Defense and Military Forces

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      The International Court of Justice’s Ruling on Israel Tests International Law

      by

      Over the past month, we’ve watched an astonishing, high-stakes global drama play out in The Hague. A group of countries from the poorer, less powerful bloc some call the Global South, led by South Africa, dragged the government of Israel and by extension its rich, powerful allies into the top court of that order, and accused Israel of prosecuting a brutal war in Gaza that is “genocidal in character.”The responses to this presentation from the leading nations of the Western rules-based order were quick and blunt.“Completely unjustified and wrong,” said a statement from Rishi Sunak, Britain’s prime minister.“Meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever,” said John Kirby, spokesman for the United States National Security Council.“The accusation has no basis in fact,” a German government spokesman said, adding that Germany opposed the “political instrumentalization” of the genocide statute.But on Friday, that court had its say, issuing a sober and careful provisional ruling that doubled as a rebuke to those dismissals. In granting provisional measures, the court affirmed that some of South Africa’s allegations were plausible, and called on Israel to take immediate steps to protect civilians, increase the amount of humanitarian aid and punish officials who engaged in violent and incendiary speech. The court stopped short of calling for a cease-fire, but it granted South Africa’s request for provisional measures to prevent further civilian death. For the most part, the court ruled in favor of the Global South. Accusing the state created in the aftermath of the slaughter that required the coinage of the term genocide is a serious step. Scholars of genocide have raised alarms about statements from Israeli leaders and its conduct in the war while stopping short of calling the killing genocide. Some have welcomed South Africa’s application as a necessary step to preventing genocide.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Experts See a Message in Chinese Balloons Flying Over Taiwan

