ReportWire

Tag: NATO

  • Exclusive: Japan is in talks to open a NATO office as Ukraine war makes world less stable, foreign minister says | CNN

    Exclusive: Japan is in talks to open a NATO office as Ukraine war makes world less stable, foreign minister says | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Tokyo
    CNN
     — 

    Japan is in talks to open a NATO liaison office, the first of its kind in Asia, the country’s foreign minister told CNN in an exclusive interview on Wednesday, saying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made the world less stable.

    “We are already in discussions, but no details (have been) finalized yet,” Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi said on Wednesday.

    Hayashi specifically cited Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year as an event with repercussions far beyond Europe’s borders that forced Japan to rethink regional security.

    “The reason why we are discussing about this is that since the aggression by Russia to Ukraine, the world (has) become more unstable,” he said.

    Ukrainians fleeing war find asylum in unexpected Asian country (June 2022)

    “Something happening in East Europe is not only confined to the issue in East Europe, and that affects directly the situation here in the Pacific. That’s why a cooperation between us in East Asia and NATO (is) becoming … increasingly important.”

    He added that Japan is not a treaty member of NATO, which stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – but that the move sends a message the bloc’s Asia Pacific partners are “engaging in a very steady manner” with NATO.

    The opening of a NATO liaison office in Japan would mark a significant development for the Western alliance amid deepening geopolitical fault lines, and is likely to attract criticism from the Chinese government, which has previously warned against such a move.

    The Nikkei Asia first reported plans to open the office in Japan last Wednesday, citing unnamed Japanese and NATO officials.

    NATO has similar liaison offices in other places including Ukraine and Vienna. The liaison office in Japan will enable discussions with NATO’s security partners, such as South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, on geopolitical challenges, emerging and disruptive technologies, and cyber threats, Nikkei reported last week.

    In a statement to CNN last week, a NATO spokesperson said: “As to plans to open a liaison office in Japan, we won’t go into the details of ongoing deliberations among NATO allies.” She added that NATO and Japan “have a long-standing cooperation.”

    CNN reached out to NATO for comment on Wednesday after Hayashi’s remarks.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent shockwaves through Europe and drove non-aligned Finland and Sweden to abandon their neutrality and seek protection within NATO, with Finland formally joining the bloc last month.

    The war has also seen countries like Japan and South Korea draw closer to their Western partners, while presenting a united front against perceived threats closer to home.

    Speaking to CNN on Wednesday, Hayashi highlighted what he described as Japan’s “severe and complex” regional security environment, noting that in addition to increased Russian aggression, Tokyo is also contending with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a rising China.

    China has been growing its naval and air forces in areas near Japan while claiming the Senkaku Islands, an uninhabited Japanese-controlled chain in the East China Sea, as its sovereign territory. In the face of growing friction, Japan recently announced plans for its biggest military buildup since World War II.

    Tensions between Japan and Russia have also been increasing in recent months, fueled in part by Russian military drills in the waters between the two nations, and joint Chinese-Russian naval patrols in the western Pacific close to Japan.

    In April, Russian warships conducted anti-submarine exercises in the Sea of Japan, also known as the East Sea – and in March, Russian missile boats fired cruise missiles at a mock target in the same waters. And after Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida made a surprise visit to Ukraine in March, two Russian strategic bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, flew over waters off the Japanese coast for more than seven hours, Reuters reported.

    Despite the growing regional tensions, Hayashi said the potential opening of the office was not aimed at specific countries. “This is not intended…to be sending a message,” said Hayashi.

    He added that Japan and other countries still need to cooperate with China on larger issues such as climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic, and that Tokyo wanted a “constructive and stable relationship” with Beijing.

    Members of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force disembark from a V-22 Osprey aircraft during a live fire exercise in Gotemba, Japan, on May 28, 2022.

    China has previously warned against NATO expanding its reach into Asia and responded angrily to previous reports on the possible Japan office.

    “Asia is a promising land for cooperation and a hotbed for peaceful development. It should not be a platform for those who seek geopolitical fights,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning in a briefing last week. “NATO’s eastward push and interference in Asia Pacific matters will definitely undermine regional peace and stability.”

    Though Beijing has claimed impartiality in the Ukraine war and no advance knowledge of Russia’s intent, it has refused to condemn Moscow’s actions. Instead, it has parroted Kremlin lines blaming NATO for provoking the conflict – further fracturing relationships with both Europe and the US.

    And in March, senior Chinese Foreign Ministry officials and influential Communist Party publications accused the United States of seeking to build a NATO-like bloc in the Indo-Pacific, with one official warning of “unimaginable” consequences.

    On Wednesday, Hayashi played down concerns that opening a Tokyo NATO office could further inflame tensions, saying: “I don’t feel that’s the case.”

    The country has had a pacifist constitution since World War II – which he argued is reflected in this move.

    “We are not offending anyone, we’re defending ourselves from any kind of interference and concerns, and in some cases threats,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Finland officially joins NATO

    Finland officially joins NATO

    [ad_1]

    Finland officially joins NATO – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Finland became the 31st nation to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on Tuesday, a move that came in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Finland’s border with Russia is over 800 miles long. Holly Williams has the details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ukraine’s Zelenskiy aims for Western warplane coalition; Russians pressure Bakhmut

    Ukraine’s Zelenskiy aims for Western warplane coalition; Russians pressure Bakhmut

    [ad_1]

    • Poland pledges more MiG jets for Kyiv during Zelenskiy visit
    • Zelenskiy cites difficult situation for Kyiv’s forces in Bakhmut
    • France’s Macron in China to nudge it to help end Russia’s war

    KYIV, April 5 (Reuters) – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said during a trip to Warsaw on Wednesday that Poland would help form a coalition of Western powers to supply warplanes to Kyiv, adding that Ukrainian troops were still fighting for Bakhmut in the east but could withdraw if they risked being cut off.

    Neighbouring Poland is a close ally of Ukraine and helped galvanise support in the West to supply main battle tanks to Kyiv. During Zelenskiy’s visit, Poland announced it would send 10 more MiG fighter jets on top of four provided earlier.

    “Just as your (Polish) leadership proved itself in the tank coalition, I believe that it will manifest itself in the planes coalition,” Zelenskiy said in a speech on a square in Warsaw.

    Earlier in the day, Zelenskiy said Ukrainian troops faced a really difficult situation in Bakhmut and the military would take “corresponding” decisions to protect them if they risk being encircled by Russian invasion forces.

    Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut sometimes advanced a little only to be knocked back, Zelenskiy said, but remained inside the city.

    “We are in Bakhmut and the enemy does not control it,” Zelenskiy said.

    BOMBARDMENT

    Bakhmut, in Ukraine’s mainly Russian-occupied Donetsk province, has proven one of the bloodiest and longest battles of Russia’s invasion, now in its 14th month. Kyiv’s forces have held out against a Russian onslaught with heavy losses on both sides and the city, a mining and transport hub, reduced to ruin after months of street fighting and bombardment.

    “For me, the most important is not to lose our soldiers and of course if there is a moment of even hotter events and the danger we could lose our personnel because of encirclement – of course the corresponding correct decisions will be taken by generals there,” Zelenskiy said.

    He appeared to be referring to the idea of withdrawing.

    However, Deputy Defence Minister Hanna Malyar said later in that the situation at the front was “completely under control” despite repeated Russian attempts to take Bakhmut and other cities in the east.

    Reuters could not verify the battlefield reports.

    Ukrainian military commanders have stressed the importance of holding Bakhmut and other cities and inflicting losses on Russian troops before an anticipated counter-offensive against them in the coming weeks or months.

    Mercenaries from the Wagner group – who have spearheaded the assault on Bakhmut – said at the weekend they had captured the city centre, a claim dismissed by Kyiv.

    The U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War said the Wagner fighters had made advances in Bakhmut and were likely to continue trying to consolidate control of the city centre and push westward through dense urban neighbourhoods.

    PLAYING THE CHINA CARD

    French President Emmanuel Macron, meanwhile, was visiting China after he and U.S. President Joe Biden agreed they would try to engage Beijing to hasten the end of the Russian assault on Ukraine.

    China has called for a comprehensive ceasefire and described its position on the conflict as “impartial”, even though the Chinese and Russian presidents announced a “no limits” partnership shortly before the invasion.

    Both Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, due in Beijing shortly after him, have said they want to persuade China to use its influence over Russia to bring peace in Ukraine, or to at least deter Beijing from directly supporting Moscow in the conflict.

    The U.S. and NATO have said China was considering sending arms to Russia, which Beijing has denied.

    ‘SHOULDER TO SHOULDER’

    Poland has played a big role in persuading Western allies to supply battle tanks and other heavy weapons to Ukraine, which helped Kyiv stem and sometimes reverse Russian advances so far.

    “You have stood shoulder to shoulder with us, and we are grateful for it,” Zelenskiy said after Polish President Andrzej Duda presented him with Poland’s highest award, the Order of the White Eagle.

    Duda said Warsaw was also working to secure additional security guarantees for Ukraine at a NATO summit to be held in the Lithuania in July.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told state TV that Moscow needed to maintain relations with Washington even though American supplies of weapons to Ukraine meant “we are really in a hot phase of the war”.

    In addition to MiG-29s, Kyiv has also pressed NATO for F-16 jet fighters but Duda’s foreign policy adviser, Marcin Przydacz, said Poland would not decide soon on whether to send any.

    Reporting by Pavel Polityuk with additional reporting by Ron Popeski, Mike Stone, Alan Charlish, Pawel Florkiewicz and Tom Balmforth; writing by Angus MacSwan, Mark Heinrich and Idrees Ali; editing by Philippa Fletcher, Nick Macfie and Grant McCool

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Finland to join NATO on Tuesday, military alliance’s chief says

    Finland to join NATO on Tuesday, military alliance’s chief says

    [ad_1]

    Finland to become 31st member of world’s biggest military alliance, prompting a warning from Russia.

