternative to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) coercive and unsustainable lending and infrastructure projects for developing countries around the world,” the White House said in August.

    Apart from providing more resources to help developing countries reduce poverty, the World Bank’s expansion also aims to help these nations in their renewable energy transition. 

    “I do have the idea that if I could get a certain amount of money in the bank to put into say, renewable energy, could I get the private sector to put one-is-to-one, two-is-to-one, three-is-to-one?” Banga said. 

    He highlighted that investors are keen on investing in renewable energy in developing countries, and are confident that solar, wind and geothermal projects “can be built to make money.” 

    ‘Work together’

    Both the World Bank and IMF have pledged to form a stronger partnership to help countries with their debt struggles, sustainability goals, and digital transition. 

    In a separate interview with CNBC’s Martin Soong at the G20 summit, the IMF’s Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said: “The world has changed. the horizon of how many different lenders there are and different conditions they provide their resources, is much, much broader that it was 10 years ago.”

    “We need this conversation because if you don’t have it, we have no solutions and the debt problem is very pressing,” Georgieva said Sunday.

    She added that “25% of debt of emerging markets is treading in distressed territory.”

    “We now have more than half of of the low income countries either in or close to that distress.”

    The world has changed and institutions need to work together, says IMF chief

    The IMF Chief reiterated that the World Bank and the fund must work to complement each other and promote synergies.

    “The bank has very deep sectoral expertise. We don’t and we would never ever get into sectoral investments,” she explained.

    “What we bring is how you can use fiscal policies to advance the transition to digital economy; how you can use monetary policy to assess the new types of risks — including from crypto from climate; and how you can use data to cover what matters to policymakers today and in the future.”

    “The world needs institutions to work together,” she added, pledging that both the IMF and World Bank will work with others to “set the right example of what it means for the whole to be bigger than the sum of individual parts.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • India’s ‘freedom’ takes precedence over being a U.S. ally, says think tank 

    India’s ‘freedom’ takes precedence over being a U.S. ally, says think tank 

    [ad_1]

    India’s relationship with the United States is the strongest it’s been in years.

    U.S. President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are set to meet for another bilateral meeting later Friday at the Group of 20 summit in New Delhi, after several one-on-one meetings earlier this year.

    Despite warming ties — with both leaders sharing a hug during Modi’s state visit to Washington in May — a “traditional alliance” between the two nations remains off the table, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. 

    “I do not think India and the United States are headed for a traditional alliance relationship … India is keen to make sure it protects its ability to make its own decisions on every kind of question,” said Alyssa Ayres, adjunct senior fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. 

    US President Joe Biden and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi during an event with senior officials and chief executive officers in the East Room of the White House in Washington on June 22, 2023.

    Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    India is a “very independent” country, and the traditional alliance relationship the U.S. has with other countries “creates an almost unexpectable level of deference on the part of the other country,” Ayres told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Friday. 

    “India very much doesn’t want … what it sees as its freedom of action in the future, constrained by requirements to act on behalf of another country due to an alliance agreement,” Ayres added. 

    Both countries still have disagreements, with a notable one being their views on the Russia-Ukraine war, which Washington has condemned but New Delhi has so far refrained from doing so.

    India has purchased discounted Russian oil since the war broke out in February last year, and now imports about 40% of its crude supply from Moscow.

    “Obviously, this is an area where American foreign policy leaders would like to see something different given American concerns about Russia’s war in Ukraine,” Ayres highlighted. 

    “So I think that this is yet another area where you do see some space between American interests and Indian interests … That’s probably going to remain an area of disagreement.” 

    U.S.-India tech partnership 

    Although an India-U.S. alliance seems to be off the table, the partnership between the two countries will continue to strengthen, with technology cooperation at the forefront of it.

    In May, Biden and Modi announced a slew of technology and defense deals, ranging from collaborating on diversifying supply chains to working together across space and artificial intelligence.

    “Technology generally has really been in the lead in improving this relationship,” said Evan Feigenbaum, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    The G20 summit threatens to be overshadowed by India and Modi, who has made a 'spectacle' of the event

    “For a long time, people used to talk about India as a country that needed to be reformed. But increasingly, India has models and ideas and things that have been tested domestically that can be exported and scaled,” Feigenbaum told CNBC.

    “They’re relevant in parts of the world, especially the global south like Africa and the Middle East, much more relevant than the models the United States and Europe has,” he added, citing the example of how India’s digital infrastructure has helped the “unbanked become banked.” 

    “It’s something the government wants to showcase and it’s something you’re going to hear a lot about at this G20,” Feigenbaum said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ukraine’s Zelenskyy is ‘a tough dude … a real Texan,’ says George W. Bush

    Ukraine’s Zelenskyy is ‘a tough dude … a real Texan,’ says George W. Bush

    [ad_1]

    KYIV — Former U.S. President George W. Bush reckons Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is so tough, he could be from Texas.

    Speaking via video chat during a conference in Kyiv on Friday, Bush said he sees Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as an empire builder, who may not stop at invading Ukraine. As for Zelenskyy, Bush joked: “Well he is a tough dude, he is a real Texan.”

    Although Bush was born in Connecticut, he was raised in Texas.

    Bush also said it would be harder and harder to persuade Americans that helping Ukraine is in their best interest. “First and foremost, Ukraine needs to tackle corruption. [A] recent reshuffle in the government showed me that Zelenskyy wants to do it,” Bush said.

    According to Bush, if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the U.S. will have to be involved in helping the likes of Poland, Lithuania and Latvia next.

    “The condition in Ukraine matters to the security of the U.S. The U.S. still has to support people like Zelenskyy when they show courage,” Bush said.

    [ad_2]

    Veronika Melkozerova

    Source link

  • Azerbaijan agrees to reopen Lachin Corridor to Nagorno-Karabakh

    Azerbaijan agrees to reopen Lachin Corridor to Nagorno-Karabakh

    [ad_1]

    YEREVAN, Armenia — Azerbaijan has agreed to reopen the only highway linking Armenia to the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh provided local leaders accept aid from Azerbaijan as well, a senior Azerbaijani official told POLITICO on Saturday.

    The news comes after authorities in the ethnic Armenian-controlled exclave — inside Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized borders — announced earlier in the day that it would accept humanitarian shipments from the Russian Red Cross via an alternative road from Aghdam, inside Azerbaijani government-held territory.

    According to Hikmet Hajiyev, foreign policy adviser to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, “Azerbaijan expressed its consent as a goodwill gesture to ensure simultaneous opening” of the so-called Lachin Corridor for ICRC cargo. The road connects the mountainous territory to Armenia. The acceptance, he said, would pave the way for a separate deal to allow passage from Armenia. “In the Lachin checkpoint, Azerbaijan’s customs and border regime must be observed,” he said.

    For close to two months, aid organizations including the Red Cross have said they have been unable to transport supplies of food and fuel into Nagorno-Karabakh, despite a 2020 ceasefire agreement between the two sides guaranteeing free use of the road under the supervision of Russian peacekeepers. With essential provisions running low, local Armenians say a humanitarian crisis is already unfolding and the former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, last month issued a report warning that a “genocide” was under way.

    Both the U.S. and the EU have urged Azerbaijan to reopen the Lachin Corridor. The South Caucasus country denies it is orchestrating a blockade, and has insisted the Karabakh Armenians must accept humanitarian supplies from inside Azerbaijan.

    Arayik Harutyunyan, the former de facto president of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, told POLITICO in July that he would refuse to accept the supplies despite a deteriorating humanitarian situation because “Azerbaijan created this crisis and cannot be the solution to it.”

    Harutyunyan, who resigned last month amid the ongoing crisis, was due to be replaced on Saturday in a presidential election. However, according to Hajiyev, the “sham elections” are a “serious setback and counterproductive” for the situation.

    Instead, he reiterated a call from the Azerbaijani government for the Karabakh Armenians to lay down their arms and accept being governed as part of Azerbaijan. “It is the only way to a lasting peace where Armenian and Azerbaijani residents of Karabakh can live and coexist,” he said.

    Hajiyev later clarified in a statement on social media that the Lachin Corridor would not be opened immediately, but under the terms of a deal allowing indefinite access for Azerbaijani aid from Aghdam.

    [ad_2]

    Gabriel Gavin

    Source link

  • North Korean hackers have allegedly stolen hundreds of millions in crypto to fund nuclear program

    North Korean hackers have allegedly stolen hundreds of millions in crypto to fund nuclear program

    [ad_1]

    The FBI claims North Korea-linked hackers were behind a $100 million crypto heist on the so-called Horizon bridge in 2022.

    Budrul Chukrut | Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

    North Korea-linked hackers have stolen hundreds of millions of crypto to fund the regime’s nuclear weapons programs, research shows.

    So far this year, from January to Aug. 18, North Korea-affiliated hackers stole $200 million worth of crypto — accounting for over 20% of all stolen crypto this year, according to blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs.

    “In recent years, there has been a marked rise in the size and scale of cyber attacks against cryptocurrency-related businesses by North Korea. This has coincided with an apparent acceleration in the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs,” said TRM Labs in a June discussion with North Korea experts.

    In that discussion, TRM Labs said there has been a pivot away from North Korea’s “traditional revenue-generating activities” — an indication that the regime may be “increasingly turning to cyber attacks to fund its weapons proliferation activity.”

    Separately, crypto research company Chainalysis said in a February report that “most experts agree the North Korean government is using these stolen assets to fund its nuclear weapons programs.”

    The Permanent Mission of North Korea to the United Nations in New York, a diplomatic mission of the regime to the UN, did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

    They need every dollar they can. And this is just obviously a much more efficient way for North Korea to make money.

    Nick Carlsen

    intelligence analyst, TRM Labs

    Since North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006, the United Nations has slapped multiple sanctions on the reclusive regime — known formally as DPRK, or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

    The sanctions, which include bans on financial services, minerals, metals and arms, are aimed at limiting North Korea’s access to sources of funding it needs to support its nuclear activities.

    Just last month, the FBI warned crypto companies that North Korea-linked hackers are planning to “cash out” $40 million of crypto.

    The agency also said in January it continues “to identify and disrupt North Korea’s theft and laundering of virtual currency, which is used to support North Korea’s ballistic missile and Weapons of Mass Destruction programs.”

    “They are under pretty serious economic stress with international sanctions. They need every dollar they can. And this is just obviously a much more efficient way for North Korea to make money,” Nick Carlsen, intelligence analyst at blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs, told CNBC.

    “Even if that dollar stolen in crypto doesn’t directly go towards the purchase of some component for the nuclear program, it frees up another dollar to support the regime and its programs,” said Carlsen.

    North Korean hackers’ exploits

    In March last year, U.S. officials accused North Korea-linked hackers of stealing a record amount of more than $600 million worth of crypto assets from Ronin Bridge in the popular blockchain game Axie Infinity using stolen private keys — passwords that allow users to access and manage funds.

    Hackers exploit what’s known as a blockchain “bridge,” which allows users to transfer their digital assets from one crypto network to another.

    Evolving tactics

    North Korean-affiliated cybercriminals reportedly posed as recruiters and lured an engineer from blockchain gaming firm Sky Mavis into believing there was a job opportunity, The Wall Street Journal said in June.

    The hacker shared a malware-laced document with the victim, enabling the criminals to access the engineer’s computer and steal more than $600 million in crypto after they broke into Sky Mavis’s digital pets game, Axie Infinity. 

    “They leverage social engineering and they get themselves into the community. They build relationships and gain access to systems,” Erin Plante, vice president of Investigations at Chainalysis, told CNBC.

    The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and South Korea’s authorities has imposed sanctions against several entities and individuals for helping North Korean IT professionals fraudulently obtain employment overseas and launder illicitly obtained funds back to North Korea.

    “They target employers located in wealthier countries, utilizing a variety of mainstream and industry-specific freelance contracting, payment, and social media and networking platforms,” said the press release, adding that North Korean IT workers often take on projects that involve virtual currency.

    “DPRK IT workers also use virtual currency exchanges and trading platforms to manage digital payments they receive for contract work as well as to launder these illicitly obtained funds back to the DPRK.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden tests negative for Covid-19 days away from G20 summit

    Biden tests negative for Covid-19 days away from G20 summit

    [ad_1]

    U.S. President Joe Biden leaves following services at St. Edmond’s Catholic Church in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, September 3, 2023.

    Amanda Andrade-Rhoades | Reuters

    WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden tested negative Monday night for Covid-19, a day after his wife tested positive and three days before he is scheduled to travel overseas.

    Biden is negative and not experiencing any symptoms, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday.

    First lady Jill Biden tested positive on Monday night, but so far she has experienced mild symptoms, the White House said. The Bidens were at their home together in Rehoboth, Delaware, over Labor Day weekend after stopping in Florida on Saturday to survey damage caused by Hurricane Idalia. The president last saw the first lady on Monday morning before he traveled to an event in Philadelphia.

    The first lady will remain in Delaware for the rest of the week, Jean-Pierre said.

    The president is scheduled to depart for India on Thursday to attend the Group of 20 summit, and then go on to visit Hanoi, Vietnam, on Sunday. On Monday, Biden will be in Alaska to observe the 22nd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

    If Biden were to test positive for Covid in the next few days, he could attend the G20 meetings virtually, like his predecessor Donald Trump did during the Covid pandemic.

    If he were forced to stay home, the president could accidentally find himself in ignominious company. Russian President Vladimir Putin will not be attending the conference for the second year in a row, and Chinese President Xi Jinping also plans to skip it.

    “I am disappointed,” Biden said of Xi’s absence, “but I am going to get to see him.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • India’s G20 presidency risks ringing hollow as Ukraine war dashes hopes of consensus

    India’s G20 presidency risks ringing hollow as Ukraine war dashes hopes of consensus

    [ad_1]

    US President Joe Biden, right, and Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, at an arrival ceremony during a state visit on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, June 22, 2023.

    Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has turned the normally sedate rotating presidency of the Group of 20 nations into a branding vehicle to burnish India’s geopolitical importance — underscoring India’s emergence as a key voice on the world stage.

    The country’s diplomats now face a race against time to broker tangible multilateral outcomes at this weekend’s G20 leaders’ summit in New Delhi that will mark the end of India’s year-long presidency of the bloc of leading industrialized and developing economies.