      by

      Some analysts see the objects as a calculatedly ambiguous reminder to voters that Beijing is watching.A surge in sightings of balloons from China flying over Taiwan has drawn the attention of the island’s military and struck some experts as a calculatedly ambiguous warning to voters weeks before its presidential election.Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense has reported occasional sightings of balloons floating from China since last month, and a surge in recent days, according to the ministry’s daily tally of Chinese military activities near the island. Official Taiwanese accounts about balloons were previously very sporadic.The recent balloons have mostly stayed off Taiwan’s coast. On Monday, however, one flew across the island, according to the ministry’s descriptions of their paths. Of four spotted on Tuesday, three flew over Taiwan, and two passed through to the island’s east side, facing the Pacific Ocean. Another flew over the island on Wednesday.The Taiwanese reports also noted some of the balloons’ proximity to the island’s military bases. Of the four reported on Tuesday, three were first detected 120 to 184 miles from the Ching Chuan Kang Air Base in the city of Taichung. Taiwan’s defense ministry declined to specify how close to the base they may have flown.The balloons do not appear to pose an immediate military menace to Taiwan, a self-governed democracy of 23 million people that Beijing says is its territory. Taiwan’s defense ministry last month indicated that the balloons seemed to be for collecting data about the atmosphere, but it has declined to give details about the ones detected this week.“The Ministry of National Defense is closely monitoring and tracking them, responding appropriately, and is also assessing and analyzing their drift patterns,” Maj. Gen. Sun Li-fang, a spokesman for the ministry, said on Thursday in response to questions about the balloons.Taiwan has, so far at least, experienced none of the alarm that gripped many Americans last year when a hulking Chinese high-altitude surveillance balloon floated across the United States. China denied that the balloon was for spying, but Washington did not buy that line, and the dispute soured relations for many months.A surveillance balloon was shot down off the coast of South Carolina in 2023. China denied that the balloon was for spying, but Washington did not buy that line.Randall Hill/ReutersTaiwanese people are used to Chinese military flights near the island, and news of the balloons has generally been met with calm, if not indifference.The balloon flights may, nonetheless, be part of the “gray zone” tactics that China uses to warn Taiwan of its military strength and options, without tipping into baldfaced confrontation. The timing of the balloon flights, close to Taiwan’s election, was telling, said Ko Yong-Sen, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, a think tank in Taipei funded by Taiwan’s defense ministry. Mr. Ko has analyzed the pattern of recent sightings.“It’s more an intimidating effect in what happens to be a quite sensitive time, with we in Taiwan holding our election on Jan. 13,” Mr. Ko said in an interview. China, he said, “may want to tone it down. People say that it has recklessly used major weapons like planes and ships for harassment, so it’s shifted to balloons that can be used for a certain kind of lower-intensity intimidation and harassment.”In the election, Taiwanese voters will choose a president and legislature, and Beijing has made no secret of wanting the governing Democratic Progressive Party to lose power. The party opposes Beijing’s claims to Taiwan, and has asserted Taiwan’s distinctive identity and claims to nationhood. Decades ago, the party endorsed independence for Taiwan but now says it accepts the more ambiguous status quo of democratic self-determination.Lai Ching-te, the Democratic Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, has been leading in most polls up to Wednesday. But Hou Yu-ih, the candidate for the Nationalist Party, which favors closer ties with China, has trailed Mr. Lai by only a few percentage points in some recent surveys, and the Nationalists may emerge as the biggest party in the legislature, ending the Democratic Progressive Party’s majority.When asked late last month about the initial reports of balloons near Taiwan, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Defense, Wu Qian, did not confirm or deny any flights, but suggested that, as Taiwan was a part of China, any dispute over balloons crossing the median line between the two sides was moot. He also accused the Democratic Progressive Party of whipping up the issue “to swindle votes.”In 1996, China’s attempt to use missile tests and menacing military drills to shape Taiwan’s presidential election failed, and this time, Beijing has not rolled out any major military exercises in the weeks before the vote. The balloons may augur a more fiery response from China’s leaders if they dislike the election result, said Ben Lewis, a military analyst based in Washington who maintains a daily data record of Chinese military activities around Taiwan.“I think the number of overflights, and, even more, their timing, is still an escalation in the P.R.C.’s activities,” Mr. Lewis said by email, referring to the People’s Republic of China. “If nothing else, I’m taking this as a warning that the P.R.C.’s response to the election will likely be impossible to predict.”The latest sightings were almost certainly not the first time that balloons from China floated over Taiwan, Mr. Lewis said. The Taiwanese defense ministry began regularly reporting Chinese military flights near the island in 2020, and their numbers have grown year by year and now include drones. After a Chinese weather balloon was found last year on a small island controlled by Taiwan, Taiwan’s defense ministry said that most of the balloons swept in around the Taiwan Strait from December to February when, it noted, the “prevailing wind direction” helped them along.Mr. Ko, the Taiwanese defense expert, said that he worried more about what the Chinese military could do with more concerted use of high-altitude balloons over the island, like the one spotted over the United States last year, which could augment data collection using satellites and radar.“The intelligence gathering from Taiwan would be even more serious,” he said. “This is something we’ve been concerned about, and it would be more troublesome.” More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Ukraine Faces Critical Tests as It Duels With Russia for Stamina