    Finland will become the 31st member of the world’s biggest military alliance on Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg says, prompting a warning from Russia that it would bolster its defences in response.

    “This is a historic week,” Stoltenberg told reporters on Monday on the eve of a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. “From tomorrow, Finland will be a full member of the alliance.”

    He said he hopes Sweden, who applied for membership at the same time as Finland, will also be able to join NATO in the coming months.

    The former Norwegian prime minister said that on Tuesday afternoon that “we will raise the Finnish flag for the first time here at the NATO headquarters. It will be a good day for Finland’s security, for Nordic security and for NATO as a whole.”

    Stoltenberg said Turkey, the last NATO country to have ratified Finland’s membership, will hand its official texts to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday. Stoltenberg said he would then invite Finland to do the same.

    Finnish President Sauli Niinistö and Defence Minister Antti Kaikkonen will attend the ceremony along with Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto.

    “It is a historic moment for us,” Haavisto said in a statement. “For Finland, the most important objective at the meeting will be to emphasise NATO’s support to Ukraine as Russia continues its illegal aggression. We seek to promote stability and security throughout the Euro-Atlantic region.”

    Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said Moscow would respond to Finland becoming a NATO member by bolstering its defences.

    “We will strengthen our military potential in the west and in the northwest,” Grushko said in remarks carried by the state RIA Novosti news agency. “In case of deployment of forces of other NATO members on the territory of Finland, we will take addition steps to ensure Russia’s military security.”

    The announcement of Finland’s entry came just after Finnish voters gave a boost to conservative parties in weekend elections, depriving left-wing Prime Minister Sanna Marin of another term. Marin had championed her country’s NATO accession.

    The Nordic neighbours Finland and Sweden abandoned their traditional positions of military non-alignment to seek protection under NATO’s security umbrella after Russia invaded Ukraine a little more than a year ago.

    All 30 existing members signed Finland’s and Sweden’s accession protocols. Turkey and Hungary then delayed the process for months but have relented on Finland. Turkey has sought guarantees and assurances from the two countries, notably on tackling groups it considers “terrorist” organisations. Hungary’s demands have never been explicit.

    NATO must agree unanimously for new members to join. NATO officials are eager to bring Sweden within the fold before a NATO summit in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, on July 11-12.

    “Sweden is not left alone. Sweden is as close as it can come as a full-fledged member,” Stoltenberg said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Finland to join NATO on Tuesday 

    Finland to join NATO on Tuesday 

    [ad_1]

    Finland will formally become a full-fledged NATO ally on Tuesday, the alliance’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Monday. 

    “This is an historic week,” the NATO chief told reporters. “Tomorrow, we will welcome Finland as the 31st member of NATO, making Finland safer and our alliance stronger.” 

    A ceremony marking Finland’s accession is set to take place Tuesday afternoon. 

    “We will raise the Finnish flag for the first time here at the NATO headquarters,” Stoltenberg said, adding: “It will be a good day for Finland’s security, for Nordic security, and for NATO as a whole.”

    The move comes after Hungary and Turkey ratified Finland’s membership bid last week, removing the last hurdles to Helsinki’s accession. 

    Sweden’s membership aspiration, however, remains in limbo as Budapest and Ankara continue to withhold support. 

    Speaking ahead of a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, Stoltenberg reiterated that he believes Stockholm is still on its way to ultimately joining the alliance as well. 

    “All allies,” he said, “agree that Sweden’s accession should be completed quickly.”

    At their meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, ministers will discuss the alliance’s defense spending goals and future relationship with Kyiv. 

    They will also attend a session of the NATO-Ukraine Commission together with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and meet with partners from ​Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

    In his press conference, the NATO chief also addressed multiple challenges facing the transatlantic alliance, including Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent announcement that Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. 

    Putin’s announcement is “part of a pattern of dangerous, reckless nuclear rhetoric” and an effort to use nuclear weapons as “intimidation, coercion to stop NATO allies and partners from supporting Ukraine.”

    “We will not be intimidated,” the NATO boss said.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin of Finland | Heikki Saukkomaa/Lehtikuva/AFP via Getty Images

    The alliance “remains vigilant, we monitor very closely what Russia does,” he said. “But so far,” he added, “we haven’t seen any changes in their nuclear posture” that require any change in NATO’s nuclear stance.

    In a statement Monday, the Finnish president’s office said that, “Finland will deposit its instrument of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty with the U.S. State Department in Brussels on Tuesday” before the start of NATO foreign ministers’ session. 

    Sanna Marin, the prime minister when Finland applied to join NATO, suffered defeat in a national election on Sunday. Her Social Democrats finished third, with the center-right National Coalition Party coming out on top.

    [ad_2]

    Lili Bayer

    Source link

  • In 2024 Republicans may complete a historic foreign policy reversal | CNN Politics

    In 2024 Republicans may complete a historic foreign policy reversal | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The GOP in 2024 is moving toward a reprise of its most consequential foreign policy debate ever in a presidential primary. Only this time, the results may be reversed.

    The 1952 GOP presidential nomination fight proved a turning point in the party’s history, when Dwight Eisenhower, a champion of internationalism and alliance with Europe to contain the Soviet Union, defeated Sen. Robert Taft, a skeptic of international alliances who wanted to shift America’s focus from defending Europe toward confronting communist China.

    A similar divide is opening within the GOP now. In a distant echo of Taft, former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the race’s two front-runners have both declared that defending Ukraine against Russia is not an American “vital interest” and “distracts” (as DeSantis put it) from the more important challenge of confronting China. Other likely 2024 candidates, such as former Vice President Mike Pence and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, come closer to upholding the Eisenhower position that the US must remain steadfast in protecting Europe against Russian aggression – and insisting that abandoning Ukraine would embolden China and other potential US adversaries.

    After Eisenhower’s landmark victory over Taft in 1952, every Republican presidential nominee over the next six decades – a list that extended from Richard Nixon through Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney – identified more with the internationalist than isolationist wing of the party.

    But Trump broke that streak when he won the nomination in 2016 behind a message of brusque economic nationalism and skepticism of international alliances. Now, the GOP appears on track for a 2024 nomination fight which may demonstrate that Trump’s rise has lastingly shifted the party’s balance of power on foreign policy – and ended the long era of GOP internationalism Eisenhower’s victory began.

    The fact that DeSantis unveiled his views about Ukraine in a statement to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a fierce opponent of American engagement with allies, underscored the governor’s determination to court Trump’s base with his provocative remarks. After several days of intense criticism from Republican internationalists, DeSantis retreated last week from his description of the war as a “territorial dispute” and called Russian President Vladimir Putin “a war criminal,” much harsher language than Trump has ever used. But DeSantis, in his interview with British journalist Piers Morgan for another Fox outlet, also reiterated his skepticism of open-ended US support for Ukraine. “I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement,” the governor said.

    Even with his qualifying statements last week, DeSantis’ skeptical posture toward Ukraine shows the magnetic pull that Trump has exerted on his party, tugging it away from the Eisenhower tradition.

    “Trump-ism is the dominant tendency in Republican foreign policy and it’s isolationist, its unilateralist, its amoral,” said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former director of policy planning at the State Department under George W. Bush. The “traditional institutional approach to the world [which was] … the dominant Republican approach since World War II … has clearly been eclipsed for now,” said Haass, who also held foreign policy positions in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

    Ivo Daalder, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and former US permanent representative to NATO under Barack Obama, agrees. The fact that both 2024 GOP front-runners are expressing a broad skepticism about US engagement abroad, he said, raises the possibility that Republican “internationalists have not only lost in ’16 and ‘20” when Trump headed the GOP ticket, “but have lost the party forever.”

    The 1952 presidential election, by contrast, was the moment when GOP internationalists seemed to win the party forever. Leading into World War II, the party had been closely split between an internationalist wing determined to counter Adolf Hitler and imperial Japan and an isolationist faction resistant to entanglement in the intensifying confrontation with fascism, especially in Europe. The divide was both ideological and geographic, pitting generally more moderate internationalist East Coast Republicans (many of them tied to Wall Street and international finance) against more conservative isolationist forces centered in the small towns and small businesses of the Midwest and the far West.

    The Japanese surprise attack that triggered the US entry into World War II ended the political viability of a purely isolationist stance.

    “After Pearl Harbor there was no way to be a strict isolationist and a national political [figure],” said Joyce Mao, an associate professor of history at Middlebury College and author of the book “Asia First,” which recounts the GOP foreign policy debates of that era.

    After World War II, Republican internationalists joined with Democratic presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman to build the international institutions meant to prevent another global war: the United Nations, the Marshall Plan to economically rebuild Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to militarily defend it from the Soviet Union. Eisenhower, who had organized the Allied invasion of Europe on D-Day in 1944, was firmly in that camp and, in fact, returned to Europe in January 1951 to serve as NATO’s first supreme commander.

    But Robert Taft led a block of “old guard” congressional Republicans that remained much more skeptical of European commitments. Taft, a senator from Ohio and the son of former Republican president William Howard Taft, had generally opposed American aid to Europe before Pearl Harbor and even after the war he pushed to reduce the Marshall Plan and voted against the creation of NATO. Like many of the Republicans who initially resisted involvement in World War II, Mao noted, Robert Taft in the post-war period tried to separate himself both from that isolationist past and the contemporary priorities of GOP internationalists like Eisenhower by arguing for an “Asia First” foreign policy that would shift resources and emphasis from defending Europe to confronting the Communists who had seized control of China.

    “Eisenhower was viewed by Taft and his colleagues as much too moderate,” Mao said. “His European focus was deemed by that conservative wing of the party as much too similar to the liberal Democrats. If this was going to be a moment for conservatism to reassert itself not only against liberalism but also against the moderates in the Republican Party, China provided an ideal plank” to do so.