    India has so far not been able to foster consensus for a joint communique from the previous G20 meetings in other major tracks that it has convened. Member states haven’t been able to agree on binding action due largely to Russia’s and China’s objections to the language referring to the Ukraine crisis.

    In a banner year for Indian diplomacy that also saw the world’s most populous nation take on the rotating presidency of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, India risks having little to show for its efforts that may in turn undercut the country’s credibility and Modi’s domestic messaging.

    One of the risks is that by elevating India’s presidency of the G20 so much, there are now expectations for India to deliver some concrete breakthroughs.

    Manjari Chatterjee Miller

    Council on Foreign Relations

    “What is different about India’s presidency of the G20 and what I’m amazed by is how the Modi government has turned the G20 into a nonstop advertisement for both India and his leadership,” said Manjari Chatterjee Miller, a senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C.

    “One of the risks is that by elevating India’s presidency of the G20 so much, there are now expectations for India to deliver some concrete breakthroughs,” she told CNBC in an email. “India has been trying to use the G20 to bring the Global South together and offer itself as a bridge between the Global South and the West. But there remains the problem of Russia and China.”

    With Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping sitting out the Sept. 9-10 meeting, the prospect for any real breakthrough appears dim.

    Putin has not been known to have traveled out of Russia since the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant in March against him and his allies for war crimes in Ukraine.

    Russia-Ukraine impasse

    Indeed, the specter of Russia’s Ukraine invasion has loomed large over G20 meetings for the various tracks that India has convened.

    India had hoped to forge consensus on a range of issues from a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies to the resolution of crippling debt issues for developing countries.

    Other areas include reforms in multilateral banks as part of its agenda to foster progress on sustainable development, as well as the admission of the African Union as a member of the G20.

    Despite its neutral position on the Ukraine crisis, New Delhi has not been able to broker a single joint statement in any of the key discussion tracks since India took over the G20 presidency in December 2022. Instead, it has only managed non-binding chair’s summary and outcome documents.

    In fact, Russia disassociated itself from the status of the outcome document in a June meeting on development issues in Varanasi, due to references to the Ukraine war. China said the meeting outcome should not include any reference to the Ukraine crisis.

    “The original language was accepted by Russia at the Bali G20 — and Indian diplomats in fact, played a major part in getting Russian acceptance on that,” Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Eurasia Group’s head for its South Asia practice, told CNBC in a telephone interview from New Delhi.

    “But since then, Russia has hardened its position and joined by China to say that we don’t accept the original body language, which is taken from the UN Security Council resolution,” he added.

    “Last I heard, India is still struggling to get an agreement on what type of language would be acceptable to all 20 countries,” Chaudhuri said. “If they fail to bridge that gap, then we may see the failure to issue a joint statement, and there probably won’t be an action plan afterwards.”

    [Modi] is trying to portray this as a great recognition that India has arrived under his under his prime ministership.

    Pramit Pal Chaudhuri

    Eurasia Group

    Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — who is due to represent Russia at G20 leaders’ summit in place of Putin — reportedly warned there will be no general declaration at the meeting in New Delhi if Russia’s position is not reflected.

    The Kremlin insists that its invasion of Ukraine is a “special military operation” in an existential war against the West that’s determined to take down Russia.

    Domestic setback?

    This could well be a setback for Modi’s government, which has convened more than 200 G20 meetings in more than two dozens cities across India.

    “It’s actually quite brilliant and one has to give him and the BJP credit for making an event that is usually elitist and esoteric, and a rotating presidency that is routine into something the whole country can understand and be proud of,” CFR’s Miller said, referring to Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

    More than just lining streets with banners and signs that injected plenty of visibility to the various G20 meetings, Modi has also used these meetings to clean up host cities, promote local products and more.

    “At the national level, [Modi] is trying to portray this as a great recognition that India has arrived under his under his prime ministership,” Eurasia Group’s Chaudhuri said. “I think the messaging has been strong, but the reception is harder to work out, it’s harder to quantify.”

    The biggest risk for Modi is the lack of tangible multilateral accomplishment out of the G20 presidency after all that has been done and invested, possibly with an eye on boosting the legacy and standing of his Hindu nationalist BJP after a decade in power and ahead of national elections next year.

    There are 'critical differences' in views among BRICS members, analyst says

    Underscoring that wariness, India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar was quick to tout the “unanimous support” from G20 member states, for two outcomes that India proposed at the Varanasi G20 ministerial meeting on developmental issues. He even labeled it the “biggest achievement” of India’s G20 presidency so far — despite Russia and China abstaining.

    “There may be a sort of backlash, or a degree of cynicism may set among voters who say — we have heard a lot — we seem to have spent a lot of money, but nothing really seems to have happened here,” Chaudhuri added.

    Still, Modi could point to other evidence of India’s place as a key global player in a year that saw New Delhi emerge as a strategic U.S. ally in its Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at checking China’s might.

    India walked the diplomatic tightrope even as China pushed for an expansion of BRICS alliance of developing nations to build support for a broad coalition aimed at challenging U.S. dominance over the global political and economic system.

    The Quad is going beyond military exercises — and China is watching

    “India will continue to maintain healthy diplomatic relations with Russia amid an increasing reliance on that country’s energy imports,” Sumedha Dasgupta, a senior analyst with the Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC. Moscow is India’s leading source of crude oil.

    “Simultaneously, India will develop stronger diplomatic bonds with the US and its allies through means such as the Quad, co-operation on critical technology and defense, which will over time amount to a gradual geopolitical shift,” she said in an email.

    ‘Happy coincidence’

    Underscoring India’s strategic importance, Biden hosted Modi in June in the Indian prime minister’s first state visit to the U.S.

    Warming India-U.S. ties contrast with India’s continued standoff with China.

    India — along with Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan — sharply rebuked China last week for a new national map that Beijing claims contested territories as its own.

    As the U.S. ramps up efforts to limit the transfers of strategic technology to China on grounds of national security, India stands to gain from American companies looking to diversify their supply chains — at China’s expense.

    State Bank of India discusses India's economy in light of global inflation

    In January, India’s commerce minister told CNBC that Apple was manufacturing its latest iPhone 14 in the country and aimed to produce 25% of all iPhones in the country.

    Apple’s efforts to move its assembly of products from China became more urgent in the last few years years as U.S.-China trade tensions intensified, and supply chain disruptions caused by Beijing’s zero-Covid policy unraveled. 

    This development serves to buttress India’s burgeoning economic clout, the basis of its greater confidence and assertiveness geopolitically.

    It’s a happy coincidence for the moment, I think, for India to showcase itself as an improved economy; as an improved place for international investors … and as an alternative to China.

    Pravin Krishna

    Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies

    The International Monetary Fund expects India to be the world’s fastest growing major economy this year.

    In the last decade in power, Modi’s BJP has liberalized foreign direct investment policies, invested in infrastructure, pushed for digitalization in the world’s fifth-largest economy, along with several other neo-liberal economic policies.

    “All of of these things are coming together at the right time, alongside the G20,” said Pravin Krishna, a professor of international economics at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

    “So it’s a happy coincidence for the moment, I think, for India to showcase itself as an improved economy; as an improved place for international investors; as an improved platform, potentially for manufacturing; and as an alternative to China, which India has been aspiring to be for a number of years,” he added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNBC Daily Open: Investors still aren’t convinced by bitcoin

    CNBC Daily Open: Investors still aren’t convinced by bitcoin

    [ad_1]

    A sign is seen in a stand during the Bitcoin Conference 2023, in Miami Beach, Florida, U.S., May 19, 2023. 

    Marco Bello | Reuters

    This report is from today’s CNBC Daily Open, our new, international markets newsletter. CNBC Daily Open brings investors up to speed on everything they need to know, no matter where they are. Like what you see? You can subscribe here.

    What you need to know today

    Dip in markets
    U.S. markets were closed Monday for the Labor Day holiday. The
    pan-European Stoxx 600 was flat, but major bourses dipped slightly and ended the day in the red. Germany’s DAX lost 0.1% as new data showed the country’s July exports dropping 0.9% on the month and 1% year on year, adding to fears about the German economy contracting in the third quarter.

    ‘Sick man of Europe’
    Germany is once again the “sick man of Europe,” said Hans-Werner Sinn, president emeritus at the Ifo institute. The country’s business activity in August contracted sharply, according to the HCOB flash purchasing managers index. Moreover, Germany’s plans to be carbon neutral by 2045 poses a risk to its industry, which might cause a “backlash” from the population, Sinn said.

    Missing Xi at G20
    Premier Li Qiang will lead China’s delegation at the G20 summit in New Delhi this weekend, said China’s foreign ministry. While the ministry declined to confirm if President Xi Jinping would attend the summit, spokesperson Mao Ning didn’t correct reporters who asked if Li’s attendance meant Xi would not show up. Another noteworthy absence: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Negotiating new grain deal
    Putin met his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Sochi, Russia on Monday. Putin reportedly said Russia is ready to renew the Black Sea Grain Initiative which allowed Ukraine to export agricultural products — but only if concessions are made to Russia as well.

    [PRO] Don’t sleep on these stocks
    Adults need seven to nine hours of sleep per day. Even though 63% of U.S. adults don’t meet that requirement, they are growing increasingly concerned about their wellbeing, according to a 2022 McKinsey survey. That’s the start of a good dream for these sleep-related stocks.

    The bottom line

    If charting the trajectory of interest rates in the U.S. economy is like “navigating by the stars under cloudy skies,” as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell put it in his Jackson Hole speech, then predicting the movement of stocks is like doing so when the stars are snuffed out. As for forecasting the price of bitcoin? Add a blindfold to the intrepid navigator.

    Let’s look at two predictions made earlier this year.

    At the optimistic end of the spectrum is Geoff Kendrick, head of crypto research at Standard Chartered, who wrote in an April note that bitcoin’s value could jump to as much as $100,000 by the end of 2024.

    On the other hand, longtime bitcoin bull Chamath Palihapitiya, who said two years ago that bitcoin has replaced gold and would rocket to $200,000, changed his tune. “Crypto is dead in America,” Palihapitiya said.

    What do the numbers tell us? As of publication time, bitcoin is trading at $25,774. On Jan. 1, it was at $16,606, so bitcoin’s up around 55% this year. That suggests bitcoin has legs. But if we take a longer-term view, the current price of the digital currency is about 62% lower than its all-time high of $68,990 reached in November 2021.

    Adding to the confusion, bitcoin sometimes tracks the movement of stocks because it’s seen to benefit from a booming economy; bitcoin sometimes trades inversely with stocks because some consider it a safe haven in times of uncertainty. The story here, then, is that bitcoin is wildly volatile — and it’s impossible to prove or dismantle either prediction, at this point.

    Still, investors are optimistic about bitcoin because a U.S. court recently sided with Grayscale in a lawsuit against the SEC, which denied the company’s application to convert its bitcoin trust into an ETF. That means bitcoin ETFs from major companies are on their way, allowing retail investors to trade the cryptocurrency without actually owning it. The price of bitcoin rallied more than 7% when news broke last Tuesday.

    But the SEC has also delayed a decision on bitcoin ETFs, pausing the short-lived bitcoin bull charge. For August, bitcoin fell 10%.

    And so it goes.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • ‘Very stupid’: Italy’s bank tax remains controversial as government scrambles to update it

    ‘Very stupid’: Italy’s bank tax remains controversial as government scrambles to update it

    [ad_1]

    European bank shares dropped significantly in August after a surprise announcement from the Italian government for a new tax.

    Stefano Montesi – Corbis | Corbis News | Getty Images

    Italy’s shock tax on banks continues to prove controversial, even as the government insists it can improve it.

    Europe’s main bank stock index fell almost 3% on Aug. 8, after the Italian government announced plans to impose a 40% windfall tax on banks’ profits. The move caught traders off guard and sent shockwaves throughout the continent.

    The market reaction and wide-spread backlash pushed Rome to tone down the plans within 24 hours.

    Nearly a month later, the government is still studying how to make the measure work — but analysts and policymakers remain criticial.

    “It’s a very stupid law,” Carlo Calenda, national secretary of the Azione political party, told CNBC over the weekend.

    Calenda, Italy’s former deputy minister of economic development, warned the policy could put off international investors.

    “It’s something that all the international investors will look at saying: ‘Wow, this is very dangerous. I don’t want to make an investment here in Italy, long-term investments, knowing that the government can jump in and say okay, I’m gonna take part of your profit’,” he told CNBC’s Steve Sedgwick at the European House Ambrosetti Forum.

    Brothers of Italy, the leading party in the ruling coalition government, however, is of the opinion that lenders have not passed through higher rates to savers.

    The latest set of bank results in Europe show that lenders across the region are enjoying higher levels of profitability as interest rates keep rising.

    Italy’s Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti said at Ambrosetti that the bank tax “can certainly be improved upon…but I do not accept that it is considered an unfair tax,” according to Reuters.

    Antonio Tajani, the country’s foreign minister and leader of the centre-right Forza Italia party, said the government is stable and the bank tax is not creating tensions.

    He insisted it is “correct to ask banks for help” but stressed that it is important to make a distinction between large and small lenders. “We need to talk with the banks to see if it is possible to write better the text [of the law],” he told CNBC’s Sedgwick.

    Italy's foreign minister optimistic Rome will spend 'all the money' from EU funds

    One of Italy’s biggest banks is not impressed, however.

    “This is not the good time to subtract lending capacity,” Intesa Sanpaolo Chairman Gian Maria Gros-Pietro told CNBC. “We think the communication has not been good,” he added, saying the measure should be a one off.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden in Florida promises to rebuild, calls on Congress to provide more FEMA funding

    Biden in Florida promises to rebuild, calls on Congress to provide more FEMA funding

    [ad_1]

    View of a damaged property after the arrival of Hurricane Idalia in Horseshoe Beach, Florida, August 31, 2023.

    Julio Cesar Chavez | Reuters

    President Joe Biden standing in front of a home damaged by a fallen tree said it was “but for the grace of God” the damage wasn’t worse.

    “No winds this strong hit this area in one hundred years,” Biden said, speaking in Live Oak, Florida. “Pray God it will be another hundred years before this happens again.”

    Biden and first lady Jill Biden traveled to Florida on Saturday to survey the damage done by Hurricane Idalia and meet with locals and recovery personnel. The president said he’s directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to do “everything they can” to help rebuild.