      by

      With Western support for Kyiv softening and Congress holding up urgently needed aid, Vladimir Putin’s bet on outlasting Ukraine and its allies is looking stronger.Ukraine faces dwindling reserves of ammunition, personnel and Western support. The counteroffensive it launched six months ago has failed. Moscow, once awash in recriminations over a disastrous invasion, is celebrating its capacity to sustain a drawn-out war.The war in Ukraine has reached a critical moment, as months of brutal fighting have left Moscow more confident and Kyiv unsure of its prospects.The dynamic was palpable last week, as Vladimir V. Putin casually announced plans to run for six more years as president of Russia, swilling champagne and bragging about the increasing competence of Russia’s military. He declared that Ukraine had no future, given its reliance on external help.That air of self-assurance contrasted with the sense of urgency in this week’s trip to Washington by President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, who pressed Congress to pass a stalled spending bill that includes $50 billion more in security aid for Ukraine.Speaking at the White House alongside Mr. Zelensky, President Biden said lawmakers’ failure to approve the package would “give Putin the greatest Christmas gift they could possibly give him.”But Mr. Zelensky’s pleas fell flat, at least for now, with congressional Republicans, who are insisting that additional aid to Ukraine can come only with a clampdown on migration at the United States’ southern border. After meeting with Mr. Zelensky, Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, said his skepticism had not changed.The messages from Moscow and Washington illustrated the growing pressure on Ukraine as it shifts to a defensive posture and braces for a harsh winter of Russian strikes and energy shortages. Kyiv is struggling to maintain support from its most important backer, the United States, a nation now preoccupied with a different war, in Gaza, and the 2024 presidential campaign.Looming over Kyiv’s prospects is the possible return to office in 2025 of former President Donald J. Trump, a longstanding Ukraine detractor and praiser of Mr. Putin who was impeached in 2019 for withholding military aid and pressuring Mr. Zelensky to investigate Mr. Biden and other Democrats.Almost 22 months into the war, polls broadly have found waning United States support for continued funding of Ukraine, particularly among Republicans. A recent Pew Research Center survey found just under half of Americans believe the United States was providing the right amount of support to Ukraine or should be providing more.Ukrainian soldiers firing at Russian positions in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine last month.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesMr. Johnson said money for Ukraine required more oversight of spending, and “a transformative change” in security at the U.S. border with Mexico. “Thus far, we’ve gotten neither,” he said.But the White House still has time to try to work out an agreement that includes border security, and Mr. Zelensky said he remained optimistic about bipartisan support for Ukraine, adding, “It’s very important that by the end of this year we can send a very strong signal of our unity to the aggressor.”A rupture in U.S. funding would risk proving Mr. Putin correct in his longstanding conviction that he can exhaust Western resolve in global politics and conflicts. Though his government bungled the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has regrouped, in part because Mr. Putin was willing to accept enormous casualties.“Putin, soon after the initial offensive didn’t produce the results that Russia had hoped, settled in for a long war and estimated that Russia at the end of the day would have the biggest stamina, the longest staying power, in this fight,” said Hanna Notte, an expert on Russian foreign and security policy at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.Russia has adapted, pumping up its domestic production of ammunition and weaponry, and importing critical matériel from Iran and North Korea, all with the goal of sustaining a long war, Ms. Notte said.“I think there was sort of a dismissiveness, ‘Let the Russians get together with these pariahs, with these global outcasts, and good luck to them,’” Ms. Notte said.But that support has been meaningful for Moscow on the battlefield, she said, particularly with Iran helping Russia enhance its domestic drone production. Ukraine, meanwhile, is struggling to obtain a sufficient flow of ammunition and weaponry from the West, where nations aren’t operating on a wartime footing and face significant production bottlenecks.Ukrainian troops gathered to test-fire their German-made Leopard tanks before moving toward the front line in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine last week.David Guttenfelder for The New York TimesDespite his advantages in numbers and weaponry, Mr. Putin also faces limitations, and military analysts say Russia is in no position to make another run at the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, or other major cities.Russia lost huge numbers of personnel in its offensive maneuvers in the past year, and won little territory apart from the city of Bakhmut. With Mr. Zelensky ordering his troops to build defensive fortifications along the front, Russia may continue to suffer heavy losses without gaining much in return.Facing continued signs of displeasure with last year’s mobilization, the Kremlin appears loath to do another forced call-up before the Russian presidential election in March, if at all.“What we have seen in this war is the defense usually has significant advantages,” said Steven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.Still, Ukraine, reliant on the West for weaponry and funding, faces short-term pressures that Russia does not. Kyiv’s allies don’t have the ammunition and equipment to arm another counteroffensive, making a major new campaign unlikely for most of 2024, according to analysts and former U.S. officials.The United States is by far Ukraine’s most important backer, accounting for about half of its donated weaponry and a quarter of its foreign aid funding. The congressional fight, bogged down in a partisan dispute about border security, has unnerved many Ukrainians.“Today, Ukrainians are beginning to suspect that the U.S. wants to force us to lay down our arms and conclude a shameful truce,” Yuriy Makarov, a political commentator for Ukrainsky Tyzhden, a Ukrainian magazine, said in an interview. “That the Ukrainians practically destroyed the professional army of Russia, which until recently was the main enemy of the United States, does not seem to be taken into account.”Hanna Yarotska, second from left, and her husband, Vasyl, left, mourn at the coffin of their son Yaroslav Yarotskyi, 25, a fallen Ukrainian soldier, at the cemetery in Boryspil, Ukraine, last month.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesThe failure of this year’s counteroffensive has exacerbated political friction in Ukraine, most notably between Mr. Zelensky and the military chief, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny. A month after Mr. Zelensky publicly chastised the commander for saying the war had reached an impasse, the two have yet to appear together in public.There are signs Russia intends to be more aggressive through the winter. After weeks of focusing attacks on the city of Avdiivka, Russia over the weekend began a general offensive along the eastern front, the commander of Ukraine’s ground forces, Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, told Ukrainian news media.The fighting favors Russia’s greater access to artillery ammunition. Earlier this year, the NATO general secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, estimated that Ukraine fired 4,000 to 7,000 artillery shells a day, while Russia fired 20,000.The United States has provided more than two million 155-millimeter artillery shells and brokered deliveries from other nations. But stocks in Western militaries, which had not anticipated fighting a major artillery war, are dwindling.Ukraine also needs ammunition for air defenses, lest Russia’s volleys of exploding drones and cruise and ballistic missiles break through the air-defense blanket over the capital and key infrastructure.Ukrainian soldiers grabbing their rifles after firing an artillery shell at a Russian position near Borova-Svatove in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region last week.David Guttenfelder for The New York TimesThe United States and its allies have provided a dozen or so types of air defenses, sophisticated NATO systems that have allowed businesses to open and cities to resume mostly normal rhythms of work and sleep. But as Russia fires thousands of cheap, Iranian-made Shahed drones, Ukraine’s air-defense ammunition is being exhausted.A tipping point looms if Russian missiles can reliably penetrate gaps, hitting military targets like airfields and blowing up electrical and heating infrastructure to dampen economic activity with blackouts, deepening Ukraine’s reliance on Western aid.“They can keep doing it as long as needed,” Tymofiy Mylovanov, a former Ukrainian minister of economy, said of the Russian assaults. Over time, diminishing political backing for Ukraine in the West provides an incentive to keep whittling away at Kyiv’s arsenal, he said. “If they feel Ukraine will lose support, they will try harder.”Ukraine also faces challenges from the attrition of its personnel.Kyiv does not announce mobilization targets or casualties, but a former battalion commander, Yevhen Dykyi, has estimated that Ukraine will need to enlist 20,000 soldiers a month through next year to sustain its army, both replacing the dead and wounded, and allowing rotations.“Unfortunately,” he said, “with all the military tricks and technologies, some things cannot be compensated for by anything but sheer numbers.”A memorial for Ukrainian soldiers in Kyiv last month.Mauricio Lima for The New York Times More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fears of a NATO Withdrawal Rise as Trump Seeks a Return to Power