    All these strains culminated in the landmark battle for the 1952 GOP presidential nomination. Taft, the Republican Senate leader, was a passionate favorite of conservatives. Eisenhower, still in Europe as NATO supreme commander, was in many respects a reluctant candidate. But as Stephen Ambrose showed in his classic biography, Eisenhower felt compelled to run largely from fear that Taft would lead the US out of NATO, while simultaneously risking a catastrophic war in China. (Eisenhower was also deeply disenchanted with Truman’s leadership.) Eisenhower resigned his NATO position, returned to the US, mobilized enough support from the GOP’s internationalist wing to beat Taft at the 1952 Republican convention, and then decisively won the presidency that November. “Eisenhower became president precisely because he did not trust this version of isolationism in Taft,” said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who served as a senior adviser for strategic planning on the National Security Council under George W. Bush.

    Both as a general election candidate and as president, Eisenhower tried to minimize his public conflicts with his party’s “old guard.” But he unmistakably steered the party (and the nation) toward acceptance of American global leadership within a robust international system of alliances. With only modest variation, that became the dominant foreign policy ideology of the GOP for the next 60 years under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Late in that period, George W. Bush offered a different emphasis by stressing unilateral American action over coordination with allies, but even he emphasized the need for the US to remain engaged with the world. “It’s a pretty unbroken streak,” said Geoffrey Kabaservice, author of “Rule and Ruin,” a history of the struggles between GOP conservatives and moderates.

    Taft-like isolationism, coupled with nativist opposition to immigration and protectionist opposition to free trade, first resurfaced as a major force in the GOP with the long-shot presidential campaigns of conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan in 1992 and 1996. Two decades later, Trump revived that same triumvirate of isolationism, protectionism and nativism – what scholars sometimes call “defensive nationalism” – in his winning drive for the 2016 GOP nomination.

    Though some traditional GOP internationalists had hoped that Trump in office might moderate those impulses, as president he barreled down all those roads, repeatedly clashing with traditional allies. Now, DeSantis’ choice to echo Trump in devaluing Ukraine – following the calls from so many House conservatives to reduce the US commitment there – is deflating another hope of the GOP’s beleaguered internationalist wing: that Trump’s ascent represented a temporary detour and the party would snap back to its traditional support for international engagement once he left office.

    “Trump-ism has to be taken seriously,” as a long-term force in GOP thinking about the world, Haass said. The foreign policy center of gravity in the Republican Party, he added, has moved toward “a much more pinched or minimal American relationship with the world, [with] not a lot of interest in contributing to global responses to challenges like climate change or pandemics.”

    Even before DeSantis qualified his comments in the interview with Morgan, Feaver believed the Florida governor was trying to find a position on Ukraine somewhere between Trump’s undiluted skepticism and the unreserved support of Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. But, Feaver said, by including such inflammatory language as “territorial dispute” in his initial comments, DeSantis demonstrated the risks of pursuing such a strategy of “triangulation.”

    “Triangulation is a risky game because if you get the language off, you may commit yourself in a campaign to a line that makes no sense when you are governing,” Feaver said. “This is one of the hardest problems for newcomers and challengers when they are campaigning for president. By giving applause lines that work for the narrow segments of ideologically hardened factions that they are trying to win over for the primary, they can lock themselves into policy positions that are not sound when they actually win.”

    As an example, Feaver said DeSantis’ insistence that the US should shift more attention from countering Russia to containing China – an argument he repeated with Morgan – was illogical because “abandoning Ukraine assists China’s most significant ally, Russia.” Haley made a similar case in her recent Wall Street Journal article criticizing DeSantis (though not by name) for his comments to Carlson. “It’s naive to think we can counter China by ignoring Russia,” Haley wrote.

    Daalder points out another logical flaw in the updated “Asia First” arguments from DeSantis and Trump. “If the US were to abandon its allies in Europe … our allies in Asia are going to ask, ‘What’s to say they are not going to do the same with regards to China?’” Daalder said. “By demonstrating your willingness to stand up to Russia you are also strengthening the view that in Asia that when it comes to it that we will be there to help them.”

    But polls leave no doubt that both prongs of the modern Robert Taft position – that the US should reduce its commitment to Europe-focused international alliances and harden its resistance to China – have a substantial base of support in the contemporary Republican coalition. In a Gallup poll released earlier this month, by a lopsided margin of 76% to 12%, Republican voters were more likely to identify China than Russia as the principal US adversary in the world. (More Democrats picked Russia than China.) Polls have also found a steady decline in Republican support for US aid to Ukraine: polls this year by both the Pew Research Center and Quinnipiac University found that the share of GOP voters who believe the US is doing too much now equals the combined percentage who think it is doing too little or the right amount. (Quinnipiac found big majorities of Democrats and independents still believe the US is doing the right amount or not enough.)

    The latest Chicago Council on Global Affairs annual survey also tracks a broader retreat from the world among GOP voters. In that poll, conducted last November, the share of Republicans who said the US should take an active role in world affairs fell to 55% – the lowest the survey has ever recorded. Underscoring that erosion, a slight majority of Republicans in the poll said the costs of an active US international role now exceed the benefits.

    Opinions in the GOP about whether the US should do more or less in Ukraine don’t vary much along lines of education or age, the Pew poll found. But generally, these surveys show that the turn away from global leadership is most powerful among two distinct groups of Republicans: those who are younger, and those who lack college degrees. While a solid three-fifths of Republicans with a college degree in the Chicago Council poll said the benefits of US leadership exceed the costs, for instance, a majority of non-college Republicans disagreed. Younger Republicans were also much more likely than those over 60 to say the costs exceed the benefits.

    It’s probably no coincidence that those two groups – Republicans without a college degree and those who are younger – have consistently registered as Trump’s strongest supporters in early polls about the 2024 race.

    Trump is signaling that in a second term he will likely push even further in an isolationist and protectionist direction. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, has said he believed the former president came close to withdrawing the US from NATO and would likely do so if elected to a second term. Trump certainly hinted at that possibility in a recent campaign video in which he declared, “we have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally reevaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission.” Trump has also said he would impose a four-year plan “to phase out all Chinese imports of essential goods, everything from electronics to steel to pharmaceuticals.” That would be a wrenching change in the global economy.

    In all these ways, Trump is promising to fulfill Robert Taft’s vision from seven decades ago – and to erase Eisenhower’s lasting victory in setting the GOP’s direction. DeSantis does not appear to have decided to jump entirely on that Trump train – but neither is he lying down on the tracks to stop it. With these two men far ahead of any potential rival, it seems highly likely that the GOP in 2024 will continue to move away from Eisenhower-style international cooperation toward a volatile compound of isolationism and unilateralism. And that could generate enormous turbulence across the globe.

    Trump’s first term, as Daalder noted, was a chaotic time for the international order and traditional US alliances. But “If an isolationist leader gets elected president in 2024,” Daalder added, “you haven’t seen nothing yet.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nordic countries plan joint air defence to counter Russian threat

    Nordic countries plan joint air defence to counter Russian threat

    [ad_1]

    COPENHAGEN, March 24 (Reuters) – Air force commanders from Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark said on Friday they have signed a letter of intent to create a unified Nordic air defence aimed at countering the rising threat from Russia.

    The intention is to be able to operate jointly based on already known ways of operating under NATO, according to statements by the four countries’ armed forces.

    The move to integrate the air forces was triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February last year, commander of the Danish air force, Major General Jan Dam, told Reuters.

    “Our combined fleet can be compared to a large European country,” Dam said.

    Norway has 57 F-16 fighter jets and 37 F-35 fighter jets with 15 more of the latter on order. Finland has 62 F/A-18 Hornet jets and 64 F-35s on order, while Denmark has 58 F-16s and 27 F-35s on order. Sweden has more than 90 Gripens jets.

    It was unclear how many of those planes were operational.

    The signing at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany last week was attended by NATO Air Command chief General James Hecker, who also oversees the U.S. Air Force in the region.

    Sweden and Finland applied to join the trans-Atlantic military alliance last year. But the process has been held up by Turkey, which along with Hungary has yet to ratify the memberships.

    The Nordic air force commanders first discussed the closer cooperation at a meeting in November in Sweden.

    “We would like to see if we can integrate our airspace surveillance more, so we can use radar data from each other’s surveillance systems and use them collectively,” Dam said. “We are not doing that today.”

    Reporting by Johannes Birkebaek and Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen; additional reporting by Terje Solsvik, Niklas Pollard and Anne Kauranen; Editing by Nick Macfie

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Finland on course for NATO membership after Hungarian vote

    Finland on course for NATO membership after Hungarian vote

    [ad_1]

    The Hungarian parliament ratified Finland’s NATO membership on Monday, putting Helsinki one step closer to joining the alliance but leaving Sweden waiting in the wings. 

    Members of Hungary’s parliament voted by a margin of 182 to 6 in favor of Finnish accession.

    Helsinki now only needs the Turkish parliament’s approval — expected soon — to become a NATO member. 

    Hungary’s move comes after repeated delays and political U-turns. 

    Hungarian officials spent months telling counterparts they had no objections and their parliament was simply busy with other business. 

    Budapest then changed its narrative last month, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — who has an iron grip over his ruling Fidesz party — arguing the point that some of his legislators had qualms regarding criticism of the state of Hungarian democracy. 

    Finland and Sweden have been at the forefront of safeguarding democratic standards in Hungary, speaking out on the matter long before many of their counterparts.

    But earlier this month — just as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced that he will support Finland’s NATO membership — the Fidesz position flipped again, with its parliamentary group chair then announcing support for Helsinki’s bid.

    Turkey’s parliament is expected to ratify Finnish membership soon. But it is keeping Sweden in limbo, as Turkish officials say they want to see the country implement new anti-terror policies before giving Ankara’s green light. 

    Following in Turkey’s footsteps, Hungary is now also delaying a decision on Sweden indefinitely — prompting criticism from Orbán’s critics. 

    Attila Ara-Kovács, a member of the European Parliament from Hungary’s opposition Democratic Coalition, said that Orbán’s moves are part of a strategy to fuel anti-Western attitudes at home. 