    Idalia hit Florida’s Big Bend region on Wednesday as a Category 3 storm, leading to widespread power outages and flooding. The White House has called on Congress to provide $16 billion in stopgap funding to bolster FEMA’s disaster relief fund which the agency said will be exhausted in the first half of September if it is not replenished. Speaking Saturday in Florida, Biden once again called on Congress to act.

    “These crises are affecting more and more Americans, and every American regularly expects FEMA to show up when they are needed,” Biden said. “I’m calling on the United States Congress — Democrats and Republicans — to ensure the funding is there.”

    Biden initially said he would meet with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, whom he’s spoken to so frequently in the wake of Idalia that the president joked Thursday, “There should be a direct dial.” In a statement Friday night, however, Jeremy Redfern, a spokesman for DeSantis, said the governor did not have plans to meet with the president, citing security difficulties.

    “In these rural communities, and so soon after impact, the security preparations alone that would go into setting up such a meeting would shut down ongoing recovery efforts,” Redfern said.

    Speaking to reporters en route to Florida, FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell said the White House and governor’s office mutually agreed on the location for Biden’s visit earlier this week and said no security concerns were voiced at that time or before the statement from DeSantis’s office was released.

    DeSantis, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, has been a strong critic of Biden, but the two have come together in the past. Biden met with DeSantis after Hurricane Ian last year.

    Biden in his remarks noted he has been in “frequent touch” with DeSantis throughout the storm and its aftermath, adding “the governor was on top of it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tim Scott plots more aggressive approach as he looks to break through in 2024 GOP race | CNN Politics

    Tim Scott plots more aggressive approach as he looks to break through in 2024 GOP race | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican presidential candidate Tim Scott has shown a new willingness to needle his rivals in recent days after his affable approach proved a mismatch for last week’s pugilistic first 2024 primary debate.

    The South Carolina senator poked former President Donald Trump for his coziness with Vladimir Putin. He dismissed entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy as a “good showman” who wouldn’t support the United States’ allies. He broadly swiped at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum for failing to endorse a national 15-week abortion ban.

    In the wake of Scott’s wallflower performance in the Republican debate in Milwaukee last week, his subtle jabs at rivals during a six-day, three-state post-debate campaign swing could signal a shift toward a more confrontational approach for a candidate who has struggled to break through.

    Scott plans to “be more aggressive” in the next debate, one person close to his campaign said.

    “He’s going to come out hot,” the person said.

    What’s not yet clear is how Scott – a candidate who, more than any other 2024 Republican contender, is offering primary voters a clean break from the grievance-fueled Trump era – will work himself into the mix, particularly against the more natural brawlers who are also vying to emerge as the party’s chief alternative to Trump.

    Though their ideological positions are similar, Scott’s approach is diametrically opposed to the Trump-inspired, bare-knuckle tactics of DeSantis, who for months has placed second behind the former president in national and early-state polls of Republican primary voters.

    Haley, Scott’s home-state rival and a onetime US ambassador to the United Nations under Trump, is courting a similar base of White evangelical voters – and is also dependent on a strong performance in South Carolina’s primary, which follows the Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada nominating contests, as a catapult before the race turns national and delegate-rich Super Tuesday approaches.

    While Scott largely stayed out of the mix at the Milwaukee debate, Haley was at the center of its most memorable moments when she lambasted Ramaswamy for his isolationist foreign policy stances and defended US support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.

    “You have no foreign policy experience and it shows,” she said to Ramaswamy at one point.

    A Washington Post/FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll found that 46% of potential GOP primary voters who watched the debate said they would consider voting for Haley – up from 29% before the event.

    Scott’s numbers barely budged in the same poll – from 40% pre-debate to 43% – after a performance in which he largely stuck to his no-fighting approach and stayed out of the squabbling among the candidates.

    Scott spoke the third-least among the eight contenders onstage, with only Burgum and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson commanding less time.

    And Republican viewers ranked Scott’s debate performance near the back of the field, according to the Post/FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll. Just 4% said Scott had impressed them the most – tied with former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and leading only Burgum and Hutchinson. The South Carolina senator was well behind the leaders, DeSantis (29%), Ramaswamy (26%) and Haley (15%).

    Google search trends found that interest in Ramaswamy and Haley spiked after the first debate, while Scott drew just 3% of candidate searches the day after; he was at 1%, tied with former Vice President Mike Pence and ahead of just Burgum and Hutchinson, a little more than a week later.

    Asked about his Milwaukee performance and his approach to the second debate in California later this month, Scott’s campaign pointed to the differences he has expressed in recent days over abortion and foreign policy.

    “Tim was disappointed by the other candidates on the debate stage and their unwillingness to advocate for life and stand with our allies. While other candidates were engaged in a food fight, Tim was focused on beating Biden and defending the values our nation was founded on. Tim’s message of faith continues to resonate with voters across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina,” Scott spokesman Nathan Brand said in a statement.

    Scott, while campaigning this week in Charleston, South Carolina, acknowledged that he’d been peripheral to the first debate.

    “I learned that the more you insult people, the more time you get,” he said to laughs from the crowd. “I learned having no obvious good home training is another way to get more time.”

    He said he believes that “the longer these debates go on, the more focused on substance they will get, and we will continue to rise to the top.”

    One former Scott adviser said that in sticking with an optimistic message and staying out of skirmishes with rivals, Scott failed to reflect the depth of voters’ frustrations and their desire for a GOP nominee who will fight against what they see as unfavorable political and cultural currents.

    “He’s not just a happy warrior. He’s just happy,” the former adviser said.

    Another Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity said debates are a “bad venue” for Scott.

    “It’s not a ‘Morning in America’ moment, and I don’t know that the appetite is there for a soft-spoken, positive, optimistic dude,” the strategist said, referring to Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 ad.

    Still, other GOP strategists said the debates – especially those that take place without Trump onstage – won’t reshape the 2024 primary race.

    “If you’re someone that is not Donald Trump, the debates don’t make or break you,” said Republican strategist Jai Chabria. “You’re trying to be a steady voice, you’re trying to be a credible voice, you’re trying to pick up enough institutional donors to keep your campaign going and then you build up enough presence and you figure out a place to make a splash.”

    Scott’s campaign has the financial resources to outlast many of his rivals in what could become a grueling battle to emerge as the party’s top Trump alternative.

    He is a formidable fundraiser whose campaign has already placed $13.7 million in ad buys, according to AdImpact data.

    A pro-Scott super PAC, meanwhile, has already reserved about $37 million in ads and has announced plans to spend nearly $50 million, meaning that early-state voters could see about $64 million in pro-Scott advertising before the first votes of the 2024 GOP race are cast.

    Metal mogul Andy Sabin, who attended a Milwaukee breakfast with Scott supporters the morning after the debate, said he is with Scott “more so than ever.”

    A lawyer who recently co-hosted a Scott fundraiser and spoke on the condition of anonymity lauded the discipline of the candidate’s campaign team, which he described as not “shiny object people.”

    Scott in recent days has also shown an increased willingness to take on his rivals.

    “The loudest voices in the debate were the quietest voices on the issue of life,” he said in an interview with Fox News’ Trey Gowdy, criticizing DeSantis, Haley and Burgum for failing to endorse a 15-week federal abortion ban.

    He also addressed Haley’s clash with Ramaswamy on foreign policy, describing the tech entrepreneur as uncommitted to supporting US allies, including Israel.

    “Standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies like Israel is absolutely essential. We must be loyal to our allies and lethal to our adversaries,” Scott said. “And you heard folks who are good showmen on the stage but they refuse to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, whether that’s Taiwan, Israel or other countries. That’s a problem if you want to be commander in chief of the United States.”

    In Iowa on Wednesday, Scott drew a sharp distinction between his foreign policy vision and Trump’s.

    “I don’t think you can sit down with President Putin and come to a decision in 24 hours. I think that’s completely unrealistic,” Scott said of a recent Trump claim. “So from my perspective, that aspect of his foreign policy, we’re just on different pages.”

    “I don’t necessarily have high regard for dictators and murderers, even if they are world leaders,” he added.

    Scott also pitched himself as a candidate who can attract a wider group of voters than Trump did in the 2020 presidential election.

    “I think the power of persuasion is incredibly important. If we’re going to win the next election, the ability for us to get independents to vote with us, as opposed to against us, is a very clear area of distinction, not in the substance of the policy, but in the style of the delivery,” Scott said.

    “If you want the power of persuasion so that we win elections going forward, may the Lord bless you to say yes to Tim Scott.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Many Italian parties are against China’s Belt and Road Initiative, foreign minister says

    Many Italian parties are against China’s Belt and Road Initiative, foreign minister says

    [ad_1]

    Many Italian parties are against Rome’s participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Antonio Tajani, the country’s foreign minister said Saturday, ahead of a critical decision on whether to quit the project.

    In 2019, Rome sent shockwaves throughout the Western world when it signed up to the BRI — China’s massive infrastructure and investment plan aimed at boosting its influence across the world. At the time, analysts said that by joining the project, Italy was undermining Europe‘s ability to stand up to Beijing.

    When former European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi took power in Rome in 2021, he froze the agreement. Two years down the line and with a new government in place, Italy is now having another think about its ties with China.

    “The Italian message is very clear we want to work with China, we want to be present in China’s market, we are ready for Chinese investment, but as I said, it is important [to have a] level playing field,” said Tajani, who also serves as Italy’s deputy prime minister.

    Italy is due to announce in the coming months if it is officially ending its participation in the landmark Chinese project.

    Under the agreement the two parties can end the deal after five years, otherwise the partnership gets extended for another five-year term. Italy has until the end of the 2023 to inform China on whether it wants to end the deal.

    Tajani is due to visit China in the coming days. Speaking to CNBC’s Steve Sedgwick at the Ambrosetti Forum, he said the trip won’t be difficult, but “it is important for us.”

    Tajani, however, did not confirm any specific time for when Italy will unveil its final decision on whether to continue in the Belt and Road Initiative.

    “The Italian Parliament is checking the situation. In this moment the countries without the Belt and Road Initiative, the European countries, are working better than us. For this, Italy will decide if [to] stay or not [to] stay in the Belt and Road Initiative. In the Parliament, many parties are against it,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘The war is coming home to Russia’: Ukraine turns the tables on Moscow as drone warfare intensifies

    ‘The war is coming home to Russia’: Ukraine turns the tables on Moscow as drone warfare intensifies

    [ad_1]

    Russian President Vladimir Putin watches with binoculars the Tsentr-2019 military exercise at the Donguz range near Orenburg city on September 20, 2019.

    Alexey Nikolsky | Afp | Getty Images

    A sharp rise in drone attacks targeting Russian territory is likely to intensify, analysts say, with Kyiv appearing increasingly determined to bring the destruction, instability and unpredictability of war — albeit a fraction of what it is experiencing itself — home to Russia.

    Russia has seen a sharp rise in unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, carrying out assaults on western, central and southern Russian regions as well as the capital Moscow and Russian-occupied Crimea in recent weeks.

    While Ukraine is continuing a counteroffensive on its own soil to regain Russian-occupied territory in the south and east of the country, and aiming to break Russia’s so-called “land-bridge” to occupied Crimea, the increasing use of drones to assault Russian soil shows another facet of Ukraine’s military strategy.

    “The war is coming home to Russia,” Timothy Ash, emerging markets strategist at BlueBay Asset Management, said in emailed comments Wednesday.

    “Ukraine is demonstrating that it can make life very difficult for Russia, Russians and Putin,” he added.

    “With attacks in Crimea itself, and the land corridor and the Kerch bridge, and Russian shipping in the Black Sea coming under attack the clear message is that while the invasion was partially sold as an effort to improve Russian security, it has made Crimea and Russia less secure for Russian forces.”

    “And it is only going to get worse as long as this invasion continues,” Ash added.

    Police officers block off an area around a damaged office block of the Moscow International Business Center following a reported drone attack in Moscow on August 1, 2023.

    Alexander Nemenov | Afp | Getty Images

    Aerial assaults have intensified in recent days with strikes occurring further into Russian territory. In the early hours of Wednesday morning at least six Russian regions reported attempted drone attacks, one of which destroyed and damaged four military transport planes at an airfield in northwestern Russia.

    More attacks followed overnight Thursday, with further drones shot down in the Moscow area and the Bryansk region of southern Russia that borders Ukraine. Airports in targeted regions have been forced to cancel and delay multiple flights as a result of the attacks.

    Drone warfare

    Russia blamed Ukraine for the latest drone attacks while Ukraine remained characteristically tight-lipped about these, and previous, assaults. It’s undeniable that UAVs have become a crucial weapon in both Russia and Ukraine’s arsenals, however.

    Ukraine has been targeted with thousands of Russian drone attacks during the 19-month-long conflict, with its energy, defense and civilian infrastructure pummeled by swarms of Iranian-made UAVs. On Tuesday night, Kyiv said it had repelled more than 20 drone and missile attacks on the capital.

    In recent months, Russia has experienced more drone assaults too, however, with military bases, airfields and fuel depots, as well as neighborhoods in Moscow, targeted. Experts agree that Ukrainian forces direct attempts to attack Russian territory and are likely to be assisted by disaffected anti-war Russians at times.

    A still image from a video shows smoke rising following an alleged drone attack on oil depot in Sevastopol, Crimea, April 29, 2023. 

    Mikhail Razvozhaev Via Telegram | Via Reuters

    While drone attacks are causing a headache for Moscow on a military and political level, forcing the country to re-allocate air defense complexes to its own territory, analysts say they’re unlikely to destabilize Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime unless an attack directly affects the elite.

    “All these drone attacks force the Russian Ministry of Defense to distribute its limited number of defense assets deeper into Russia, for example, moving them from the frontlines to Moscow and airfields on Russian internationally recognized territory,” Kirill Shamiev, a Russian political scientist and a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told CNBC Thursday.

    “This is especially important for these limited number of assets such as Pantsirs, which are good and powerful [anti-aircraft missile] systems on the frontlines, but now they need to bring some of them home. So this basically reduces the effectiveness there when they’re fighting Ukrainians,” he noted.

    Shamiev said the increase of attacks on Russian territory was unlikely to cause a stir among Russian society, given that it was not close-knit and there had been few deaths from drone attacks.