      by

      For 74 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been America’s most important military alliance. Presidents of both parties have seen NATO as a force multiplier enhancing the influence of the United States by uniting countries on both sides of the Atlantic in a vow to defend one another.Donald J. Trump has made it clear that he sees NATO as a drain on American resources by freeloaders. He has held that view for at least a quarter of a century.In his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” Mr. Trump wrote that “pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually.” As president, he repeatedly threatened a United States withdrawal from the alliance.Yet as he runs to regain the White House, Mr. Trump has said precious little about his intentions. His campaign website contains a single cryptic sentence: “We have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally re-evaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission.” He and his team refuse to elaborate.That vague line has generated enormous uncertainty and anxiety among European allies and American supporters of the country’s traditional foreign-policy role.European ambassadors and think tank officials have been making pilgrimages to associates of Mr. Trump to inquire about his intentions. At least one ambassador, Finland’s Mikko Hautala, has reached out directly to Mr. Trump and sought to persuade him of his country’s value to NATO as a new member, according to two people familiar with the conversations.In interviews over the past several months, more than a half-dozen current and former European diplomats — speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from Mr. Trump should he win — said alarm was rising on Embassy Row and among their home governments that Mr. Trump’s return could mean not just the abandonment of Ukraine, but a broader American retreat from the continent and a gutting of the Atlantic alliance.“There is great fear in Europe that a second Trump presidency would result in an actual pullout of the United States from NATO,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who was NATO’s supreme allied commander from 2009 to 2013. “That would be an enormous strategic and historic failure on the part of our nation.”Formed after World War II to keep the peace in Europe and act as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, NATO evolved into an instrument through which the U.S. works with allies on military issues around the world. Its original purpose — the heart of which is the collective-defense provision, known as Article V, that states that an armed attack on any member “shall be considered an attack against them all” — lives on, especially for newer members like Poland and the Baltic States that were once dominated by the Soviet Union and continue to fear Russia.Ukrainian soldiers test-fired the guns of tanks provided by NATO before moving to the frontline in Ukraine. NATO’s purpose as a bulwark against the Soviet Union lives on for newer members in Eastern Europe who continue to fear Russian aggression.David Guttenfelder for The New York TimesThe interviews with current and former diplomats revealed that European officials were mostly out of ideas for how to deal with Mr. Trump other than returning to a previous playbook of flattery and transactional tributes.Smaller countries that are more vulnerable to Russian attacks are expected to try to buy their way into Mr. Trump’s good graces by increasing their orders of American weapons or — as Poland did during his term — by performing grand acts of adulation, including offering to name a military base Fort Trump in return for his placing a permanent presence there.At this point in the campaign, Mr. Trump is focused on the criminal cases against him and on defeating his Republican primary rivals, and he rarely talks about the alliance, even in private.As he maintains a broad lead in his campaign to become the Republican nominee, the implications for America’s oldest and most critical military alliance are not clearly advertised plans from Mr. Trump, but a turmoil of widely held suspicions charged with unknowability.UkraineAmid those swirling doubts, one thing is likely: The first area where Mr. Trump’s potential return to the White House in 2025 could provoke a foreign policy crisis is for Ukraine and the alliance of Western democracies that have been supporting its defense against Russia’s invasion.Helping Ukraine stave off the attempted Russian conquest has become a defining NATO effort. Ukraine is not a NATO member but has remained an independent country because of NATO support.Camille Grand, who was NATO’s assistant secretary general for defense investment early in the war, said that how Mr. Trump handled Ukraine would be the first “big test case” that Europeans would use to assess how reliable an ally — or not — he might be in a second term.“Will he throw Zelensky under the bus in the first three months of his term?” Mr. Grand, now at the European Council on Foreign Relations, asked, referring to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.NATO’s collective response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has helped President Biden, center, rebuild traditional alliances after the turmoil of Mr. Trump’s presidency.