    The government’s aim is “further inciting anti-Western and anti-NATO sentiment within Hungary, especially among Orbán’s fanatical supporters — and besides, of course, to serve Russian interests,” he said. 

    “This has its consequences,” Ara-Kovács said, adding that “support for the EU and NATO in the country is significantly and constantly decreasing.”

    A recent Eurobarometer poll found that 39 percent of Hungarians view the EU positively. A NATO report, published last week, shows that 77 percent of Hungarians would vote to stay in the alliance — compared to 89 percent in Poland and 84 percent in Romania.

    But Hungarian officials are adding the spin that they do support Sweden’s NATO membership. 

    The Swedish government “constantly questioning the state of Hungarian democracy” is “insulting our voters, MPs and the country as a whole,” said Balázs Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister’s political director (no relation to the prime minister).

    It is “up to the Swedes to make sure that Hungarian MPs’ concerns are addressed,” he tweeted on Sunday. “Our goal,” he added, “is to support Sweden’s NATO accession with a parliamentary majority as broad as possible.” 

    [ad_2]

    Lili Bayer

    Source link

  • China’s Xi leaves Russia after giving Putin a major boost, but no public promise of weapons

    China’s Xi leaves Russia after giving Putin a major boost, but no public promise of weapons

    [ad_1]

    China’s President Xi Jinping left Moscow Wednesday morning after a closely watched, highly choreographed visit that saw him stand shoulder to shoulder with Vladimir Putin just days after an international arrest warrant was issued for the Russian leader for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. In a display of unity and an apparent swipe at Western nations that have helped Ukraine fight Russia’s invasion, including the U.S., the men signed a joint statement saying it was necessary to “respect legitimate security concerns of all countries.”

    What the world saw of Xi’s long anticipated visit was meticulous stagecraft designed to portray a counterforce to the U.S.-led NATO alliance of the West. Russia declared last year that it was building a new “democratic world order” with China, and as the two men walked toward each other down long rugs to meet in the center of an ornate, palatial hall in Moscow for a firm handshake, the signal to the rest of the world was unmistakable.

    APTOPIX Russia China
    Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Chinese President Xi Jinping attend an official welcome ceremony at The Grand Kremlin Palace, in Moscow, Russia, March 21, 2023.

    Pavel Byrkin/AP


    A statement released by China’s government after the meeting said Xi and Putin “shared the view” that their two countries’ “relationship has gone far beyond the bilateral scope and acquired critical importance for the global landscape and the future of humanity.”

    Their public message on Ukraine, in the joint statement and at the podiums, was a call for peace — but on the basis of a vague plan unveiled by China in February which the U.S. and its allies have dismissed and derided as a stalling tactic, as it includes no call for Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine.  

    “A ceasefire right now, freezing the lines where they are, basically gives him [Putin] the time and space he needs to try to re-equip, to re-man, to make up for that resource expenditure,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said about the Chinese plan.


    China and Russia deepen ties with President Xi Jinping’s visit

    04:59

    Xi and Putin agreed that the war should be settled through dialogue, but they proposed no framework nor detail for any new peace initiative. Xi reiterated Beijing’s official stance that China is an “impartial” party to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

    Putin said China’s plan could form the basis for a settlement, but accused Ukraine and its Western backers of keeping the war going, having decided “to fight with Russia to the last Ukrainian.”

    The Russian leader accused Britain of planning to send Ukraine “weapons with a nuclear component,” a misleading description of depleted uranium tank shells valued for the dense metal’s armor piercing ability.

    Russia Ukraine War
    A police officer gestures to prevent photographing at the scene of a drone attack in the town of Rzhyshchiv, in the Kyiv region of Ukraine, March 22, 2023.

    Efrem Lukatsky/AP


    But it was Russian-launched exploding drones that killed at least four people at a high school dormitory south of Kyiv early Wednesday morning, according to local officials, and it was Russian missiles that reportedly struck a residential building near a mall in the southern city of Zaporizhzhia.

    Washington says Putin’s military has already “blown through” many of its resources over more than a year of ceaseless shelling and airstrikes in Ukraine, and it’s desperate to secure new supplies of missiles, shells and ammunition.


    U.S. officials worry China may send weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine

    02:33

    U.S. intelligence officials have said China is “considering the provision of lethal equipment” like that to Putin.

    What Putin and Xi may have discussed and agreed to behind closed doors in Moscow, out of the view of television cameras, will remain a topic of keen interest around the world in the days ahead. After the strong show of support — but no mention of an agreement for China to supply weapons or other lethal aid — Xi left Russia. 

    Russia China
    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping toast during their dinner at The Palace of the Facets, at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, March 21, 2023.

    Pavel Byrkin/AP


    As the world powers talked around Ukraine, inside the war-torn country, President Volodymyr Zelensky paid respects to fallen soldiers as the Ukrainian people continued to bear the brunt of Russia’s daily onslaught.

    “It’s very scary, because people die every day,” Lilya, who lives in the liberated southern city of Kherson, told CBS News. Russia has increased shelling of the town it held up until November, but despite the threat, Lilya said she and other defiant residents were confident Ukraine’s forces could prevent the invaders from returning.

    lilya-ukraine-kherson.jpg
    Lilya, a resident of the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson, which was retaken by Ukrainian troops in November 2022 after months of Russian occupation, speaks with CBS New’ Ramy Inocencio about life in the city, March 21, 2023.

    CBS News


    “We will not leave the city, it is our city, it is our Ukraine,” she said. “We are staying here. We have no choice. We live here. The shelling is happening all over Ukraine, and nobody knows what will happen to them as they try to go about their lives… We pray for Ukraine. We ask God to save the city. [We ask] for fewer deaths.” 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Poland to supply Ukraine with fighter jets

    Poland to supply Ukraine with fighter jets

    [ad_1]

    Poland to supply Ukraine with fighter jets – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Poland said Thursday it will supply Ukraine with about one dozen fighter jets to help in its fight against Russia. Poland is now the first NATO country to provide Ukraine with fighter jets since the Russian invasion began.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Xi says U.S. is trying to hinder China in its quest for global influence

    Xi says U.S. is trying to hinder China in its quest for global influence

    [ad_1]

    BEIJING (AP) — Is the United States out to sabotage China? Chinese leaders think so.

    President Xi Jinping has accused Washington this week of trying to isolate his country and hold back its development. That reflects the ruling Communist Party’s growing frustration that its pursuit of prosperity and global influence is threatened by U.S. restrictions on access to technology, its support for Taiwan and other moves seen by Beijing as hostile.

    Xi, China’s most powerful leader in decades, tries to appear to be above problems and usually makes blandly positive public comments. That made his complaint Monday all the more striking. Xi said a U.S.-led campaign of “containment and suppression” of China has “brought unprecedented, severe challenges.” He called on the public to “dare to fight.”

    In the five months since U.S. President Joe Biden met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Indonesia, Washington has approved more weapons sales to Taiwan, criticized Beijing’s stance on Ukraine and put more Chinese companies on export watchlists.


    — Shi Yinhong, Renmin University

    On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Qin Gang sharpened the warning, saying Washington faces possible “conflict and confrontation” if it fails to change course.

    “The foreign minister is speaking on behalf of a widely held view that the United States is coming after China and they have to defend themselves,” said John Delury, an international relations specialist at Yonsei University in Seoul.

    See: China’s foreign minister warns of conflict unless U.S. changes course

    Also read: Biden to provide details on nuclear-submarine deal Monday, as he joins U.K., Australian premiers in San Diego

    China is hardly the only government to fume at Washington’s dominance of global strategic and economic affairs. But Chinese leaders see the United States as making extra effort to thwart Beijing as a challenger for regional and possibly global leadership.

    The ruling party wants to restore China’s historic role as a political and cultural leader, raise incomes by transforming the country into an inventor of technology, and unite what it considers the Chinese motherland by taking control of Taiwan, the self-ruled island democracy that Beijing claims as part of its territory.

    Beijing sees those as positive goals, but American officials see them as threats. They say Chinese development plans are based at least in part on stealing or pressuring foreign companies to hand over technology. Some warn Chinese competition might erode U.S. industrial dominance and incomes.

    Washington has set back Beijing’s plans by putting Chinese companies including its first global tech brand, Huawei, on a blacklist that limits access to processor chips and other technology. That crippled Huawei’s smartphone brand, once one of the world’s biggest. American officials are lobbying European and other allies to avoid Huawei equipment when they upgrade phone networks.

    Washington cites security fears, but Beijing says that is an excuse to hurt its fledgling competitors.

    The two governments have the world’s biggest trading relationship and common interests in combating climate change and other problems. But relations are strained over Taiwan, Beijing’s treatment of Hong Kong and mostly Muslim ethnic minorities, and its refusal to criticize or isolate Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.

    The official Chinese view has soured following an uptick when Xi met U.S. President Joe Biden in November in Indonesia, said Shi Yinhong, an international-relations specialist at Renmin University in Beijing. He noted that in the five months since then, Washington approved more weapons sales to Taiwan, criticized Beijing’s stance on Ukraine and put more Chinese companies on export watchlists, all of which China saw as hostile.

    Xi and Qin spoke in a “dramatic way” this week, but “the essence of what they said is China’s long-term stance,” Shi said. The leadership believes “the United States has implemented almost all around, drastic and desperate containment of China in all respects, especially in strategic and military fields.”

    “The risk of military conflict between China and the United States is getting bigger,” Shi said.

    See: U.S. warns China against overt Kremlin backing as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nears 1-year mark

    Plus: NATO chief appeals for more ‘friends’ and closer ties in Indo-Pacific region as bulwark against China and Russia

    Also: Biden offers reassurances to ‘Bucharest Nine’ leaders and calls Russia’s suspension of the New START nuclear treaty ‘a big mistake’

    A State Department spokesperson, Ned Price, said Washington wants to “coexist responsibly” within the global trade and political system and denied the U.S. government wants to suppress China.