    Still, if UAVs continued to be used to target the more elite neighborhoods of Moscow, those where Putin’s allies and associates live, that could pose a problem for the Kremlin.

    “If these drones continue hitting targets inside Moscow, and especially if they kill somebody, among the people closer to the Kremlin, this would be unfortunate and this is something they want to prevent from happening … I think they would rather prefer Ukrainians hit military targets than the civilian political infrastructure in Moscow, for example,” Shamiev said.

    CNBC has requested a response to these comments and is awaiting a reply from the Kremlin.

    Drone production set to increase

    Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in mid-August that Kyiv was working to significantly increase its drone production, aiming to manufacture UAVs with different ranges and different purposes.

    “Production is necessary. We are increasing production significantly. However, we need to systematize what is already being supplied to the troops and used. Drones are the “eyes” and protection on the frontline,” Zelenskyy said in a nightly address, adding that “drones are a guarantee that people will not have to pay with their lives when drones can be used.”

    Men work at a factory producing drones for the Ukrainian Armed Forces on August 30, 2023 in Kyiv, Ukraine.

    Global Images Ukraine | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Oleksandr Musiyenko, a military expert and head of the Centre for Military and Legal Studies in Kyiv, told CNBC he expected drone attacks to intensify further as Ukraine increased domestic drone production further.

    “I think that the scale of these attacks will be higher .. Ukraine has tried to use different types of drones to launch attacks on Russian military objects, on Russian objects of the defense industry. And I think that these drones can be the game changer in the Russia-Ukrainian war,” he told CNBC Thursday.

    “We do not have different types of missiles like Russia has, but we will increase the production of different types of drone.” “It’s very important for us,” he noted.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China says the best way to ‘de-risk’ is to restore stability with the U.S.

    China says the best way to ‘de-risk’ is to restore stability with the U.S.

    [ad_1]

    U.S. President Joe Biden having a virtual meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping from the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on November 15, 2021.

    Mandel Ngan | Afp | Getty Images

    BEIJING — China’s Ministry of Commerce said Thursday that restoring stability in U.S.-China trade relations is the best way to “de-risk” — a twist to a term that’s become popular in international politics.

    The word has been used by U.S. and EU officials as an attempt to position their countries as not completely separating from China in a decoupling scenario, but diversifying in areas where over-reliance on China poses a risk.

    “We believe the best way to ‘de-risk’ is to return to the consensus agreed to by the two heads of state at Bali, return China-U.S. trade relations to a healthy, stable development path,” Shu Jueting, spokesperson at the Ministry of Commerce, said at a press conference in Mandarin, translated by CNBC.

    That also “allows bilateral economic trade relations to better play the role of ‘ballast,’ stabilizing business expectations and increasing business confidence for carrying out trade and investment.”

    In November last year, U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Bali, Indonesia, for their first in-person meeting since Biden took office. Their meeting kicked off formal plans for U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other U.S. senior officials to visit China this year.

    As long as the two countries are not in open military conflict, I expect the U.S. and China will continue to have substantial trade and investment ties…

    Scott Kennedy

    Center for Strategic and International Studies

    Shu pointed out that in the first seven months of this year, U.S. direct investment in China rose by 25.5% from a year ago. The Ministry of Commerce is working with local authorities to implement recently released plans for improving the environment for foreign investment, she said. 

    “Although there has been pullback from both sides on certain elements of the commercial relationship, declarations of a full or even partial decoupling are so far inaccurate and highly premature,” said Scott Kennedy, senior advisor and trustee chair in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

    “As long as the two countries are not in open military conflict, I expect the U.S. and China will continue to have substantial trade and investment ties even while also treating each other as geostrategic competitors,” he said. “Such interactions are not only commercially beneficial, there is also a persuasive national security logic to maintaining ties.”

    Some have argued that being involved with another economic power gives the U.S. insight into its activities — and a potential point of leverage.

    In August, the Biden administration revealed a proposal to restrict U.S. investment into high-end Chinese tech on the basis of national security concerns.

    When Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao and U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo met this week, the Chinese side emphasized that “generalization of national security isn’t beneficial for normal economic trade exchanges,” spokesperson Shu said.

    “It will only damage the stability and safety of global supply chains, hurt businesses’ expectations for developing economic and trade collaboration and destroy the atmosphere for cooperation,” Shu said.

    Read more about China from CNBC Pro

    Raimondo met with Wang and other high-level Chinese government officials this week during a trip to Beijing and Shanghai. Following her meetings, the U.S. and China agreed to establish regular communication channels on commerce, export controls and protecting trade secrets.

    “My message was there’s a desire to do business, but we need predictability, due process and a level playing field,” Raimondo said in an exclusive interview with CNBC’s Eunice Yoon on Wednesday.

    In comments to reporters, Raimondo added the U.S. doesn’t want to decouple from China.
    She said Biden’s message was: “We are derisking, we’re investing in America, but we are not decoupling or trying to hold down China’s economy.”

    Earlier this week, China’s Ambassador to the U.S Xie Feng blamed U.S. tariffs and export controls for a 14.5% drop in bilateral trade in the first half of the year. 

    “The relationship remains fundamentally competitive and, on some fronts, borderline adversarial,” Eurasia Group analysts said in a note. “However, the Biden administration is striving to keep adversity in check with a careful push-pull strategy of targeted escalation and moderated concessions.”

    The note pointed out the campaign cycle ahead of the U.S. presidential election next fall “will also inject volatility in the coming months.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China says drop in trade with the U.S. is ‘a direct consequence of U.S. moves’

    China says drop in trade with the U.S. is ‘a direct consequence of U.S. moves’

    [ad_1]

    Relations between Washington and Beijing are at their lowest in decades amid disputes over trade, technology, human rights and China’s increasingly aggressive approach toward its territorial claims involving self-governing Taiwan and the South China Sea.

    Jason Lee | Reuters

    BEIJING — China’s ambassador to the U.S., Xie Feng, has blamed U.S. tariffs and export controls for a drop in trade between the two countries.

    That’s according to a speech he gave via video on Tuesday at Forbes’ U.S.-China Business Forum in New York, published online by the Chinese embassy in the U.S.

    China-U.S. trade fell by 14.5% in the first half of the year from a year ago, Xie pointed out.

    “This is a direct consequence of U.S. moves to levy Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, abuse unilateral sanctions and further tighten up export controls,” he said.

    “Livelihoods of many families have been affected, and businesses from both countries have born the brunt.”

    China’s trade partners

    The U.S. is China’s largest trading partner on a single country basis.

    Year-to-date, U.S.-China trade fell further in July with a 15.4% decline from the same period in 2022, China customs data showed.

    To shut out China is to close the door on opportunities, cooperation, stability and development.

    Xie Feng

    China’s ambassador to the U.S.

    Xie on Tuesday called for finding “a path for expanding mutually beneficial economic cooperation and trade between China and the United States.”

    “Going forward, we need to continue taking concrete steps, no matter how small they may look,” he said, giving examples — such as making it easier for people to travel between the two countries, and renewing an agreement to cooperate on science and technology.

    On a regional basis, the European Union and Association of Southeast Asian Nations are China’s largest trading partners. Those trade flows have also dropped this year — albeit at a more moderate pace — amid a decline in global demand.

    Xie on Tuesday pointed out China’s global dominance in trade and in industries such as electric vehicles. He noted that France, the U.K. and Japan had significantly increased their foreign investment in China in the first half of the year.

    “More efforts will be made to protect foreign investment and ensure national treatment for foreign-invested enterprises,” he said.

    U.S. Commerce Secretary visits China

    In his remarks, Xie noted U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo’s trip to China this week. Following her meetings with Chinese government officials, the U.S. and China agreed to establish regular communication channels on commerce, export controls and protecting trade secrets.

    Raimondo told reporters said she “said no” to China’s requests to reduce export controls and “retract” the executive order on outbound investment screening.

    “We don’t negotiate on matters of national security,” she said.

    Instead of containing China, it will only curtail the right of American businesses to develop in China.

    Xie Feng

    China’s ambassador to the U.S.

    The U.S. government has cited national security concerns for its moves to restrict Chinese companies’ purchases of advanced semiconductors from U.S. businesses.

    In 2018, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, to which Beijing responded with tariffs of its own.

    Xie claimed that average U.S. tariffs on Chinese products were 19%, while the Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods averaged 7.3%.

    “Is this fair? Does this truly serve U.S. interests?”

    U.S.-China relations are the worst they've been in thirty years, says attorney Dennis Unkovic

    The ambassador assumed his role in May after a period of about six months in which China had no ambassador to the U.S. 

    In August, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order aimed at restricting U.S. investments into Chinese semiconductor, quantum computing and artificial intelligence companies over national security concerns. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is mostly responsible for determining the details, which currently remain open to public comment. 

    Xie called the executive order “a violation of the principle of free trade.”

    Read more about China from CNBC Pro

    “It is simply confusing that the United States, which repeatedly urged China to expand access for foreign investment in the past, is now imposing restrictions itself,” he said. “Instead of containing China, it will only curtail the right of American businesses to develop in China.”

    As part of Raimondo’s trip to China, the U.S. commerce secretary said she spoke with more than 100 businesses and increasingly heard from them that “China is uninvestible because it’s become too risky.”

    “My message was there’s a desire to do business, but we need predictability, due process and a level playing field,” Raimondo added in an exclusive interview with CNBC’s Eunice Yoon on Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Final Days

    The Final Days

    [ad_1]

    August 1

    August is the month when oppressive humidity causes the mass evacuation of official Washington. In 2021, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki piled her family into the car for a week at the beach. Secretary of State Antony Blinken headed to the Hamptons to visit his elderly father. Their boss left for the leafy sanctuary of Camp David.

    Explore the October 2023 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    They knew that when they returned, their attention would shift to a date circled at the end of the month. On August 31, the United States would officially complete its withdrawal from Afghanistan, concluding the longest war in American history.

    The State Department didn’t expect to solve Afghanistan’s problems by that date. But if everything went well, there was a chance to wheedle the two warring sides into some sort of agreement that would culminate in the nation’s president, Ashraf Ghani, resigning from office, beginning an orderly transfer of power to a governing coalition that included the Taliban. There was even discussion of Blinken flying out, most likely to Doha, Qatar, to preside over the signing of an accord.

    It would be an ending, but not the end. Within the State Department there was a strongly held belief: Even after August 31, the embassy in Kabul would remain open. It wouldn’t be as robustly staffed, but some aid programs would continue; visas would still be issued. The United States—at least not the State Department—wasn’t going to abandon the country.

    There were plans for catastrophic scenarios, which had been practiced in tabletop simulations, but no one anticipated that they would be needed. Intelligence assessments asserted that the Afghan military would be able to hold off the Taliban for months, though the number of months kept dwindling as the Taliban conquered terrain more quickly than the analysts had predicted. But as August began, the grim future of Afghanistan seemed to exist in the distance, beyond the end of the month, not on America’s watch.

    July 30, 2021: Joe Biden speaks to reporters before departing the White House for Camp David. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty)

    That grim future arrived disastrously ahead of schedule. What follows is an intimate history of that excruciating month of withdrawal, as narrated by its participants, based on dozens of interviews conducted shortly after the fact, when memories were fresh and emotions raw. At times, as I spoke with these participants, I felt as if I was their confessor. Their failings were so apparent that they had a desperate need to explain themselves, but also an impulse to relive moments of drama and pain more intense than any they had experienced in their career.

    During those fraught days, foreign policy, so often debated in the abstract, or conducted from the sanitized remove of the Situation Room, became horrifyingly vivid. President Joe Biden and his aides found themselves staring hard at the consequences of their decisions.

    Even in the thick of the crisis, as the details of a mass evacuation swallowed them, the members of Biden’s inner circle could see that the legacy of the month would stalk them into the next election—and perhaps into their obituaries. Though it was a moment when their shortcomings were on obvious display, they also believed it evinced resilience and improvisational skill.

    And amid the crisis, a crisis that taxed his character and managerial acumen, the president revealed himself. For a man long caricatured as a political weather vane, Biden exhibited determination, even stubbornness, despite furious criticism from the establishment figures whose approval he usually craved. For a man vaunted for his empathy, he could be detached, even icy, when confronted with the prospect of human suffering.

    When it came to foreign policy, Joe Biden possessed a swaggering faith in himself. He liked to knock the diplomats and pundits who would pontificate at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Munich Security Conference. He called them risk-averse, beholden to institutions, lazy in their thinking. Listening to these complaints, a friend once posed the obvious question: If you have such negative things to say about these confabs, then why attend so many of them? Biden replied, “If I don’t go, they’re going to get stale as hell.”

    From 12 years as the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—and then eight years as the vice president—Biden had acquired a sense that he could scythe through conventional wisdom. He distrusted mandarins, even those he had hired for his staff. They were always muddying things with theories. One aide recalled that he would say, “You foreign-policy guys, you think this is all pretty complicated. But it’s just like family dynamics.” Foreign affairs was sometimes painful, often futile, but really it was emotional intelligence applied to people with names that were difficult to pronounce. Diplomacy, in Biden’s view, was akin to persuading a pain-in-the-ass uncle to stop drinking so much.

    One subject seemed to provoke his contrarian side above all others: the war in Afghanistan. His strong opinions were grounded in experience. Soon after the United States invaded, in late 2001, Biden began visiting the country. He traveled with a sleeping bag; he stood in line alongside Marines, wrapped in a towel, waiting for his turn to shower.

    On his first trip, in 2002, Biden met with Interior Minister Yunus Qanuni in his Kabul office, a shell of a building. Qanuni, an old mujahideen fighter, told him: We really appreciate that you have come here. But Americans have a long history of making promises and then breaking them. And if that happens again, the Afghan people are going to be disappointed.

    Biden was jet-lagged and irritable. Qanuni’s comments set him off: Let me tell you, if you even think of threatening us … Biden’s aides struggled to calm him down.

    In Biden’s moral code, ingratitude is a grievous sin. The United States had evicted the Taliban from power; it had sent young men to die in the nation’s mountains; it would give the new government billions in aid. But throughout the long conflict, Afghan officials kept telling him that the U.S. hadn’t done enough.