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Trump has repeatedly declared that he would somehow settle the war “in 24 hours.” He has not said how, but he has coupled that claim with suggestions that he could have prevented the war by making a deal in which Ukraine simply ceded to Russia its eastern lands that President Vladimir Putin has illegally seized.Mr. Zelensky has said Ukraine would never agree to cede any of its lands to Russia as part of a peace deal. But Mr. Trump would have tremendous leverage over Ukraine’s government. The United States has supplied huge quantities of vital weapons, ammunition and intelligence to Ukraine. European countries have pledged the most economic assistance to Ukraine but could not make up the shortfall if America stopped sending military aid.Some of Mr. Trump’s congressional allies, who have followed his lead in preaching an “America First” mantra, already oppose sending further military assistance to Kyiv. And in a broader sign of waning support, Senate Republicans last week blocked an emergency spending bill to further fund the war in Ukraine after demanding unrelated immigration policy concessions from Democrats as a condition of passing it.But even if Congress appropriates further aid, Mr. Trump could withhold delivery of it — as he did in 2019 when trying to coerce Mr. Zelensky into announcing a criminal investigation into Mr. Biden, the abuse-of-power scandal that led to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment.Against that backdrop, Russia’s battlefield strategy for now appears to be biding its time; it is carrying out attacks when it sees opportunities and to tie up Ukrainian forces but is not making paradigm-shifting moves or negotiating, officials said. That stasis raises the possibility that Mr. Putin has calculated he could be in a much better position after the 2024 U.S. election.‘Everybody Owes Us Money’Mr. Trump likes to brag that he privately told leaders of NATO countries that if Russia attacked them and they had not paid the money they owed to NATO and to the United States, he would not defend them. He claimed at a rally in October that after he had declared that “everybody owes us money” and was “delinquent,” he made that threat at a meeting and so “hundreds of billions of dollars came flowing in.”That story is garbled at best.There was a spending-related dispute, but it was over Europeans’ meeting their spending commitments to their own militaries, not money they somehow owed to NATO or to the United States. They did increase military spending during the Trump administration — though by nowhere near the amounts Mr. Trump has claimed. And their spending rose significantly more in 2023, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.But Mr. Trump’s exuberance for retelling his story, coupled with his past displeasure with NATO, is giving fresh alarm to NATO supporters.Pressed by The New York Times to explain what he means by “fundamentally re-evaluating” NATO’s mission and purpose, Mr. Trump provided a rambling statement that contained no clear answer but expressed skepticism about alliances.“It is the obligation of every U.S. president to ensure that America’s alliances serve to protect the American people, and do not recklessly endanger American blood and treasure,” Mr. Trump’s statement read.Some Trump supporters who are pro-NATO have argued that Mr. Trump is bluffing. They said he was merely looking to put more pressure on the Europeans to spend more on their own defense.“He’s not going to do that,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a Trump supporter, said of the prospect of Mr. Trump’s withdrawing from NATO. “But what he will do is, he will make people pay more, and I think that will be welcome news to a lot of folks.”Robert O’Brien, who served as Mr. Trump’s final national security adviser, echoed that view.“President Trump withdrawing from NATO is an issue that some people in D.C. discuss, but I don’t believe it’s a real thing,” Mr. O’Brien said. “He understands the military value of the alliance to America, but he just feels — correctly, I might add — like we’re getting played by the Germans and other nations that refuse to pay their fair share for their own defense.”But John Bolton, a conservative hawk who served as national security adviser from 2018 to 2019, wrote in his memoir that Mr. Trump had to be repeatedly talked out of withdrawing from NATO. In an interview, Mr. Bolton said “there is no doubt in my mind” that in a second term, Mr. Trump would withdraw the United States from NATO.Germany has increased its defense spending but will still fall short of the 2 percent target European members of the alliance agreed to.Laetitia Vancon for The New York TimesAs a legal matter, whether Mr. Trump could unilaterally withdraw the United States from NATO is likely to be contested.The Constitution requires Senate consent to ratify a treaty but omits procedures to annul one. This has led to debate about whether presidents can do so on their own or need lawmakers’ authorization. There are only a few court precedents regarding the issue, none definitive.Decisions to revoke treaties by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 and by President George W. Bush in 2001 led members of Congress to file lawsuits that were rejected by courts, partly on the grounds that the disputes were a “political question” for the elected branches to work out. While the legal precedents are not perfectly clear, both of those presidents