    “This is not about containing China. This is not about suppressing China. This is not about holding China back,” Price said in Washington. “We want to have that constructive competition that is fair” and “doesn’t veer into that conflict.”

    ‘This is not about containing China. This is not about suppressing China. This is not about holding China back.’


    — Ned Price, U.S. Department of State

    The United States formed a strategic group, the Quad, with Japan, Australia and India in response to concern about China and its claim to vast tracts of sea that are busy shipping lanes. They insist the group doesn’t focus on any one country, but its official statements are about territorial claims and other issues on which they have disputes with Beijing.

    The latest change in tone follows acrimonious exchanges over a Chinese balloon that was shot down after passing over North America. Its electronics and other equipment are being examined by the FBI.

    See: U.S. prepares new rules on investment in China

    Qin, the foreign minister is “trying to position China as a global force for moderation and for peace” in front of foreign audiences and say “it’s the Americans who are blowing things out of proportion,” Delury said.

    Xi’s government is especially irritated by displays of support by American and other Western legislators for Taiwan, which split with China in 1949 after a civil war.

    Taiwan never has been part of the People’s Republic of China, but the Communist Party says the island of 22 million people must unite with the mainland, by force if necessary.

    Washington is obligated by federal law to see that Taiwan has the weapons to defend itself and has sold it fighter jets and missiles. Chinese leaders complain that encourages Taiwanese politicians who might want to resist unification and possibly declare formal independence, a step Beijing says would lead to war.

    Premier Li Keqiang, who is due to step down as China’s No. 2 leader this month, called on Sunday for “peaceful reunification.” But Xi’s government also has stepped up efforts to intimidate the island by flying fighter jets and firing missiles into the sea nearby.

    The latest downturn is “testament to the real degradation” of U.S.-Chinese relations, which “never had much trust,” said Drew Thompson, a fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.

    Chinese leaders “consider any sort of discussion on strategic issues as sensitive and out of bounds,” which leads to “heightened risk of miscalculation,” Thompson said.

    “They believe the U.S. is a hegemon that seeks to undermine the Communist Party and its legitimacy, and they have ample evidence of that,” he said. “But should perceptions and the balance of interests change, they could just as easily believe the U.S. is a partner for achieving the party’s objectives.”

    More about China and the West:

    Taiwan activates defenses in response to Chinese incursions as U.S. general’s leaked memo warns of armed conflict with China by 2025

    Germany’s Scholz warns of ‘consequences’ if China sends arms to Russia

    Biden top diplomat Blinken warns Central Asia against downplaying Russian threat a year after Putin scaled up Ukraine invasion

    Biden administration weighs going public with intelligence behind assertion that China is considering arms for Russia

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Trump delivers wildly dishonest speech at CPAC | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Trump delivers wildly dishonest speech at CPAC | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    As president, Donald Trump made some of his most thoroughly dishonest speeches at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

    As he embarks on another campaign for the presidency, Trump delivered another CPAC doozy Saturday night.

    Trump’s lengthy address to the right-wing gathering in Maryland was filled with wildly inaccurate claims about his own presidency, Joe Biden’s presidency, foreign affairs, crime, elections and other subjects.

    Here is a fact check of 23 of the false claims Trump made. (And that’s far from the total.)

    Crime in Manhattan

    While Trump criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has been investigating Trump’s company, he claimed that “killings are taking place at a number like nobody’s ever seen, right in Manhattan.”

    Facts First: It isn’t even close to true that Manhattan is experiencing a number of killings that nobody has ever seen. The region classified by the New York Police Department as Manhattan North had 43 reported murders in 2022; that region had 379 reported murders in 1990 and 306 murders in 1993. The Manhattan South region had 35 reported murders in 2022 versus 124 reported murders in 1990 and 86 murders in 1993. New York City as a whole is also nowhere near record homicide levels; the city had 438 reported murders in 2022 versus 2,262 in 1990 and 1,927 in 1993.

    Manhattan North had just eight reported murders this year through February 19, while Manhattan South had one. The city as a whole had 49 reported murders.

    The National Guard and Minnesota

    Talking about rioting amid racial justice protests after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020, Trump claimed he had been ready to send in the National Guard in Seattle, then added, “We saved Minneapolis. The thing is, we’re not supposed to do that. Because it’s up to the governor, the Democrat governor. They never want any help. They don’t mind – it’s almost like they don’t mind to have their cities and states destroyed. There’s something wrong with these people.”

    Facts First: This is a reversal of reality. Minnesota’s Democratic governor, Tim Walz, not Trump, was the one who deployed the Minnesota National Guard during the 2020 unrest; Walz first activated the Guard more than seven hours before Trump publicly threatened to deploy the Guard himself. Walz’s office told CNN in 2020 that the governor activated the Guard in response to requests from officials in Minneapolis and St. Paul – cities also run by Democrats.

    Trump has repeatedly made the false claim that he was the one who sent the Guard to Minneapolis. You can read a longer fact check, from 2020, here.

    Trump’s executive order on monuments

    Trump boasted that he had taken effective action as president to stop the destruction of statues and memorials. He claimed: “I passed and signed an executive order. Anybody that does that gets 10 years in jail, with no negotiation – it’s not ’10’ but it turns into three months.” He added: “But we passed it. It was a very old law, and we found it – one of my very good legal people along with [adviser] Stephen Miller, they found it. They said, ‘Sir, I don’t know if you want to try and bring this back.’ I said. ‘I do.’”

    Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. He did not create a mandatory 10-year sentence for people who damage monuments. In fact, his 2020 executive order did not mandate any increase in sentences.

    Rather, the executive order simply directed the attorney general to “prioritize” investigations and prosecutions of monument-destruction cases and declared that it is federal policy to prosecute such cases to the fullest extent permitted under existing law, including an existing law that allowed a sentence of up to 10 years in prison for willfully damaging federal property. The executive order did nothing to force judges to impose a 10-year sentence.

    Vandalism in Portland

    Trump claimed, “How’s Portland doing? They don’t even have storefronts anymore. Everything’s two-by-four’s because they get burned down every week.”

    Facts First: This is a major exaggeration. Portland obviously still has hundreds of active storefronts, though it has struggled with downtown commercial vacancies for various reasons, and some businesses are sometimes vandalized by protesters. Trump has for years exaggerated the extent of property damage from protest vandalism in Portland.

    Russian expansionism

    Boasting of his foreign policy record, Trump claimed, “I was also the only president where Russia didn’t take over a country during my term.”

    Facts First: While it’s true that Russia didn’t take over a country during Trump’s term, it’s not true that he was the only US president under whom Russia didn’t take over a country. “Totally false,” Michael Khodarkovsky, a Loyola University Chicago history professor who is an expert on Russian imperialism, said in an email. “If by Russia he means the current Russian Federation that existed since 1991, then the best example is Clinton, 1992-98. During this time Russia fought a war in Chechnya, but Chechnya was not a country but one of Russia’s regions.”

    Khodarkovsky added, “If by Russia he means the USSR, as people often do, then from 1945, when the USSR occupied much of Eastern Europe until 1979, when USSR invaded Afghanistan, Moscow did not take over any new country. It only sent forces into countries it had taken over in 1945 (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968).”

    NATO funding

    Trump said while talking about NATO funding: “And I told delinquent foreign nations – they were delinquent, they weren’t paying their bills – that if they wanted our protection, they had to pay up, and they had to pay up now.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that NATO countries weren’t paying “bills” until Trump came along or that they were “delinquent” in the sense of failing to pay bills – as numerous fact-checkers pointed out when Trump repeatedly used such language during his presidency. NATO members haven’t been failing to pay their share of the organization’s common budget to run the organization. And while it’s true that most NATO countries were not (and still are not) meeting NATO’s target of each country spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, that 2% figure is what NATO calls a “guideline”; it is not some sort of binding contract, and it does not create liabilities. An official NATO recommitment to the 2% guideline in 2014 merely said that members not currently at that level would “aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade.”

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg did credit Trump for securing increases in European NATO members’ defense spending, but it’s worth noting that those countries’ spending had also increased in the last two years of the Obama administration following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea and the recommitment that year to the 2% guideline. NATO notes on its website that 2022 was “the eighth consecutive year of rising defence spending across European Allies and Canada.”

    NATO’s existence

    Boasting of how he had secured additional funding for NATO from countries, Trump claimed, “Actually, NATO wouldn’t even exist if I didn’t get them to pay up.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense.

    There was never any indication that NATO, created in 1949, would have ceased to exist in the early 2020s without additional funding from some members. The alliance was stable even with many members not meeting the alliance’s guideline of having members spend 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

    We don’t often fact-check claims about what might have happened in an alternative scenario, but this Trump claim has no basis in reality. “The quote doesn’t make sense, obviously,” said Erwan Lagadec, research professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and an expert on NATO.

    Lagadec noted that NATO has had no trouble getting allies to cover the roughly $3 billion in annual “direct” funding for the organization, which is “peanuts” to this group of countries. And he said that the only NATO member that had given “any sign” in recent years that it was thinking about leaving the alliance “was … the US, under Trump.” Lagadec added that the US leaving the alliance is one scenario that could realistically kill it, but that clearly wasn’t what Trump was talking about in his remarks on spending levels.

    James Goldgeier, an American University professor of international relations and Brookings Institution visiting fellow, said in an email: “NATO was founded in 1949, so it seems very clear that Donald Trump had nothing to do with its existence. In fact, the worry was that he would pull the US out of NATO, as his national security adviser warned he would do if he had been reelected.”

    The cost of NATO’s headquarters

    Trump mocked NATO’s headquarters, saying, “They spent – an office building that cost $3 billion. It’s like a skyscraper in Manhattan laid on its side. It’s one of the longest buildings I’ve ever seen. And I said, ‘You should have – instead of spending $3 billion, you should have spent $500 million building the greatest bunker you’ve ever seen. Because Russia didn’t – wouldn’t even need an airplane attack. One tank one shot through that beautiful glass building and it’s gone.’”