    The frustration stuck with him, and it clarified his thinking. He began to draw unsentimental conclusions about the war. He could see that the Afghan government was a failed enterprise. He could see that a nation-building campaign of this scale was beyond American capacity.

    As vice president, Biden also watched as the military pressured Barack Obama into sending thousands of additional troops to salvage a doomed cause. In his 2020 memoir, A Promised Land, Obama recalled that as he agonized over his Afghan policy, Biden pulled him aside and told him, “Listen to me, boss. Maybe I’ve been around this town for too long, but one thing I know is when these generals are trying to box in a new president.” He drew close and whispered, “Don’t let them jam you.”

    Biden developed a theory of how he would succeed where Obama had failed. He wasn’t going to let anyone jam him.

    In early February 2021, now-President Biden invited his secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, into the Oval Office. He wanted to acknowledge an emotional truth: “I know you have friends you have lost in this war. I know you feel strongly. I know what you’ve put into this.”

    Over the years, Biden had traveled to military bases, frequently accompanied by his fellow senator Chuck Hagel. On those trips, Hagel and Biden dipped in and out of a long-running conversation about war. They traded theories on why the United States would remain mired in unwinnable conflicts. One problem was the psychology of defeat. Generals were terrified of being blamed for a loss, living in history as the one who waved the white flag.

    It was this dynamic, in part, that kept the United States entangled in Afghanistan. Politicians who hadn’t served in the military could never summon the will to overrule the generals, and the generals could never admit that they were losing. So the war continued indefinitely, a zombie campaign. Biden believed that he could break this cycle, that he could master the psychology of defeat.

    Biden wanted to avoid having his generals feel cornered—even as he guided them to his desired outcome. He wanted them to feel heard, to appreciate his good faith. He told Austin and Milley, “Before I make a decision, you’ll have a chance to look me in the eyes.”

    The date set out by the Doha Agreement, which the Trump administration had negotiated with the Taliban, was May 1, 2021. If the Taliban adhered to a set of conditions—engaging in political negotiations with the Afghan government, refraining from attacking U.S. troops, and cutting ties with terrorist groups—then the United States would remove its soldiers from the country by that date. Because of the May deadline, Biden’s first major foreign-policy decision—whether or not to honor the Doha Agreement—would also be the one he seemed to care most about. And it would need to be made in a sprint.

    In the spring, after weeks of meetings with generals and foreign-policy advisers, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan had the National Security Council generate two documents for the president to read. One outlined the best case for staying in Afghanistan; the other made the best case for leaving.

    This reflected Biden’s belief that he faced a binary choice. If he abandoned the Doha Agreement, attacks on U.S. troops would resume. Since the accord had been signed, in February 2020, the Taliban had grown stronger, forging new alliances and sharpening plans. And thanks to the drawdown of troops that had begun under Donald Trump, the United States no longer had a robust-enough force to fight a surging foe.

    Biden gathered his aides for one last meeting before he formally made his decision. Toward the end of the session, he asked Sullivan, Blinken, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to leave the room. He wanted to talk with Austin and Milley alone.

    Instead of revealing his final decision, Biden told them, “This is hard. I want to go to Camp David this weekend and think about it.”

    It was always clear where the president would land. Milley knew that his own preferred path for Afghanistan—leaving a small but meaningful contingent of troops in the country—wasn’t shared by the nation he served, or the new commander in chief. Having just survived Trump and a wave of speculation about how the U.S. military might figure in a coup, Milley was eager to demonstrate his fidelity to civilian rule. If Biden wanted to shape the process to get his preferred result, well, that’s how a democracy should work.

    On April 14, Biden announced that he would withdraw American forces from Afghanistan. He delivered remarks explaining his decision in the Treaty Room of the White House, the very spot where, in the fall of 2001, George W. Bush had informed the public of the first American strikes against the Taliban.

    Biden’s speech contained a hole that few noted at the time. It scarcely mentioned the Afghan people, with not even an expression of best wishes for the nation that the United States would be leaving behind. The Afghans were apparently only incidental to his thinking. (Biden hadn’t spoken with President Ghani until right before the announcement.) Scranton Joe’s deep reserves of compassion were directed at people with whom he felt a connection; his visceral ties were with American soldiers. When he thought about the military’s rank and file, he couldn’t help but project an image of his own late son, Beau. “I’m the first president in 40 years who knows what it means to have a child serving in a war zone,” he said.

    Biden also announced a new deadline for the U.S. withdrawal, which would move from May 1 to September 11, the 20th anniversary of the attack that drew the United States into war. The choice of date was polemical. Although he never officially complained about it, Milley didn’t understand the decision. How did it honor the dead to admit defeat in a conflict that had been waged on their behalf? Eventually, the Biden administration pushed the withdrawal deadline forward to August 31, an implicit concession that it had erred.

    But the choice of September 11 was telling. Biden took pride in ending an unhappy chapter in American history. Democrats might have once referred to Afghanistan as the “good war,” but it had become a fruitless fight. It had distracted the United States from policies that might preserve the nation’s geostrategic dominance. By leaving Afghanistan, Biden believed he was redirecting the nation’s gaze to the future: “We’ll be much more formidable to our adversaries and competitors over the long term if we fight the battles for the next 20 years, not the last 20.”


    August 6–9

    In late June, Jake Sullivan began to worry that the Pentagon had pulled American personnel and materiel out of Afghanistan too precipitously. The rapid drawdown had allowed the Taliban to advance and to win a string of victories against the Afghan army that had caught the administration by surprise. Even if Taliban fighters weren’t firing at American troops, they were continuing to battle the Afghan army and take control of the countryside. Now they’d captured a provincial capital in the remote southwest—a victory that was disturbingly effortless.

    Sullivan asked one of his top aides, Homeland Security Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, to convene a meeting for Sunday, August 8, with officials overseeing the withdrawal. Contingency plans contained a switch that could be flipped in an emergency. To avoid a reprise of the fall of Saigon, with desperate hands clinging to the last choppers out of Vietnam, the government made plans for a noncombatant-evacuation operation, or NEO. The U.S. embassy would shut down and relocate to Hamid Karzai International Airport (or HKIA, as everyone called it). Troops, pre-positioned near the Persian Gulf and waiting at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, would descend on Kabul to protect the airport. Military transport planes would haul American citizens and visa holders out of the country.

    By the time Sherwood-Randall had a chance to assemble the meeting, the most pessimistic expectations had been exceeded. The Taliban had captured four more provincial capitals. General Frank McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, filed a commander’s estimate warning that Kabul could be surrounded within about 30 days—a far faster collapse than previously predicted.

    McKenzie’s dire warning did strangely little to alter plans. Sherwood-Randall’s group unanimously agreed that it was too soon to declare a NEO. The embassy in Kabul was particularly forceful on this point. The acting ambassador, Ross Wilson, wanted to avoid cultivating a sense of panic in Kabul, which would further collapse the army and the state. Even the CIA seconded this line of thinking.


    August 12

    At 2 a.m., Sullivan’s phone rang. It was Mark Milley. The military had received reports that the Taliban had entered the city of Ghazni, less than 100 miles from Kabul.

    The intelligence community assumed that the Taliban wouldn’t storm Kabul until after the United States left, because the Taliban wanted to avoid a block‑by‑block battle for the city. But the proximity of the Taliban to the embassy and HKIA was terrifying. It necessitated the decisive action that the administration had thus far resisted. Milley wanted Sullivan to initiate a NEO. If the State Department wasn’t going to move quickly, the president needed to order it to. Sullivan assured him that he would push harder, but it would be two more days before the president officially declared a NEO.

    With the passage of each hour, Sullivan’s anxieties grew. He called Lloyd Austin and told him, “I think you need to send someone with bars on his arm to Doha to talk to the Taliban so that they understand not to mess with an evacuation.” Austin agreed to dispatch General McKenzie to renew negotiations.


    August 13

    Austin convened a videoconference with the top civilian and military officials in Kabul. He wanted updates from them before he headed to the White House to brief the president.

    Ross Wilson, the acting ambassador, told him, “I need 72 hours before I can begin destroying sensitive documents.”

    “You have to be done in 72 hours,” Austin replied.

    The Taliban were now perched outside Kabul. Delaying the evacuation of the embassy posed a danger that Austin couldn’t abide. Thousands of troops were about to arrive to protect the new makeshift facility that would be set up at the airport. The moment had come to move there.

    Abandoning an embassy has its own protocols; they are rituals of panic. The diplomats had a weekend, more or less, to purge the place: to fill its shredders, burn bins, and disintegrator with documents and hard drives. Anything with an American flag on it needed destroying so it couldn’t be used by the enemy for propaganda purposes.

    Wisps of smoke would soon begin to blow from the compound—a plume of what had been classified cables and personnel files. Even for those Afghans who didn’t have access to the internet, the narrative would be legible in the sky.


    August 14

    On Saturday night, Antony Blinken placed a call to Ashraf Ghani. He wanted to make sure the Afghan president remained committed to the negotiations in Doha. The Taliban delegation there was still prepared to agree to a unity government, which it might eventually run, allocating cabinet slots to ministers from Ghani’s government. That notion had broad support from the Afghan political elite. Everyone, even Ghani, agreed that he would need to resign as part of a deal. Blinken wanted to ensure that he wouldn’t waver from his commitments and try to hold on to power.

    Although Ghani said that he would comply, he began musing aloud about what might happen if the Taliban invaded Kabul prior to August 31. He told Blinken, “I’d rather die than surrender.”


    August 15

    The next day, the presidential palace released a video of Ghani talking with security officials on the phone. As he sat at his imposing wooden desk, which once belonged to King Amanullah, who had bolted from the palace to avoid an Islamist uprising in 1929, Ghani’s aides hoped to project a sense of calm.

    During the early hours, a small number of Taliban fighters eased their way to the gates of the city, and then into the capital itself. The Taliban leadership didn’t want to invade Kabul until after the American departure. But their soldiers had conquered territory without even firing a shot. In their path, Afghan soldiers simply walked away from checkpoints. Taliban units kept drifting in the direction of the presidential palace.

    Rumors traveled more quickly than the invaders. A crowd formed outside a bank in central Kabul. Nervous customers jostled in a chaotic rush to empty their accounts. Guards fired into the air to disperse the melee. The sound of gunfire reverberated through the nearby palace, which had largely emptied for lunch. Ghani’s closest advisers pressed him to flee. “If you stay,” one told him, according to The Washington Post, “you’ll be killed.”

    This was a fear rooted in history. In 1996, when the Taliban first invaded Kabul, they hanged the tortured body of the former president from a traffic light. Ghani hustled onto one of three Mi‑17 helicopters waiting inside his compound, bound for Uzbekistan. The New York Times Magazine later reported that the helicopters were instructed to fly low to the terrain, to evade detection by the U.S. military. From Uzbekistan, he would fly to the United Arab Emirates and an ignominious exile. Without time to pack, he left in plastic sandals, accompanied by his wife. On the tarmac, aides and guards grappled over the choppers’ last remaining seats.

    When the rest of Ghani’s staff returned from lunch, they moved through the palace searching for the president, unaware that he had abandoned them, and their country.

    At approximately 1:45 p.m., Ambassador Wilson went to the embassy lobby for the ceremonial lowering of the flag. Emotionally drained and worried about his own safety, he prepared to leave the embassy behind, a monument to his nation’s defeat.

    Wilson made his way to the helicopter pad so that he could be taken to his new outpost at the airport, where he was told that a trio of choppers had just left the presidential palace. Wilson knew what that likely meant. By the time he relayed his suspicions to Washington, officials already possessed intelligence that confirmed Wilson’s hunch: Ghani had fled.

    Jake Sullivan relayed the news to Biden, who exploded in frustration: Give me a break.

    Later that afternoon, General McKenzie arrived at the Ritz-Carlton in Doha. Well before Ghani’s departure from power, the wizened Marine had scheduled a meeting with an old adversary of the United States, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

    Baradar wasn’t just any Taliban leader. He was a co-founder of the group, with Mullah Mohammed Omar. McKenzie had arrived with the intention of delivering a stern warning. He barely had time to tweak his agenda after learning of Ghani’s exit.

    McKenzie unfolded a map of Afghanistan translated into Pashto. A circle had been drawn around the center of Kabul—a radius of about 25 kilometers—and he pointed to it. He referred to this area as the “ring of death.” If the Taliban operated within those 25 kilometers, McKenzie said, “we’re going to assume hostile intent, and we’ll strike hard.”

    McKenzie tried to bolster his threat with logic. He said he didn’t want to end up in a firefight with the Taliban, and that would be a lot less likely to happen if they weren’t in the city.

    Baradar not only understood; he agreed. Known as a daring military tactician, he was also a pragmatist. He wanted to transform his group’s inhospitable image; he hoped that foreign embassies, even the American one, would remain in Kabul. Baradar didn’t want a Taliban government to become a pariah state, starved of foreign assistance that it badly needed.

    But the McKenzie plan had an elemental problem: It was too late. Taliban fighters were already operating within the ring of death. Kabul was on the brink of anarchy. Armed criminal gangs were already starting to roam the streets. Baradar asked the general, “Are you going to take responsibility for the security of Kabul?”

    McKenzie replied that his orders were to run an evacuation. Whatever happens to the security situation in Kabul, he told Baradar, don’t mess with the evacuation, or there will be hell to pay. It was an evasive answer. The United States didn’t have the troops or the will to secure Kabul. McKenzie had no choice but to implicitly cede that job to the Taliban.

    Baradar walked toward a window. Because he didn’t speak English, he wanted his adviser to confirm his understanding. “Is he saying that he won’t attack us if we go in?” His adviser told him that he had heard correctly.

    As the meeting wrapped up, McKenzie realized that the United States would need to be in constant communication with the Taliban. They were about to be rubbing shoulders with each other in a dense city. Misunderstandings were inevitable. Both sides agreed that they would designate a representative in Kabul to talk through the many complexities so that the old enemies could muddle together toward a common purpose.

    Soon after McKenzie and Baradar ended their meeting, Al Jazeera carried a live feed from the presidential palace, showing the Taliban as they went from room to room, in awe of the building, seemingly bemused by their own accomplishment.

    photo of group of men, many carrying weapons, sitting and standing around an ornate wooden desk
    August 15: Taliban fighters take control of the presidential palace in Kabul. (Associated Press)

    They gathered in Ghani’s old office, where a book of poems remained on his desk, across from a box of Kleenex. A Talib sat in the president’s Herman Miller chair. His comrades stood behind him in a tableau, cloth draped over the shoulders of their tunics, guns resting in the crooks of their arms, as if posing for an official portrait.