effectively won: the treaties are widely understood to be void. Still, any attempt to withdraw from NATO would likely invite a broader challenge.In reaction to Mr. Trump’s threats, some lawmakers — led by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, and Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida — put a provision in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress is likely to vote on this month. It says the president shall not withdraw the United States from NATO without congressional approval. But whether the Constitution permits such a tying of a president’s hands is also contestable.And European diplomats say that even if Mr. Trump were to nominally keep the United States in NATO, they fear that he could so undermine trust in the United States’ reliability to live up to the collective-defense provision that its value as a deterrent to Russia would be lost.A Transactional AttitudeThe uncertainty stemming from Mr. Trump’s maximalist and yet vague rhetoric is bound up in his past displays of consistent skepticism about NATO and of unusual solicitude to Russia.As a candidate in 2016, Mr. Trump rattled NATO allies by saying that if Russia attacked the Baltic States, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether they had “fulfilled their obligations to us.” He also repeatedly praised Mr. Putin and said he would consider recognizing Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.As president in July 2018, Mr. Trump not only nearly withdrew from NATO at an alliance summit but denounced the European Union as a “foe” because of “what they do to us in trade.” He then attended a summit with Mr. Putin, after which he expressed skepticism about the idea that the United States should go to war to defend a tiny NATO ally, Montenegro.Mr. Trump held a summit in Helsinki with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in 2018 after repeatedly praising him and displaying an unusual solicitude toward Russia.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWith no prior experience in the military or government, Mr. Trump brought a transactional, mercantilist attitude to interactions with allies. He tended to base his views of foreign nations on his personal relationships with their leaders and on trade imbalances.Mr. Trump particularly disliked Angela Merkel, the former German chancellor, and often complained that German automakers were flooding America with their products. His defenders say his anger was in some ways justified: Germany hadn’t been meeting its military spending commitments, and over his objections, Ms. Merkel pushed ahead with a natural-gas pipeline to Russia. Germany only suspended that project two days before Russia invaded Ukraine.Mr. Trump’s allies also point out that he approved sending antitank weapons to Ukraine, which President Obama had not done after Russia seized Crimea in 2014.Still, in 2020, Mr. Trump decided to withdraw a third of the 36,000 American troops stationed in Germany. Some were to come home, as he preferred, with others redeployed elsewhere in Europe. But the following year, as Russia built up troops on Ukraine’s border, Mr. Biden canceled the decision and added troops in Germany as a show of support for NATO.A Supportive MovementIf he returns to power, Mr. Trump will be backed by a conservative movement that has become more skeptical of allies and of U.S. involvement abroad.Anti-interventionist foreign policy institutes are more organized and better funded than they were during Mr. Trump’s time in office. Those groups include the Center for Renewing America, a Trump-aligned think tank that published a paper titled “Pivoting the U.S. Away From Europe to a Dormant NATO,” which provides a rationale for minimizing America’s role in NATO.On Nov. 1, the Heritage Foundation — a traditionally hawkish conservative think tank that has lately refashioned itself in a Trumpist mold, on matters including opposition to aid to Ukraine — hosted a delegation from the European Council on Foreign Relations.The Europeans exchanged views with ardent nationalists, including Michael Anton, a National Security Council official in the Trump administration; Dan Caldwell, who managed foreign policy at the Center for Renewing America; and national security aides to Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio and other Trump-aligned senators.According to two people who attended, Mr. Anton told the Europeans he could imagine Mr. Trump setting an ultimatum: If NATO members did not sufficiently increase their military spending by a deadline, he would withdraw the United States from the alliance. As the meeting broke up, Eckart von Klaeden, a former German politician who is now a Mercedes-Benz Group executive, implored Mr. Anton to ask Mr. Trump to please talk to America’s European allies as he formulated his foreign policy.That seems like wishful thinking.In his statement to The Times, Mr. Trump invoked his slogan “America First” — a phrase once popularized by American isolationists opposed to getting involved in World War II.“My highest priority,” Mr. Trump said in the statement, “has always been, and will remain, to America first — the defense of our own country, our own borders, our own values, and our own people, including their jobs and well-being.”Steven Erlanger More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Maduro activa referéndum sobre el Esequibo