    Facts First: NATO did spend a lot of money on its headquarters in Belgium, but Trump’s “$3 billion” figure is a major exaggeration. When Trump used the same inaccurate figure in early 2020, NATO told CNN that the headquarters was actually constructed for a sum under the approved budget of about $1.18 billion euro, which is about $1.3 billion at exchange rates as of Sunday morning.

    The Pulitzer Prize

    Trump made his usual argument that The Washington Post and The New York Times should not have won a prestigious journalism award, a 2018 Pulitzer Prize, for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election and its connections to Trump’s team. He then said, “And they were exactly wrong. And now they’ve even admitted that it was a hoax. It was a total hoax, and they got the prize.”

    Facts First: The Times and Post have not made any sort of “hoax” admission. “The claim is completely false,” Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said in an email on Sunday.

    Stadtlander continued: “When our Pulitzer Prize shared with The Washington Post was challenged by the former President, the award was upheld by the Pulitzer Prize Board after an independent review. The board stated that ‘no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.’ The Times’s reporting was also substantiated by the Mueller investigation and Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the matter.”

    The Post referred CNN to that same July statement from the Pulitzer Prize Board.

    Awareness of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline

    Trump claimed of his opposition to Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany: “Nord Stream 2 – Nobody ever heard of it … right? Nobody ever heard of Nord Stream 2 until I came along. I started talking about Nord Stream 2. I had to go call it ‘the pipeline’ because nobody knew what I was talking about.”

    Facts First: This is standard Trump hyperbole; it’s just not true that “nobody” had heard of Nord Stream 2 before he began discussing it. Nord Stream 2 was a regular subject of media, government and diplomatic discussion before Trump took office. In fact, Biden publicly criticized it as vice president in 2016. Trump may well have generated increased US awareness to the controversial project, but “nobody ever heard of Nord Stream 2 until I came along” isn’t true.

    Trump and Nord Stream 2

    Trump claimed, “I got along very well with Putin even though I’m the one that ended his pipeline. Remember they said, ‘Trump is giving a lot to Russia.’ Really? Putin actually said to me, ‘If you’re my friend, I’d hate like hell to see you as my enemy.’ Because I ended the pipeline, right? Do you remember? Nord Stream 2.” He continued, “I ended it. It was dead.”

    Facts First: Trump did not kill Nord Stream 2. While he did approve sanctions on companies working on the project, that move came nearly three years into his presidency, when the pipeline was already around an estimated 90% complete – and the state-owned Russian gas company behind the project said shortly after the sanctions that it would complete the pipeline itself. The company announced in December 2020 that construction was resuming. And with days left in Trump’s term in January 2021, Germany announced that it had renewed permission for construction in its waters.

    The pipeline never began operations; Germany ended up halting the project as Russia was about to invade Ukraine early last year. The pipeline was damaged later in the year in what has been described as an act of sabotage.

    The Obama administration and Ukraine

    Trump claimed that while he provided lethal assistance to Ukraine, the Obama administration “didn’t want to get involved” and merely “supplied the bedsheets.” He said, “Do you remember? They supplied the bedsheets. And maybe even some pillows from [pillow businessman] Mike [Lindell], who’s sitting right over here. … But they supplied the bedsheets.”

    Facts First: This is inaccurate. While it’s true that the Obama administration declined to provide weapons to Ukraine, it provided more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine between 2014 and 2016 that involved far more than bedsheets. The aid included counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars, armored Humvees, tactical drones, night vision devices and medical supplies.

    Biden and a Ukrainian prosecutor

    Trump claimed that Biden, as vice president, held back a billion dollars from Ukraine until the country fired a prosecutor who was “after Hunter” and a company that was paying him. Trump was referring to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, who sat on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

    Facts First: This is baseless. There has never been any evidence that Hunter Biden was under investigation by the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had been widely faulted by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists and European countries for failing to investigate corruption. A former Ukrainian deputy prosecutor and a top anti-corruption activist have both said the Burisma-related investigation was dormant at the time Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin.

    Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, told The Washington Post in 2019: “Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma. And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.” In addition, Shokin’s successor as prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg in 2019: “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws – at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.”

    Biden, as vice president, was carrying out the policy of the US and its allies, not pursuing his own agenda, in threatening to withhold a billion-dollar US loan guarantee if the Ukrainian government did not sack Shokin. CNN fact-checked Trump’s claims on this subject at length in 2019.

    Trump and job creation

    Promising to save Americans’ jobs if he is elected again, Trump claimed, “We had the greatest job history of any president ever.”

    Facts First: This is false. The US lost about 2.7 million jobs during Trump’s presidency, the worst overall jobs record for any president. The net loss was largely because of the Covid-19 pandemic, but even Trump’s pre-pandemic jobs record – about 6.7 million jobs added – was far from the greatest of any president ever. The economy added more than 11.5 million jobs in the first term of Democratic President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

    Tariffs on China

    Trump repeated a trade claim he made frequently during his presidency. Speaking of China, he said he “charged them” with tariffs that had the effect of “bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into our Treasury from China. Thank you very much, China.” He claimed that he did this even though “no other president had gotten even 10 cents – not one president got anything from them.”

    Facts First: As we have written repeatedly, it’s not true that no president before Trump had generated any revenue through tariffs on goods from China. In reality, the US has had tariffs on China for more than two centuries, and FactCheck.org reported in 2019 that the US generated an “average of $12.3 billion in custom duties a year from 2007 to 2016, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission DataWeb.” Also, American importers, not Chinese exporters, make the actual tariff payments – and study after study during Trump’s presidency found that Americans were bearing most of the cost of the tariffs.

    The trade deficit with China

    Trump went on to repeat a false claim he made more than 100 times as president – that the US used to have a trade deficit with China of more than $500 billion. He claimed it was “five-, six-, seven-hundred billion dollars a year.”

    Facts First: The US has never had a $500 billion, $600 billion or $700 billion trade deficit with China even if you only count trade in goods and ignore the services trade in which the US runs a surplus with China. The pre-Trump record for a goods deficit with China was about $367 billion in 2015. The goods deficit hit a new record of about $418 billion under Trump in 2018 before falling back under $400 billion in subsequent years.

    Trump and the 2020 election

    Trump said people claim they want to run against him even though, he claimed, he won the 2020 election. He said, “I won the second election, OK, won it by a lot. You know, when they say, when they say Biden won, the smart people know that didn’t [happen].”

    Facts First: This is Trump’s regular lie. He lost the 2020 election to Biden fair and square, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. Biden earned more than 7 million more votes than Trump did.

    Democrats and elections

    Trump said Democrats are only good at “disinformation” and “cheating on elections.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. There is just no basis for a broad claim that Democrats are election cheaters. Election fraud and voter fraud are exceedingly rare in US elections, though such crimes are occasionally committed by officials and supporters of both parties. (We’ll ignore Trump’s subjective claim about “disinformation.”)

    The liberation of the ISIS caliphate

    Trump repeated his familiar story about how he had supposedly liberated the “caliphate” of terror group ISIS in “three weeks.” This time, he said, “In fact, with the ISIS caliphate, a certain general said it could only be done in three years, ‘and probably it can’t be done at all, sir.’ And I did it in three weeks. I went over to Iraq, met a great general. ‘Sir, I can do it in three weeks.’ You’ve heard that story. ‘I can do it in three weeks, sir.’ ‘How are you going to do that?’ They explained it. I did it in three weeks. I was told it couldn’t be done at all, that it would take at least three years. Did it in three weeks. Knocked out 100% of the ISIS caliphate.”

    Facts First: Trump’s claim of eliminating the ISIS caliphate in “three weeks” isn’t true; the ISIS “caliphate” was declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump’s presidency, in 2019. Even if Trump was starting the clock at the time of his visit to Iraq, in late December 2018, the liberation was proclaimed more than two and a half months later. In addition, Trump gave himself far too much credit for the defeat of the caliphate, as he has in the past, when he said “I did it”: Kurdish forces did much of the ground fighting, and there was major progress against the caliphate under President Barack Obama in 2015 and 2016.

    IHS Markit, an information company that studied the changing size of the caliphate, reported two days before Trump’s 2017 inauguration that the caliphate shrunk by 23% in 2016 after shrinking by 14% in 2015. “The Islamic State suffered unprecedented territorial losses in 2016, including key areas vital for the group’s governance project,” an analyst there said in a statement at the time.

    Military equipment left in Afghanistan

    Trump claimed, as he has before, that the US left behind $85 billion worth of military equipment when it withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021. He said of the leader of the Taliban: “Now he’s got $85 billion worth of our equipment that I bought – $85 billion.” He added later: “The thing that nobody ever talks about, we lost 13 [soldiers], we lost $85 billion worth of the greatest military equipment in the world.”

    Facts First: Trump’s $85 billion figure is false. While a significant quantity of military equipment that had been provided by the US to Afghan government forces was indeed abandoned to the Taliban upon the US withdrawal, the Defense Department has estimated that this equipment had been worth about $7.1 billion – a chunk of about $18.6 billion worth of equipment provided to Afghan forces between 2005 and 2021. And some of the equipment left behind was rendered inoperable before US forces withdrew.

    As other fact-checkers have previously explained, the “$85 billion” is a rounded-up figure (it’s closer to $83 billion) for the total amount of money Congress has appropriated during the war to a fund supporting the Afghan security forces. A minority of this funding was for equipment.

    The Afghanistan withdrawal and the F-16

    Trump claimed that the Taliban acquired F-16 fighter planes because of the US withdrawal, saying: “They feared the F-16s. And now they own them. Think of it.”

    Facts First: This is false. F-16s were not among the equipment abandoned upon the US withdrawal and the collapse of the Afghan armed forces, since the Afghan armed forces did not fly F-16s.