    August 16

    The U.S. embassy, now relocated to the airport, became a magnet for humanity. The extent of Afghan desperation shocked officials back in Washington. Only amid the panicked exodus did top officials at the State Department realize that hundreds of thousands of Afghans had fled their homes as civil war swept through the countryside—and made their way to the capital.

    The runway divided the airport into halves. A northern sector served as a military outpost and, after the relocation of the embassy, a consular office—the last remaining vestiges of the United States and its promise of liberation. A commercial airport stared at these barracks from across the strip of asphalt.

    The commercial facility had been abandoned by the Afghans who worked there. The night shift of air-traffic controllers simply never arrived. The U.S. troops whom Austin had ordered to support the evacuation were only just arriving. So the terminal was overwhelmed. Afghans began to spill onto the tarmac itself.

    The crowds arrived in waves. The previous day, Afghans had flooded the tarmac late in the day, then left when they realized that no flights would depart that evening. But in the morning, the compound still wasn’t secure, and it refilled.

    In the chaos, it wasn’t entirely clear to Ambassador Wilson who controlled the compound. The Taliban began freely roaming the facility, wielding bludgeons, trying to secure the mob. Apparently, they were working alongside soldiers from the old Afghan army. Wilson received worrying reports of tensions between the two forces.

    The imperative was to begin landing transport planes with equipment and soldiers. A C‑17, a warehouse with wings, full of supplies to support the arriving troops, managed to touch down. The crew lowered a ramp to unload the contents of the jet’s belly, but the plane was rushed by a surge of civilians. The Americans on board were no less anxious than the Afghans who greeted them. Almost as quickly as the plane’s back ramp lowered, the crew reboarded and resealed the jet’s entrances. They received permission to flee the uncontrolled scene.

    But they could not escape the crowd, for whom the jet was a last chance to avoid the Taliban and the suffering to come. As the plane began to taxi, about a dozen Afghans climbed onto one side of the jet. Others sought to stow away in the wheel well that housed its bulging landing gear. To clear the runway of human traffic, Humvees began rushing alongside the plane. Two Apache helicopters flew just above the ground, to give the Afghans a good scare and to blast the civilians from the plane with rotor wash.

    Only after the plane had lifted into the air did the crew discover its place in history. When the pilot couldn’t fully retract the landing gear, a member of the crew went to investigate, staring out of a small porthole. Through the window, it was possible to see scattered human remains.

    Videos taken from the tarmac instantly went viral. They showed a dentist from Kabul plunging to the ground from the elevating jet. The footage evoked the photo of a man falling to his death from an upper story of the World Trade Center—images of plummeting bodies bracketing an era.

    Over the weekend, Biden had received briefings about the chaos in Kabul in a secure conference room at Camp David. Photographs distributed to the press showed him alone, talking to screens, isolated in his contrarian faith in the righteousness of his decision. Despite the fiasco at the airport, he returned to the White House, stood in the East Room, and proclaimed: “If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision. American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves.”


    August 17

    John Bass was having a hard time keeping his mind on the task at hand. From 2017 to 2020, he had served as Washington’s ambassador to Afghanistan. During that tour, Bass did his best to immerse himself in the country and meet its people. He’d planted a garden with a group of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and hosted roundtables with journalists. When his term as ambassador ended, he left behind friends, colleagues, and hundreds of acquaintances.

    Now Bass kept his eyes on his phone, checking for any word from his old Afghan network. He moved through his day dreading what might come next.

    Yet he also had a job that required his attention. The State Department had assigned him to train future ambassadors. In a seminar room in suburban Virginia, he did his best to focus on passing along wisdom to these soon‑to‑be emissaries of the United States.

    As class was beginning, his phone lit up. Bass saw the number of the State Department Operations Center. He apologized and stepped out to take the call.

    “Are you available to talk to Deputy Secretary Sherman?”

    The familiar voice of Wendy Sherman, the No. 2 at the department, came on the line. “I have a mission for you. You must take it, and you need to leave today.” Sherman then told him: “I’m calling to ask you to go back to Kabul to lead the evacuation effort.”

    Ambassador Wilson was shattered by the experience of the past week and wasn’t “able to function at the level that was necessary” to complete the job on his own. Sherman needed Bass to help manage the exodus.

    Bass hadn’t expected the request. In his flummoxed state, he struggled to pose the questions he thought he might later regret not having asked.

    “How much time do we have?”

    “Probably about two weeks, a little less than two weeks.”

    “I’ve been away from this for 18 months or so.”

    “Yep, we know, but we think you’re the right person for this.”

    Bass returned to class and scooped up his belongings. “With apologies, I’m going to have to take my leave. I’ve just been asked to go back to Kabul and support the evacuations. So I’ve got to say goodbye and wish you all the best, and you’re all going to be great ambassadors.”

    Because he wasn’t living in Washington, Bass didn’t have the necessary gear with him. He drove straight to the nearest REI in search of hiking pants and rugged boots. He needed to pick up a laptop from the IT department in Foggy Bottom. Without knowing much more than what was in the news, Bass rushed to board a plane taking him to the worst crisis in the recent history of American foreign policy.


    August 19–25

    About 30 hours later—3:30 a.m., Kabul time—Bass touched down at HKIA and immediately began touring the compound. At the American headquarters, he ran into the military heads of the operation, whom he had worked with before. They presented Bass with the state of play. The situation was undeniably bizarre: The success of the American operation now depended largely on the cooperation of the Taliban.

    The Americans needed the Taliban to help control the crowds that had formed outside the airport—and to implement systems that would allow passport and visa holders to pass through the throngs. But the Taliban were imperfect allies at best. Their checkpoints were run by warriors from the countryside who didn’t know how to deal with the array of documents being waved in their faces. What was an authentic visa? What about families where the father had a U.S. passport but his wife and children didn’t? Every day, a new set of Taliban soldiers seemed to arrive at checkpoints, unaware of the previous day’s directions. Frustrated with the unruliness, the Taliban would sometimes simply stop letting anyone through.

    photo: a line of figures in a debris-strewn area outside the walled airport with mountains in background in dim hazy light
    August 24: Afghan families hoping to flee the country arrive at Hamid Karzai International Airport at dawn. (Jim Huylebroek)

    Abdul Ghani Baradar’s delegation in Doha had passed along the name of a Taliban commander in Kabul—Mawlawi Hamdullah Mukhlis. It had fallen to Major General Chris Donahue, the head of the 82nd Airborne Division, out of Fort Bragg, to coordinate with him. On September 11, 2001, Donahue had been an aide to the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, and had been with him on Capitol Hill when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

    Donahue told Pentagon officials that he had to grit his teeth as he dealt with Mukhlis. But the Taliban commander seemed to feel a camaraderie with his fellow soldier. He confided to Donahue his worry that Afghanistan would suffer from brain drain, as the country’s most talented minds evacuated on American airplanes.

    In a videoconference with Mark Milley, back at the Pentagon, Donahue recounted Mukhlis’s fears. According to one Defense Department official in the meeting, his description caused Milley to laugh.

    “Don’t be going local on me, Donahue,” he said.

    “Don’t worry about me, sir,” Donahue responded. “I’m not buying what they are selling.”

    After Bass left his meeting with the military men, including Donahue, he toured the gates of the airport, where Afghans had amassed. He was greeted by the smell of feces and urine, by the sound of gunshots and bullhorns blaring instructions in Dari and Pashto. Dust assaulted his eyes and nose. He felt the heat that emanated from human bodies crowded into narrow spaces.

    The atmosphere was tense. Marines and consular officers, some of whom had flown into Kabul from other embassies, were trying to pull passport and visa holders from the crowd. But every time they waded into it, they seemed to provoke a furious reaction. To get plucked from the street by the Americans smacked of cosmic unfairness to those left behind. Sometimes the anger swelled beyond control, so the troops shut down entrances to allow frustrations to subside. Bass was staring at despair in its rawest form. As he studied the people surrounding the airport, he wondered if he could ever make any of this a bit less terrible.

    Bass cadged a room in barracks belonging to the Turkish army, which had agreed, before the chaos had descended, to operate and protect the airport after the Americans finally departed. His days tended to follow a pattern. They would begin with the Taliban’s grudging assistance. Then, as lunchtime approached, the Talibs would get hot and hungry. Abruptly, they would stop processing evacuees through their checkpoints. Then, just as suddenly, at six or seven, as the sun began to set, they would begin to cooperate again.

    Bass was forever hatching fresh schemes to satisfy the Taliban’s fickle requirements. One day, the Taliban would let buses through without question; the next, they would demand to see passenger manifests in advance. Bass’s staff created official-looking placards to place in bus windows. The Taliban waved them through for a short period, then declared the placard system unreliable.

    Throughout the day, Bass would stop what he was doing and join videoconferences with Washington. He became a fixture in the Situation Room. Biden would pepper him with ideas for squeezing more evacuees through the gates. The president’s instinct was to throw himself into the intricacies of troubleshooting. Why don’t we have them meet in parking lots? Can’t we leave the airport and pick them up? Bass would kick around Biden’s proposed solutions with colleagues to determine their plausibility, which was usually low. Still, he appreciated Biden applying pressure, making sure that he didn’t overlook the obvious.

    At the end of his first day at the airport, Bass went through his email. A State Department spokesperson had announced Bass’s arrival in Kabul. Friends and colleagues had deluged him with requests to save Afghans. Bass began to scrawl the names from his inbox on a whiteboard in his office. By the time he finished, he’d filled the six-foot‑by‑four-foot surface. He knew there was little chance that he could help. The orders from Washington couldn’t have been clearer. The primary objective was to load planes with U.S. citizens, U.S.-visa holders, and passport holders from partner nations, mostly European ones.

    In his mind, Bass kept another running list, of Afghans he had come to know personally during his time as ambassador who were beyond his ability to rescue. Their faces and voices were etched in his memory, and he could be sure that, at some point when he wasn’t rushing to fill C‑17s, they would haunt his sleep.

    “Someone on the bus is dying.”

    Jake Sullivan was unnerved. What to do with such a dire message from a trusted friend? It described a caravan of five blue-and-white buses stuck 100 yards outside the south gate of the airport, one of them carrying a human being struggling for life. If Sullivan forwarded this problem to an aide, would it get resolved in time?

    Sullivan sometimes felt as if every member of the American elite was simultaneously asking for his help. When he left secure rooms, he would grab his phone and check his personal email accounts, which overflowed with pleas. This person just had the Taliban threaten them. They will be shot in 15 hours if you don’t get them out. Some of the senders seemed to be trying to shame him into action. If you don’t do something, their death is on your hands.

    Throughout late August, the president himself was fielding requests to help stranded Afghans, from friends and members of Congress. Biden became invested in individual cases. Three buses of women at the Kabul Serena Hotel kept running into logistical obstacles. He told Sullivan, “I want to know what happens to them. I want to know when they make it to the airport.” When the president heard these stories, he would become engrossed in solving the practical challenge of getting people to the airport, mapping routes through the city.

    When Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary of state, went to check in with members of a task force working on the evacuation, she found grizzled diplomats in tears. She estimated that a quarter of the State Department’s personnel had served in Afghanistan. They felt a connection with the country, an emotional entanglement. Fielding an overwhelming volume of emails describing hardship cases, they easily imagined the faces of refugees. They felt the shame and anger that come with the inability to help. To deal with the trauma, the State Department procured therapy dogs that might ease the staff’s pain.

    The State Department redirected the attention of its sprawling apparatus to Afghanistan. Embassies in Mexico City and New Delhi became call centers. Staff in those distant capitals assumed the role of caseworkers, assigned to stay in touch with the remaining American citizens in Afghanistan, counseling them through the terrifying weeks.

    Sherman dispatched her Afghan-born chief of staff, Mustafa Popal, to HKIA to support embassy workers and serve as an interpreter. All day long, Sherman responded to pleas for help: from foreign governments’ representatives, who joined a daily videoconference she hosted; from members of Congress; from the cellist Yo‑Yo Ma, writing on behalf of musicians. Amid the crush, she felt compelled to go down to the first floor, to spend 15 minutes cuddling the therapy dogs.

    The Biden administration hadn’t intended to conduct a full-blown humanitarian evacuation of Afghanistan. It had imagined an orderly and efficient exodus that would extend past August 31, as visa holders boarded commercial flights from the country. As those plans collapsed, the president felt the same swirl of emotions as everyone else watching the desperation at the airport. Over the decades, he had thought about Afghanistan using the cold logic of realism—it was a strategic distraction, a project whose costs outweighed the benefits. Despite his many visits, the country had become an abstraction in his mind. But the graphic suffering in Kabul awakened in him a compassion that he’d never evinced in the debates about the withdrawal.

    After seeing the abject desperation on the HKIA tarmac, the president had told the Situation Room that he wanted all the planes flying thousands of troops into the airport to leave filled with evacuees. Pilots should pile American citizens and Afghans with visas into those planes. But there was a category of evacuees that he now especially wanted to help, what the government called “Afghans at risk.” These were the newspaper reporters, the schoolteachers, the filmmakers, the lawyers, the members of a girls’ robotics team who didn’t necessarily have paperwork but did have every reason to fear for their well-being in a Taliban-controlled country.

    This was a different sort of mission. The State Department hadn’t vetted all of the Afghans at risk. It didn’t know if they were genuinely endangered or simply strivers looking for a better life. It didn’t know if they would have qualified for the visas that the administration said it issued to those who worked with the Americans, or if they were petty criminals. But if they were in the right place at the right time, they were herded up the ramp of C‑17s.

    In anticipation of an evacuation, the United States had built housing at Camp As Sayliyah, a U.S. Army base in the suburbs of Doha. It could hold 8,000 people, housing them as the Department of Homeland Security collected their biometric data and began to vet them for immigration. But it quickly became clear that the United States would fly far more than 8,000 Afghans to Qatar.