      by

      El presidente venezolano realizará un referendo para reclamar la soberanía sobre el Esequibo, una importante franja rica en petróleo de Guyana.El presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, se encuentra ante un dilema político. Está bajo la presión de Estados Unidos para que celebre elecciones libres y justas tras años de gobierno autoritario o se enfrente al restablecimiento de sanciones económicas agobiantes. Sin embargo, los analistas afirman que es poco probable que renuncie al poder y que es muy posible que pierda en unas elecciones confiables.Ahora, Maduro ha reavivado una disputa territorial con un país vecino mucho más pequeño. Es una maniobra que parece estar motivada, al menos en parte, por un deseo de desviar la atención de sus problemas políticos internos a través del impulso del fervor nacionalista.Maduro alega que la región rica en petróleo del Esequibo en Guyana, un país con una población estimada de 800.000 habitantes, forma parte de Venezuela, una nación de aproximadamente 28 millones de personas, y realizará un referendo consultivo no vinculante este domingo para preguntarle a los votantes si apoyan la posición del gobierno.El argumento de Maduro se basa en lo que muchos venezolanos consideran un acuerdo ilegítimo que data del siglo XIX que le otorgó a Guyana la región del Esequibo.Los expertos afirmaron que aunque la mayoría de los países han aceptado que el Esequibo pertenece a Guyana, y dado que el tema sigue siendo un asunto polémico para muchos venezolanos, es probable que el referéndum sea aprobado.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Maduro’s Vote to Annex Territory From Guyana Is Seen as a Diversion