    The border wall

    Trump claimed that he had kept his promise to complete a wall on the border with Mexico: “As you know, I built hundreds of miles of wall and completed that task as promised. And then I began to add even more in areas that seemed to be allowing a lot of people to come in.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that Trump “completed” the border wall. According to an official “Border Wall Status” report written by US Customs and Border Protection two days after Trump left office, about 458 miles of wall had been completed under Trump – but about 280 more miles that had been identified for wall construction had not been completed.

    The report, provided to CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez, said that, of those 280 miles left to go, about 74 miles were “in the pre-construction phase and have not yet been awarded, in locations where no barriers currently exist,” and that 206 miles were “currently under contract, in place of dilapidated and outdated designs and in locations where no barriers previously existed.”

    Latin America and deportations

    Trump told his familiar story about how, until he was president, the US was unable to deport MS-13 gang members to other countries, “especially” Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras because those countries “didn’t want them.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that, as a rule, Guatemala and Honduras wouldn’t take back migrants being deported from the US during Obama’s administration, though there were some individual exceptions.

    In 2016, just prior to Trump’s presidency, neither Guatemala nor Honduras was on the list of countries that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) considered “recalcitrant,” or uncooperative, in accepting the return of their nationals.

    For the 2016 fiscal year, Obama’s last full fiscal year in office, ICE reported that Guatemala and Honduras ranked second and third, behind only Mexico, in terms of the country of citizenship of people being removed from the US. You can read a longer fact check, from 2019, here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.N. to mark one year of Ukraine war with vote to ‘go down in history’

    U.N. to mark one year of Ukraine war with vote to ‘go down in history’

    [ad_1]

    UNITED NATIONS, Feb 22 (Reuters) – Marking one year of war, Ukraine and Russia lobbied countries at the United Nations on Wednesday for backing ahead of a vote by the 193-member General Assembly that the United States declared will “go down in history.”

    “We will see where the nations of the world stand on the matter of peace in Ukraine,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the General Assembly.

    The General Assembly appeared set to adopt a resolution on Thursday, put forward by Ukraine and supporters, stressing “the need to reach, as soon as possible, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace” in line with the founding U.N. Charter.

    U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres denounced Russia’s invasion and said the Charter was “unambiguous,” citing from it: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

    Ukraine and its supporters hope to deepen Russia’s diplomatic isolation by seeking yes votes from nearly three-quarters of the General Assembly to match – if not better – the support received for several resolutions last year.

    Latest Updates

    View 2 more stories

    They argue the war is a simple case of one unprovoked country illegally invading another, while Russia portrays itself as battling a “proxy war” with West, which has been arming Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Moscow since the invasion.

    “The West has … brazenly ignored our concerns and continue bringing the military infrastructure of NATO closer and closer to our borders,” Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told the General Assembly.

    ‘VERY SIMPLE’

    Nebenzia said Moscow “had no other option” but to launch what it has called a “special military operation” on Feb. 24 last year to defend Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and ensure “the safety and security of our country, using military means.”

    The draft U.N. resolution, which is non-binding, but carries political weight, mirrors a demand the General Assembly made last year for Moscow to withdraw troops and halt the hostilities. Russia has described the text as “unbalanced and anti-Russian” and urged countries to vote no.

    Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told reporters Ukraine was exercising its right to self-defense as enshrined in the U.N. Charter and that “when you are sending weapons to Ukraine, you are helping Ukraine to defend U.N. Charter.”

    “Russia violated the U.N. Charter by becoming an aggressor,” he said at the United Nations. “When you are sending weapons to them, you are helping to destroy the U.N. Charter and everything that the United Nations stand for. It’s very simple.”

    The General Assembly has been the focus for UN action on Ukraine, with the 15-member Security Council paralyzed due to veto power by Russia and the United States along with China, France and Britain.

    The Security Council has held dozens of meetings on Ukraine in the past year and will again discuss the war on Friday at a ministerial gathering, due to be attended by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Diplomats say Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is not scheduled to attend.

    Reporting by Michelle Nichols, editing by Kanishka Singh and David Gregorio

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Impact of Russian invasion on global energy, politics

    Impact of Russian invasion on global energy, politics

    [ad_1]

    Impact of Russian invasion on global energy, politics – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine nearly one year ago, marking Europe’s biggest war since WWII. Timothy Frye, the Marshall D. Shulman professor of post-Soviet foreign policy at Columbia University, joined CBS News to discuss how the conflict has changed global energy, the economy and politics.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden reassures eastern NATO allies

    Biden reassures eastern NATO allies

    [ad_1]

    Biden reassures eastern NATO allies – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    President Biden sought to assure the eastern-most members of NATO that the U.S. would stand with them in the event of a Russian invasion as he wrapped up his overseas trip. Ed O’Keefe reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Analysis: Loans to Russian soldiers fuel calls for European banks to quit

    Analysis: Loans to Russian soldiers fuel calls for European banks to quit

    [ad_1]

    BERLIN/LONDON, Feb 13 (Reuters) – A Russian scheme to grant loan payment holidays to troops fighting in Ukraine, and for banks to write off the entire debt if they are killed or maimed, has added to growing pressure for the remaining overseas lenders in Russia to leave.

    Almost a year since Moscow launched what it calls a “special military operation” in Ukraine, a handful of European banks, including Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank International (RBIV.VI) and Italy’s UniCredit (CRDI.MI), are still making money in Russia.

    The loan relief scheme has not only triggered criticism from Ukraine’s central bank, which said it had appealed to Raiffeisen and other banks to stop doing business in Russia, but also from investors concerned about any reputational impact.

    Raiffeisen and UniCredit are both deeply embedded in the Russian financial system and are the only foreign banks on the central bank’s list of 13 “systemically important credit institutions”, underscoring their importance to Russia’s economy, which is grappling with sweeping Western sanctions.

    Latest Updates

    View 2 more stories

    Their role in supporting the Russian economy at a critical time for President Vladimir Putin has prompted some investors to go public with their misgivings.

    “Companies should be very careful,” said Kiran Aziz, of Norwegian pension fund KLP, cautioning of a major risk that the banks could be used to “in other ways finance the war”. KLP funds hold shares in both Raiffeisen and UniCredit.

    At the time the payment holiday law was going through parliament in September, Vyacheslav Volodin, the influential speaker of the lower house, made clear its importance to Russia.

    “Soldiers and officers ensure the security of our country and we must be sure that they will be taken care of,” he said.

    Eric Christian Pederson of Nordea Asset Management, which has more than 300 billion euros ($320 billion) under management, said he too was concerned about Raiffeisen and UniCredit’s Russian presence and had raised this with them.

    The requirement that the banks grant payment holidays to soldiers “illustrates the dangers of operating in jurisdictions where companies can … be forced into actions that go directly against their corporate values,” he added.

    “We feel that it is right for companies to withdraw from Russia, given its unprovoked attack on Ukraine,” said Pederson. Refinitiv data shows Nordea owns shares in UniCredit.

    Banks restructured a total of 167,600 loans for military personnel or their family members, worth more than 800 million euros, between Sept. 21 and the end of last year, Russian central bank data shows.

    Raiffeisen said that only 0.2% of its Russian loans are affected by the “government-imposed loan moratorium”, a sum it described as “negligible”. The bank has a total of almost 9 billion euros of loans in Russia, where it has been for more than 25 years, including to companies.

    It made a net profit of roughly 3.8 billion euros last year, thanks in large part to a 2 billion euro plus profit from its Russia business.

    UniCredit, which entered the Russian market almost 20 years ago when it acquired an Austrian bank, said that the rule was “mandatory under the federal law … for all banks”, declining to say how many of its loans had been forgiven.

    The Italian bank added that its business in Russia was focused on companies rather than individuals. Of UniCredit’s more than 20 billion euro total revenue last year, Russia accounted for more than 1 billion euros.

    But despite an initial sharp fall, UniCredit’s shares are now significantly higher than before Russia moved its troops into Ukraine on Feb. 24 last year, while Raiffeisen’s, with a more limited free float, have not recovered.

    “Any profiteering on the ongoing war is not acceptable or aligned with our view of responsible investments,” said a spokesperson for Swedbank Robur, one of Scandinavia’s top investors, adding that reputational risk was a worry.

    Swedbank Robur said it has stakes in both banks, but did not disclose figures.

    Larger institutional investors, including France’s Amundi and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, which advocates responsible investing, declined to comment when asked for their views.

    WINDOW CLOSING?

    Some foreign banks have made relatively quick exits.

    France’s Societe Generale (SOGN.PA) severed its Russia ties in May by selling Rosbank (ROSB.MM) to businessman Vladimir Potanin’s Interros Group.

    But the continued presence of two of Europe’s biggest banks is attracting the attention of regulators at the European Central Bank (ECB), one person familiar with the matter said.

    Andrea Enria, the ECB’s chief supervisor, said the window to quit was “closing a bit” because Russian authorities were taking a more “hostile” approach. But he also voiced support for any bank wanting to reduce their business there or leave.

    Raiffeisen and UniCredit confirmed they were in discussions about Russia with the ECB.

    UniCredit said it kept the ECB “fully and regularly up to date on our strategy of orderly de-risking our exposure to Russia”.

    But with money still to be made, Raiffeisen saw profit from its business in Russia more than triple last year.

    Meanwhile, Russian savers lodged more than 20 billion euros with the bank, which offers a place to deposit funds with fewer sanctions risks.

    This means there is no great impetus for banks to leave Russia, despite regulatory pressure.

    And in Austria, which has close historical and economic ties to eastern Europe and Russia, politicians are largely silent on Raiffeisen’s continuing Russian presence, which in recent months prompted protests outside its headquarters.

    Johann Strobl, Raiffeisen’s CEO, has said he is examining options for the Russian business, although points out that any move is complicated, having earlier said that the bank is not “a sausage stand” that could be closed overnight.

    For some the question is more about morality than money.

    Heinrich Schaller, head of RBI’s third largest shareholder Raiffeisenlandesbank Oberoesterreich and deputy chairman of Raiffeisen, is among those to have aired doubts about staying.