    As the numbers swelled, the United States set up tents at Al Udeid Air Base, a bus ride away from As Sayliyah. Nearly 15,000 Afghans took up residence there, but their quarters were poorly planned. There weren’t nearly enough toilets or showers. Procuring lunch meant standing in line for three or four hours. Single men slept in cots opposite married women, a transgression of Afghan traditions.

    The Qataris, determined to use the crisis to burnish their reputation, erected a small city of air-conditioned wedding tents and began to cater meals for the refugees. But the Biden administration knew that the number of evacuees would soon exceed Qatar’s capacity. It needed to erect a network of camps. What it created was something like the hub-and-spoke system used by commercial airlines. Refugees would fly into Al Udeid and then be redirected to bases across the Middle East and Europe, what the administration termed “lily pads.”

    In September, just as refugees were beginning to arrive at Dulles International Airport, outside Washington, D.C., four Afghan evacuees caught the measles. All the refugees in the Middle East and Europe now needed vaccinations, which would require 21 days for immunity to take hold. To keep disease from flying into the United States, the State Department called around the world, asking if Afghans could stay on bases for three extra weeks.

    In the end, the U.S. government housed more than 60,000 Afghans in facilities that hadn’t existed before the fall of Kabul. It flew 387 sorties from HKIA. At the height of the operation, an aircraft took off every 45 minutes. A terrible failure of planning necessitated a mad scramble—a mad scramble that was an impressive display of creative determination.

    Even as the administration pulled off this feat of logistics, it was pilloried for the clumsiness of the withdrawal. The New York TimesDavid Sanger had written, “After seven months in which his administration seemed to exude much-needed competence—getting more than 70 percent of the country’s adults vaccinated, engineering surging job growth and making progress toward a bipartisan infrastructure bill—everything about America’s last days in Afghanistan shattered the imagery.”

    Biden didn’t have time to voraciously consume the news, but he was well aware of the coverage, and it infuriated him. It did little to change his mind, though. In the caricature version of Joe Biden that had persisted for decades, he was highly sensitive to shifts in opinion, especially when they emerged from columnists at the Post or the Times. The criticism of the withdrawal caused him to justify the chaos as the inevitable consequence of a difficult decision, even though he had never publicly, or privately, predicted it. Through the whole last decade of the Afghan War, he had detested the conventional wisdom of the foreign-policy elites. They were willing to stay forever, no matter the cost. After defying their delusional promises of progress for so long, he wasn’t going to back down now. In fact, everything he’d witnessed from his seat in the Situation Room confirmed his belief that exiting a war without hope was the best and only course.

    So much of the commentary felt overheated to him. He said to an aide: Either the press is losing its mind, or I am.


    August 26

    Every intelligence official watching Kabul was obsessed with the possibility of an attack by ISIS-Khorasan, or ISIS‑K, the Afghan offshoot of the Islamic State, which dreamed of a new caliphate in Central Asia. As the Taliban stormed across Afghanistan, they unlocked a prison at Bagram Air Base, freeing hardened ISIS‑K adherents. ISIS‑K had been founded by veterans of the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban who had broken with their groups, on the grounds that they needed to be replaced by an even more militant vanguard. The intelligence community had been sorting through a roaring river of unmistakable warnings about an imminent assault on the airport.

    As the national-security team entered the Situation Room for a morning meeting, it consumed an early, sketchy report of an explosion at one of the gates to HKIA, but it was hard to know if there were any U.S. casualties. Everyone wanted to believe that the United States had escaped unscathed, but everyone had too much experience to believe that. General McKenzie appeared via videoconference in the Situation Room with updates that confirmed the room’s suspicions of American deaths. Biden hung his head and quietly absorbed the reports. In the end, the explosion killed 13 U.S. service members and more than 150 Afghan civilians.


    August 29–30

    The remains of the dead service members were flown to Dover Air Force Base, in Delaware, for a ritual known as the dignified transfer: Flag-draped caskets are marched down the gangway of a transport plane and driven to the base’s mortuary.

    So much about the withdrawal had slipped beyond Biden’s control. But grieving was his expertise. If there was one thing that everyone agreed Biden did more adroitly than any other public official, it was comforting survivors. The Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole once called him “the Designated Mourner.”

    photo: Marines carry a flag-draped coffin on tarmac with a large group of people standing and saluting in background
    August 29: President Biden watches as the remains of a Marine killed in the attack on Hamid Karzai International Airport are returned to Dover Air Force Base. (Associated Press)

    Accompanied by his wife, Jill; Mark Milley; Antony Blinken; and Lloyd Austin, Biden made his way to a private room where grieving families had gathered. He knew he would be standing face to face with unbridled anger. A father had already turned his back on Austin and was angrily shouting at Milley, who held up his hands in the posture of surrender.

    When Biden entered, he shook the hand of Mark Schmitz, who had lost his 20-year-old son, Jared. In his sorrow, Schmitz couldn’t decide whether he wanted to sit in the presence of the president. According to a report in The Washington Post, the night before, he had told a military officer that he didn’t want to speak to the man whose incompetence he blamed for his son’s death. In the morning, he changed his mind.

    Schmitz told the Post that he couldn’t help but glare in Biden’s direction. When Biden approached, he held out a photo of Jared. “Don’t you ever forget that name. Don’t you ever forget that face. Don’t you ever forget the names of the other 12. And take some time to learn their stories.”

    “I do know their stories,” Biden replied.

    After the dignified transfer, the families piled onto a bus. A sister of one of the dead screamed in Biden’s direction: “I hope you burn in hell.”

    Of all the moments in August, this was the one that caused the president to second-guess himself. He asked Press Secretary Jen Psaki: Did I do something wrong? Maybe I should have handled that differently.

    As Biden left, Milley saw the pain on the president’s face. He told him: “You made a decision that had to be made. War is a brutal, vicious undertaking. We’re moving forward to the next step.”

    That afternoon, Biden returned to the Situation Room. There was pressure, from the Hill and talking heads, to push back the August 31 deadline. But everyone in the room was terrified by the intelligence assessments about ISIS‑K. If the U.S. stayed, it would be hard to avoid the arrival of more caskets at Dover.

    As Biden discussed the evacuation, he received a note, which he passed to Milley. According to a White House official present in the room, the general read it aloud: “If you want to catch the 5:30 Mass, you have to leave now.” He turned to the president. “My mother always said it’s okay to miss Mass if you’re doing something important. And I would argue that this is important.” He paused, realizing that the president might need a moment after his bruising day. “This is probably also a time when we need prayers.”

    Biden gathered himself to leave. As he stood from his chair, he told the group, “I will be praying for all of you.”

    On the morning of the 30th, John Bass was cleaning out his office. An alarm sounded, and he rushed for cover. A rocket flew over the airport from the west and a second crashed into the compound, without inflicting damage.

    Bass, ever the stoic, turned to a colleague. “Well, that’s about the only thing that hasn’t happened so far.” He was worried that the rockets weren’t a parting gift, but a prelude to an attack.

    Earlier that morning, though, Bass had implored Major General Donahue to delay the departure. He’d asked his military colleagues to remain at the outer access points, because there were reports of American citizens still making their way to them.

    Donahue was willing to give Bass a few extra hours. And around 3 a.m., 60 more American-passport holders arrived at the airport. Then, as if anticipating a final burst of American generosity toward refugees, the Taliban opened their checkpoints. A flood of Afghans rushed toward the airport. Bass sent consular officers to stand at the perimeter of concertina wire, next to the paratroopers, scanning for passports, visas, any official-looking document.

    An officer caught a glimpse of an Afghan woman in her 20s waving a printout showing that she had received permission to enter the U.S. “Wow. You won the lottery twice,” he told her. “You’re the visa-lottery winner and you’ve made it here in time.” She was one of the final evacuees hustled into the airport.

    Around 7 a.m., the last remaining State Department officials in Kabul, including Bass, posed for a photo and then walked up the ramp of a C-17. As Bass prepared for takeoff, he thought about two numbers. In total, the United States had evacuated about 124,000 people, which the White House touted as the most successful airlift in history. Bass also thought about the unknown number of Afghans he had failed to get out. He thought about the friends he couldn’t extricate. He thought about the last time he’d flown out of Kabul, 18 months earlier, and how he had harbored a sense of optimism for the country then. A hopefulness that now felt as remote as the Hindu Kush.

    photo of President Biden speaking behind lectern with presidential seal, with hallway behind; the numerous cameras, microphones, and reporters recording him; and staff to the side near a television
    August 31: President Biden delivers remarks on the end of the war in Afghanistan. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty)

    In a command center in the Pentagon’s basement, Lloyd Austin and Mark Milley followed events at the airport through a video feed provided by a drone, the footage filtered through the hazy shades of a night-vision lens. They watched in silence as Donahue, the last American soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, boarded the last C-17 to depart HKIA.

    Five C‑17s sat on the runway—carrying “chalk,” as the military refers to the cargo of troops. An officer in the command center narrated the procession for them. “Chalk 1 loaded … Chalk 2 taxiing.”

    As the planes departed, there was no applause, no hand-shaking. A murmur returned to the room. Austin and Milley watched the great military project of their generation—a war that had cost the lives of comrades, that had taken them away from their families—end without remark. They stood without ceremony and returned to their offices.

    Across the Potomac River, Biden sat with Jake Sullivan and Antony Blinken, revising a speech he would deliver the next day. One of Sullivan’s aides passed him a note, which he read to the group: “Chalk 1 in the air.” A few minutes later, the aide returned with an update. All of the planes were safely away.

    Some critics had clamored for Biden to fire the advisers who had failed to plan for the chaos at HKIA, to make a sacrificial offering in the spirit of self-abasement. But Biden never deflected blame onto staff. In fact, he privately expressed gratitude to them. And with the last plane in the air, he wanted Blinken and Sullivan to join him in the private dining room next to the Oval Office as he called Austin to thank him. The secretary of defense hadn’t agreed with Biden’s withdrawal plan, but he’d implemented it in the spirit of a good soldier.

    America’s longest war was now finally and officially over. Each man looked exhausted. Sullivan hadn’t slept for more than two hours a night over the course of the evacuation. Biden aides sensed that he hadn’t rested much better. Nobody needed to mention how the trauma and political scars might never go away, how the month of August had imperiled a presidency. Before returning to the Oval Office, they spent a moment together, lingering in the melancholy.


    This article was adapted from Franklin Foer’s book The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future. It appears in the October 2023 print edition with the headline “The Final Days.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

    [ad_2]

    Franklin Foer

    Source link

  • Vivek Ramaswamy has Iowa voters curious, but not yet committed, after standout debate | CNN Politics

    Vivek Ramaswamy has Iowa voters curious, but not yet committed, after standout debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Urbandale, Iowa
    CNN
     — 

    At the conclusion of Vivek Ramaswamy’s second campaign stop here on Saturday – his sixth event out of eight over two days in Iowa – his staff rushed him towards their campaign bus. The businessman-turned-politician was late for a flight across the state to his next event. But as reporters and camera crews crowded the bus to see him off, Ramaswamy stopped and took time for questions.

    It was hardly a new occurrence. He’d held impromptu press availabilities after nearly every event on this tour up to that point. More striking was that, nearly 72 hours after playing a starring role in Wednesday’s heated and highly combative Republican primary debate, he was still taking stock of the defining moment of his campaign thus far.

    “I think it’s a major accomplishment that many people are able to pronounce my name now. That’s the true mark of a real milestone on this campaign,” Ramaswamy joked. “If we got there, anything’s possible.”

    Ramaswamy’s ascent from political unknown to attention-grabbing insurgent has been one of the most unexpected developments of the Republican primary so far. The only candidate in the race with no previous role in public life, he became a central figure in the first primary debate, standing in the middle of the stage and receiving sharp attacks from several Republican rivals after pre-debate nationwide polls of Republican voters put him in third place behind Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump, who did not attend the event.

    For many voters in Iowa, the debate was their introduction to the 38-year-old candidate. Some told CNN they came away intrigued, if not entirely convinced, by his message.

    “I’m really intrigued by this new candidate. He’s very young, very personable. There’s a spark there,” Mara Brown, a retired teacher from Des Moines, Iowa, said.

    Brown considered herself a “dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter” heading into Wednesday night’s debate. But after seeing Ramaswamy speak, she said she’s giving his candidacy further consideration. She felt she was able to connect with Ramaswamy personally when he spoke and commended him for how he handled the barrage of attacks.

    “When it was dished out, he was able to very calmly and compassionately turn it around on the other candidates,” she said. “He is absolutely the biggest standout out of all the candidates.”

    Those who tuned in saw Ramaswamy’s policies and perspective under intense scrutiny from the other candidates on stage. Former Vice President Mike Pence called Ramaswamy a “rookie” and frequently emphasized his lack of experience in public office. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie poked at his verbose rhetorical style, comparing him to the ChatGPT artificial intelligence tool. Arguably the most piercing blow came from former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, who forcefully attacked Ramaswamy’s polarizing proposals to amend US foreign policy toward Russia, China and the Middle East at the expense of Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel respectively.

    “Under your watch, you will make America less safe,” Haley said to Ramaswamy. “You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows.”

    Yet despite being the subject of a deluge of criticisms, early indications show voters thought Ramaswamy made a strong impression. A survey of potential Republican primary voters who watched the debate conducted by The Washington Post, FiveThirtyEight and Ipsos showed 26% of voters thought Ramaswamy won the debate, second highest behind DeSantis. Ramaswamy’s favorability ratings rose among voters who watched the debate compared to their views beforehand, but his unfavorability ratings rose, too. Still, the Ramaswamy campaign said it raised $600,000 in the day after the debate, the largest single-day total since its launch.

    After the debate concluded, Ramaswamy told CNN in the spin room that he viewed the critiques against him as an indicator of the strength of his campaign.

    “I took it as a badge of honor,” he said in Milwaukee on Wednesday. “To be at center stage and see a lot of establishment politicians that threatened by my rise, I am thrilled that it actually gave me an opportunity to introduce myself to the people of this country.”

    In his first campaign stops after the debate, Iowans packed into restaurants and event halls, looking to hear more about his vision for the country. Melissa Berry, a nurse from Winterset, Iowa, came to see Ramaswamy speak in her hometown because she’d never heard his views prior to the debate but liked what she saw in his performance. She said economic issues and safety were her two biggest concerns and connected with how Ramaswamy talked about those issues.

    “I feel like all the principles that he brings forth is what I support and there wasn’t anything that I really disagreed with,” Berry said. “I like what he stands for and he’s been very successful, and I felt like that can bring a lot to our country and help our country flourish.”

    Jake Chapman, Ramaswamy’s Iowa co-chair, said the candidate’s impassioned delivery and highly-charged message are creating a unique atmosphere at his recent campaign stops.

    “There is an energy level in these rooms where people come out of the room inspired and wanting to do something,” Chapman said. “It’s one thing to go hear a boring political speech. That’s not what you get with Vivek Ramaswamy.”

    These Iowa voters thought Republican debate had a clear winner. Hear who

    Ramaswamy’s recent rise in the polls was among the biggest storylines heading into Wednesday night’s debate. A former biotechnology CEO, he first stepped into politics when he found an investment management firm that specialized in “anti-woke” asset management and refused to consider environmental, social and corporate governance factors when investing. His wife, Apoorva, told The Atlantic magazine recently that Ramaswamy hadn’t mentioned running for political office until December 2022, when he floated the idea of running for president.

    When his campaign launched in February, many Republicans didn’t seriously consider the Ohio-based entrepreneur amid a wide field of possible presidential hopefuls. A Quinnipiac poll from March showed Ramaswamy with less than 1% support from Republicans and Republican-leaning voters nationally.

    But since then, Ramaswamy has catapulted himself from unknown outsider to center stage, largely through a combination of non-stop interviews and cross-country campaign travel mixed with a willingness to embrace and engage with ideas that fall outside the mainstream principles of many of his Republican rivals.

    Ahead of the debate, national Republican primary polling showed Ramaswamy as high as third behind Trump and DeSantis, but still lagging behind in support among Republicans in Iowa.

    Milt Van Grundy, a retired physician from Marshalltown, Iowa, started to seriously consider Ramaswamy after seeing him at the debate. His wife had been intrigued by him before Wednesday, but he said he liked hearing Ramaswamy propose a forward-looking vision for the country.

    “He’s offering a new way of trying to do business in Washington, DC, that I think is good for the country,” he said.

    Van Grundy voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 but said Ramaswamy’s youth and Trump’s age have turned his head away from the former president, self-effacingly referencing his own age in explaining his thinking.

    “I’m 77, and I don’t want to be president,” he joked. “These guys that are 80 and up, not interested.”

    Ramaswamy has closely tied himself to Trump’s ideology, and, at times, to Trump himself. He has referred to the former president as a “friend” and credited him with redefining conservative thinking on a number of issues, from immigration and foreign policy to the federal bureaucracy. He has also gone further than any other candidate in defending Trump amid the multiple state and federal indictments he currently faces. Ahead of Trump’s arraignment hearing in Florida following the former president’s indictment for retaining classified documents, Ramaswamy held a news conference outside the courthouse where he pledged as president to fully pardon Trump and called on other candidates to do the same. During Wednesday’s debate, Ramaswamy praised Trump as “the best president of the 21st century.”

    When he does distance himself from Trump, he does so primarily to pitch himself as the candidate who can advance Trump’s agenda more successfully than the former president. Ramaswamy told reporters after speaking to a crowded restaurant in Indianola on Friday he believes his background – and Trump’s baggage – make him more likely to bring their overlapping worldview to a broader group of voters.

    “President Trump, through no fault of his own in my view, in large part is – when he’s in office, about 30% of this country loses their mind. They become psychiatrically ill, disagreeing with things they once agreed with, agreeing with things they never agreed with,” Ramaswamy said. “I’m not having that effect on people. I think it’s because I’m a member of a different generation, because I’m somebody who’s lived the American dream, because I speak about the country for what is possible for where we can go even though I do recognize the downward slide we’ve long been in.”

    “I think that positions me to not only unite the country, but to go further than Trump did with the America first agenda,” he added.

    Haloti Tukuafu grew up in Maui but moved to Clarion, Iowa, after his wife got a job nearby. He said he sees Ramaswamy as a “mini-Trump,” and likes that he’s reaching out to younger voters. He supported Trump in 2016 and 2020, but currently he’s split between Trump and Ramaswamy and concerned the multiple indictments against Trump could negatively affect his chances of beating President Joe Biden.

    “Trump didn’t have the younger voters. Vivek has that connection with the younger crowd to bring in more in the Republican party than anybody else,” Tukuafu said.

    Despite their different faiths, Pam McCumber – a Christian from Newton, Iowa, who came to see Ramaswamy, a practicing Hindu, speak at a Pizza Ranch restaurant in her hometown – said she feels she can connect with the Ohio-based entrepreneur, and recognizes some characteristics of the former president in him.

    “He’s got the energy that Trump does, but then he’s also got the personality that most, I say, hometown Christians want. You know, don’t have to be worried about what he’s going to say next,” McCumber said.

    His willing alignment with Trump made Ramaswamy a focal point for many of his rivals even before the debate. A strategy and research memo released by a research firm aligned with the super PAC backing DeSantis urged the Florida governor to “hammer” Ramaswamy and outlined various contradictory statements he’s made on several issues. Haley tipped off her forthcoming attack on Ramaswamy’s foreign policy views with a statement ahead of the debate highlighting his proposal to withdraw aid from Israel. And Pence helped elevate a podcast interview Ramaswamy gave earlier this month where he suggested an openness to conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks, an issue that resurfaced just ahead of the debate when The Atlantic published an interview he gave questioning whether federal officials may have been involved in the attacks.

    The underlying criticisms made by his rivals have left lingering questions in the minds of some, including Gene Smith, a retiree from Des Moines. She and her husband, Terry, like Ramaswamy’s message, but she’s concerned his lack of government experience would make it difficult for him to execute his policy vision if he became president. She cited the pushback Trump received during his four years in office toward some of the policies he tried, but ultimately failed, to enact.

    “He’s never held political office, and it is truly a swamp in DC,” she said. “I think even Trump, who’s a very experienced person, was I think blindsided by it. I think when you get into politics you are blindsided by the corruption.”

    Gay Lee Wilson, a retiree from Pleasant Hill, Iowa, and a Christian, cares deeply about Israel, and was confused by Ramaswamy’s proposal to suspend aid to the US’ strongest ally in the Middle East, a proposal Ramaswamy has since backed away from.

    “That is a big deal for me. And I thought, well, maybe somebody’s misstating, misquoting him. But then he said it himself. But then he was saying, ‘no, that isn’t exactly –’ So, I don’t know where he stands,” Wilson said.

    To her, the questions about his policy toward Israel raise questions about his broader foreign policy judgment and his commitment to protecting Judeo-Christian values.

    “I think if his thought process is of backing away from our support of Israel, that I want to know why he’s thinking that. Because as a believer, I don’t think you would think that if you knew biblically, and if you knew world politics and everything, I think you would think differently about that,” she said.

    After Ramaswamy’s prepared remarks in Winterset, Iowa, Ramaswamy took a question from Cory Christensen, who had traveled a half hour from Waukee, Iowa, to hear him speak. He said he responded to almost everything Ramaswamy said at the event but had “one residual doubt” about his proposal to negotiate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine that would see Russia take control of territory they currently occupy in Ukraine.

    “I’m hard pressed to believe that allowing Russia’s aggression to stand is in our American interests, so can you help me understand your policy?” Christensen asked.

    Ramaswamy proceeded to give a winding, intricate, nearly 10-minute long answer to Christensen’s question, touching on former President Richard Nixon’s foreign policy strategy, criticizing the US aid packages to Ukraine, warning of Chinese technology inside US critical infrastructure systems, and portraying the stark danger of a nuclear war with either Russia or China before ultimately laying out the details of his proposal to allow Russia to claim Ukrainian territory and receive assurance Ukraine would not join NATO in exchange for commitment from Russia to “exit its military alliance” with China.

    After the event, Christensen said he found Ramaswamy’s answer “persuasive.” He said he’s nearly ready to commit to caucusing for Ramaswamy and has already donated to his campaign but is holding out for now with the caucuses still over four months away.

    “I found it pretty persuasive,” Christensen said. “I’m not 100% of the way there yet, but well on the way.”

    Christensen said he much preferred to hear him speak in an unrestricted format like the event in Winterset, as opposed to hearing him at the debate, which left him with unanswered questions following his back-and-forth with Haley.

    “The tagline and attacking Nikki on you know, you’ve got your Raytheon board seat or whatever – that doesn’t help me. It didn’t help me at all. And I want to like him,” Christensen said.

    “I would have loved to see it in the debate, something, even if he condensed his argument here on Ukraine into like, five bullet points. I would rather see that than sort of just attacking her on ‘Hey, you’re just a part of the establishment,’ and those sort of superficial answers,’ he added.

    Ramaswamy acknowledged the downsides of being an inexperienced politician while speaking to reporters after an event in Clarion, Iowa, but also highlighted the benefits of approaching issues with a different perspective.

    “There’s always going to be tradeoffs, but with experience comes tiredness, defeat, status quo, biases, corruption. I don’t have any of that. And I think that that’s both an advantage and – and also, in some ways, you don’t know what you don’t know. So, I’ll admit that,” he said.

    The Ramaswamy campaign plans to continue visiting Iowa and answering voter questions like Christensen’s around the state, Chapman told CNN. He dismissed state polling that showed Ramaswamy lagging behind where he stands in the national polls and said Ramaswamy will continue to show up in towns around the state to carry his post-debate momentum forward.

    “We go from having 20 people in a room to now hitting max capacity of some of these rooms, and we’re going to continue to build that energy,” Chapman said.

    “I think here in Iowa, ultimately, we reward people who are willing to put in the hard work. And he’s willing to do that,” he added.

    Chapman says the campaign doesn’t plan on advancing Ramaswamy’s message in the state through television advertising any time soon, dismissing the traditional campaign strategy as a “short-lived tactic” that he believes only helps some candidates marginally.

    “You have career politicians that they believe they can buy elections. The more money they spend, they can get more votes, and sure, that has helped some of them here and there. But Iowans see right through that,” he said.

    Hillary Ferrer, a former teacher and writer from Pella, Iowa, said she really likes Ramaswamy’s ideas, but is concerned about his appeal to a mainstream audience and wants to support a candidate she sees as electable. She thinks more exposure to voters around the state could help him leapfrog DeSantis and Trump, but acknowledged one built-in disadvantage for Ramaswamy she encountered when spreading his message to her circle of friends.

    “I mean, he’s not lying. He’s got a hard name to say,” Ferrer said. “I couldn’t spell it out when I posted something today.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After plunging into the political mainstream, Italy’s far-right leader Giorgia Meloni is now shocking markets and upsetting big business

    After plunging into the political mainstream, Italy’s far-right leader Giorgia Meloni is now shocking markets and upsetting big business

    [ad_1]

    Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

    Antonio Masiello | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    After plunging into the political mainstream and winning over her more moderate counterparts in Brussels, hardline Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is now shaking things up on home soil.

    Europe’s main banking index dropped some 2.7% on Aug. 8 after Italy announced it would impose a 40% windfall tax on banks. The surprise move, which clearly caught traders off guard, was toned down within 24 hours.

    Airlines have rebuffed other policy measures, with a new government plan to curb prices when flying to certain destinations. The Italian government is meeting airline executives next month and the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, is already assessing whether the measure would comply with EU law.

    Meloni was elected in October and, as well as being the country’s first female PM, is also the first from a far-right party since the end of World War II. So far during her mandate, Meloni has largely fallen in line with mainstream political positions at home and abroad, despite concerns from some that she may push her country to the fringes. She has not been at odds with officials at the European Union, for example. She has also made sure Italy has been a key supporter of Ukraine in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite the fact that some of her cabinet members have had close ties to the Kremlin.

    Federico Santi, a senior analyst at consultancy Eurasia Group, told CNBC via email that her backtrack on the windfall tax “was a major misstep, in perception and substance.”

    “This poorly-thought through measure was an abrupt reminder that Meloni’s government is mainly made up of right-wing populist parties, with a track record of erratic economic policy-making,” Santi said, adding however that he expects Meloni to “stay the course” on the fundamental aspects of government policy.

    Erik Jones, a professor at the European University Institute in Italy, told CNBC he didn’t believe this was a more “populist” government than that witnessed over the past year, with Meloni and her finance minister, Giancarlo Giorgetti, trying to spend without running up huge deficits.

    “On fiscal policy, even in the absence of binding EU rules, which remain suspended, the government has made efforts to continue a gradual fiscal adjustment, in line with EU recommendations – i.e. by keeping the deficit and debt on a, slowly, declining path and avoiding broad-based expansion that could feed inflation,” Eurasia Group’s Santi said.

    Italy’s government debt-to-GDP stood at 144.4% in 2022, according to data from the International Monetary Fund. That’s expected to drop to 140.5% this year and then again to 138.8% in 2024. The Italian economy is seen growing at a rate of 1.1% this year and 0.9% in 2024, according to the IMF. This represents a fall from the 3.7% gross domestic product registered in 2022.

    What to watch out for

    Despite the general expectation that the Italian government is unlikely to go down any more controversial avenues, analysts have mentioned two events that international investors should keep a close eye on.

    “Investors should worry about the turmoil that is likely to surround this upcoming budget. There will be a lot of room for controversy that will create volatility. But I do not think that the basic policy will change or that the government will collapse,” Jones from the European University Institute said.

    Governments across the EU have to submit their budgetary plans for the new year in October so the European Commission can assess whether they comply with EU rules. In the past, this process has raised tensions between Brussels and Rome.

    For others, however, the major risk is a delay in receiving certain EU funds.

    “This is a key factor underpinning public investment and growth through 2026, with important knock-on effects on the fiscal outlook,” Santi said.

    The EU funds in question were agreed to at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic given the tumult and slowdown across the European economy. Italy’s the biggest beneficiary of the 750 billion euro program ($814 billion) given that its economy was the worst hit by the pandemic and resulting lockdowns. However, disbursements only happen after nations put forward certain measures and reforms.  

    The sheer volume of funds could make a critical impact on Italy’s economy.

    “These delays are, for the most part, not the government’s own making, and Meloni remains intent on meeting NextGenEU commitments on paper — but external issues, high input costs, supply chains strain; and serious administrative shortfalls and bottlenecks will increasingly prevent the government from meeting its investment targets,” Santi added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link