    “Of course it is a question of morals,” he said recently. “No doubt about it.”

    Whatever shareholders may say, a decree by Putin is likely to make getting out of Russia difficult. It banned investors from so-called unfriendly countries from selling shares in banks, unless the Russian President grants an exemption.

    ($1 = 0.9376 euros)

    Additional reporting by Alexandra Schwarz-Goerlich in Vienna and Tom Sims in Frankfurt; Writing by John O’Donnell; Editing by Alexander Smith

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    West struggles to deliver on Zelenskyy’s defense wish list

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ammo, ammo, ammo 

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

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

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

    But there was one common theme. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jets fight fails to take off (for now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Where are the tanks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    [ad_2]

    Lili Bayer

    Source link

  • Ukraine braces for renewed Russian offensive

    Ukraine braces for renewed Russian offensive

    [ad_1]

    Ukraine braces for renewed Russian offensive – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Ukrainian officials warn Russia’s military activity and attacks could pick up later this month as the one-year mark of the invasion draws closer. BBC News correspondent James Waterhouse joins “CBS News Mornings” from Kyiv with details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Turkey summons nine Western ambassadors over security alerts

    Turkey summons nine Western ambassadors over security alerts

    [ad_1]

    ANKARA, Feb 2 (Reuters) – Turkey summoned ambassadors of nine Western countries including the United States and Sweden on Thursday to criticise their decisions to temporarily shut diplomatic missions and issue security alerts following Koran-burning incidents in Europe.

    The envoys of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Britain were also summoned, according to foreign ministry sources in Ankara.

    Over the last two weeks, far-right activists burned copies of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, acts that prompted Turkey to halt negotiations meant to lift its objections to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

    The European countries have denounced the incidents but some say they cannot prevent them because of free speech rules.

    Over the last week, France, Germany, Italy and the United States were among those issuing warnings to their citizens of an increased risk of attacks in Turkey, particularly against diplomatic missions and non-Muslim places of worship.

    Latest Updates

    View 2 more stories

    Germany, France and the Netherlands were among countries that temporarily closed diplomatic missions in Turkey for security reasons this week. Some cited central Istanbul areas of high concern but did not provide the source of the information.

    “Such simultaneous activities do not constitute a proportional and commonsense approach and…only serve the covert agenda of terrorist organizations,” said a foreign ministry source who asked not to be further identified.

    The source added that the security of all diplomatic missions is ensured in accordance with international conventions and “allies should cooperate with” Turkish authorities.

    The interior minister, Suleyman Soylu, said on Twitter the embassies were waging “a new psychological war” against Turkey.

    All 30 NATO members must approve newcomers. Sweden and Finland applied for membership last year in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but ran into surprise resistance from Turkey.

    Since then they have sought to win its backing including agreeing to take a harder line domestically against those Turkey says are members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the PKK, designated a terrorist group by Ankara and the European Union.

    On Thursday, police in NATO member Norway banned a planned anti-Islam protest including the burning of the Koran for security reasons, hours after the Turkish foreign ministry summoned Oslo’s ambassador to complain.

    Diplomatic tensions rose last weekend when Turkey responded to the initial U.S. security alert by warning its citizens against “possible Islamophobic, xenophobic and racist attacks” in the United States and Europe.

    The U.S. embassy confirmed its Ambassador Jeffry Flake attended a meeting at Turkey’s foreign ministry on Thursday. Two European diplomatic sources said envoys from Germany, France and the Netherlands were also summoned.

    Writing by Jonathan Spicer; Editing by Alison Williams, Peter Graff and Mark Heinrich

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Czech Republic secures pro-West direction as ex-NATO general wins

    Czech Republic secures pro-West direction as ex-NATO general wins

    [ad_1]

    Prague, Czech Republic – Former NATO General Petr Pavel will become the fourth president of this Central European nation after he won a bitterly fought election.

    Hours after the polls closed on Saturday, Pavel was declared the winner of the second-round run-off vote. Preliminary results suggested he won 58.3 percent in the two-horse race.

    The impressive margin of his victory over former Prime Minister Andrej Babis suggested a surge of support for liberal democracy, following several years in which populists have enjoyed the upper hand.

    It also stoked hopes among his supporters that, amid the war in Ukraine, the Czech Republic was now cementing itself in the Western mainstream.

    Pavel, 61, will replace Milos Zeman, an outspoken populist accused of encouraging the polarisation of the country’s political landscape. Zeman’s second and final term under constitutional limits ends on March 8.

    Speaking after his victory was declared, Pavel pledged he would seek to heal the rifts in Czech society.

    “I don’t see winning and losing voters in this country,” he said. “Values ​​such as truth, dignity, respect and humility won. I am ready to return these values ​​with my service not only to the Castle, but also to our republic.”

    Czech Republic’s President-elect Petr Pavel with his wife Eva addresses his supporters after the announcement of preliminary results on Saturday [Petr David Josek/AP]

    The Czech presidency is a largely ceremonial role. However, Zeman has spent the last decade testing the boundaries of its few powers, which include formal appointments to the government, constitutional court and central bank.

    Outspoken, he has also confused foreign policy by pushing for closer links with Russia and China, in direct contradiction of the government’s official stance that European Union and NATO membership are key cornerstones.

    Prime Minister Petr Fiala’s centre-right government did not directly endorse Pavel because of concerns that anger about the cost-of-living crisis could damage his campaign. However, the independent’s victory was warmly welcomed.

    Marketa Pekarova Adamova, parliament speaker and leader of the Top09 coalition party, told Al Jazeera the president-elect’s “fundamental values and goals are in line” with those of the government.

    Anti-Babis

    Although a little wooden, the dignified, square-jawed former soldier was a strong candidate. But Pavel’s margin of victory was also driven by votes cast against his opponent.

    After Babis, 68, and Pavel qualified for the run-off in a first-round vote on January 14, several of the six defeated candidates urged supporters to swing behind the ex-general.

    Babis, a populist billionaire whose time as prime minister was plagued by corruption scandals, has long accused the country’s liberal democratic forces of running an “anti-Babis” coalition. Similar cooperation by a quintet of centrist and centre-right parties removed him from the prime minister’s chair in October 2021.

    However, Babis’s ANO party remained the largest in parliament, thanks to core support largely drawn from older, rural and poorer cohorts. That left many worrying that Babis’ amalgamation of economic, political, and media power – he owns several newspapers and radio stations – represented a danger to democracy.

    In the shadow of Russia’s vicious war in Ukraine, his approach to foreign policy also spooksed many. Although no friend of Moscow or Beijing, he has been a transactional politician who has lacked ideological foundations.

    That allowed him during the campaign to turn his guns on the government’s support for Ukraine, in a bid to add the votes of a fragmented anti-establishment electorate to his core support.

    Branding Pavel a “warmonger” who sought to send Czechs to the front line, Babis parroted Kremlin narratives as he proclaimed himself “pro-peace”.

    While that may have coaxed some additional support, it also appeared to help mobilise liberal voters, deepening their concern that, in the president’s chair, the billionaire would complicate relations with EU and NATO partners.

    Turnout for the election was about 70 percent, the highest since direct presidential elections were instigated in 2013.

    “Babis’ campaign crossed all boundaries and helped mobilise his opponents,” said Otto Eibl, head of the political science department at Brno’s Masaryk University. “He turned the election into a referendum on himself and his political style. And he lost.”

    Walking the walk

    Many also saw Pavel as more likely to uphold the dignity of the presidency than his rival, who is known for his emotional outbursts.

    That was important to Czechs, suggested Jiri Pehe, a political analyst and former adviser to Vaclav Havel, the playwright and communist-era dissident who served as head of state for a decade after the Czech Republic’s birth in 1993.

    Despite the performances of Zeman and his virulently eurosceptic predecessor Vaclav Klaus, Pehe said the presidency is still a highly symbolic post demanding statesmanship.

    A harsh critic of Zeman and Babis, Pavel said he wants to see an end to populist politics.

    “The main issue at stake is whether chaos and populism will continue to rein or we return to observing rules,” he said following the first election round.

    On economic and social issues the president-elect maintained a conservative but liberal line. He has stressed that fiscal balance was vital, while cautioning society’s vulnerable must not be forgotten. He also supported the EU’s green deal and Czech adoption of the euro.

    “Pavel radiates leadership and there is hope that he can help to calm the Czech political landscape,” said Eibl.

    ‘Moderate political views’

    While the former general lacked political experience, he was well versed in the formalities of negotiation and international relations, having served in peacekeeping missions in the Balkans, as chief of the Czech military, and chairman of NATO’s Military Committee in 2015-18.

    During the election campaign, he urged Czechs to put their trust in his military experience as the war in the east rages. At the same time, he was forced to defend himself amid revelations that he was trained as a spy during the communist era.

    “Given his limited political experience and moderate political views, Pavel would be unlikely to push the constitutional boundaries of the post as … Milos Zeman did,” predicted Andrius Tursa at risk consultancy Teneo International.

    Rather, Pavel was expected to offer firm support for Fiala’s efforts to pull the country back into the Western mainstream, following the confusion spread by Zeman and Babis.

    “Petr Pavel’s presidency should help the government to implement its domestic and foreign policy priorities,” Adamova said. “I’m also sure he’ll do his very best to improve the image of our country abroad.”

    A Russia and China hawk, Pavel has been an eager advocate of Prague’s backing for Kyiv and supported its efforts to anchor the country more firmly in the EU and NATO.

    “Czech diplomacy has quite rightly stopped manoeuvring between East and West,” said Adamova. “We belong to the community of democratic countries and we must behave and act accordingly.”

    As when Fiala replaced Babis as prime minister, the voters’ decision to swap the errant Zeman for the former general “will be welcomed by the country’s NATO and EU partners”, suggested a senior Western diplomat based in Prague, who asked to remain nameless.

    [ad_2]

    Source link