      by

      The Venezuelan president is holding a referendum to claim sovereignty over Essequibo, a large oil-rich swath of neighboring Guyana.Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, finds himself in a political bind. He is under pressure from the United States to hold free and fair elections after years of authoritarian rule or face a reinstatement of crippling economic sanctions. But analysts say he is unlikely to give up power and would most likely lose in a credible election.Now, Mr. Maduro has reignited a border dispute with a much smaller neighboring country in a move that seems driven, at least in part, by a desire to divert attention from his political troubles at home by stoking nationalist fervor.Mr. Maduro claims that the vast, oil-rich Essequibo region of Guyana, a country of about 800,000, is part of Venezuela, a nation of roughly 28 million people, and is holding a nonbinding referendum on Sunday asking voters whether they support the government’s position.Mr. Maduro’s argument is based on what many Venezuelans consider an illegitimate agreement dating to the 19th century that gave the Essequibo region to Guyana.Although most countries have accepted that Essequibo belongs to Guyana, the issue remains a point of contention for many Venezuelans, and the referendum is likely to be approved, experts said.President Irfaan Ali of Guyana has said that “Essequibo is ours, every square inch of it,” and has pledged to defend it.For Mr. Maduro, stoking a geopolitical crisis gives him a way to shift the domestic conversation at a moment when many Venezuelans are pressing for an election that could challenge his hold on power.“Maduro needs to wrap himself in the flag for electoral reasons, and obviously a territorial dispute with a neighbor is the perfect excuse,” said Phil Gunson, an analyst with the International Crisis Group who lives in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas.Analysts say that President Nicolás Maduro’s push for a referendum on Essequibo is aimed at stoking nationalist fervor to distract from his lack of popular support.Ariana Cubillos/Associated PressVenezuelan groups and activists opposing Mr. Maduro organized a primary in October without any official government support to choose a candidate to run in elections that are supposed to be held next year. More than 2.4 million Venezuelans cast ballots, a large number that suggests how engaged voters could be in a general election.But since then, the Maduro government has questioned the vote’s legitimacy and has taken legal aim at its organizers, raising concerns that Mr. Maduro will resist any serious challenge to his 10-year rule even as his country continues to suffer under international sanctions.Turnout on Sunday is expected to be large given that, among other factors, public sector employees are required to vote. A turnout larger than that for the opposition’s primary could bolster Mr. Maduro’s standing, analysts said.“It’s aimed at producing the impression that the government can mobilize the people in a way that the opposition can’t,” Mr. Gunson said.Essequibo, a region slightly larger than the state of Georgia, is a tropical jungle rich in oil, as well as minerals and timber. In recent years, many people have migrated there from Venezuela and Brazil to capitalize on the illegal mining industry.Bartica, Essequibo, is the gateway to what the Guyanese call “the interior,” a sparsely populated region of forest and savanna that is rich in natural resources. Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesGuyana has increased its police presence along the Venezuelan border, while Brazil has sent troops to the region. So far, Venezuela has not deployed any additional forces to the border. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris on Polling and Polarization

      by

      Listen and follow DealBook SummitApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicDealBook Summit includes conversations with business and policy leaders at the heart of today’s major stories, recorded live at the annual DealBook Summit event in New York City.With the 2024 election less than a year away, the Biden-Harris administration must navigate a host of challenges at home and abroad, including inflation and partisan gridlock, and conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Vice President Kamala Harris defended the administration’s economic record, pointing to record low unemployment and wage growth, and deflected concerns about Biden’s age. In talking about the Israel-Hamas war, which seems to have prompted an upsurge of antisemitism, Harris emphasized that she believed social divisions based on race, religion or otherwise had long existed in the country. It was just a matter of what might trigger a flare-up.The New York TimesBackground readingIn August, Kamala Harris took on a forceful new role in the 2024 campaign.From The New York Times Magazine: after nearly three years, the vice president is still struggling to make the case for herself — and feels she shouldn’t have to.Follow DealBook’s reporting at https://nytimes.com/dealbookHosted by Andrew Ross Sorkin, a columnist and editor of DealBook, a daily business and policy report from The New York Times, DealBook Summit features interviews with the leaders at the heart of today’s major stories, recorded live onstage at the annual DealBook Summit event in New York City.The DealBook events team includes Julie Zann, Caroline Brunelle, Haley Duffy, Angela Austin, Hailey Hess, Dana Pruskowski, Matt Kaiser and Yen-Wei Liu.Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Nina Lassam, Ravi Mattu, Beth Weinstein, Kate Carrington, Isabella Anderson and Jeffrey Miranda. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Rusia se prepara para las elecciones presidenciales de marzo

      by

      En caso de que Putin se postule, hay pocas dudas sobre el resultado. Sin embargo, los comicios de marzo tienen una mayor importancia debido a las incertidumbres de la guerra.La semana pasada, cuando le preguntaron qué tipo de líder debería remplazar al presidente ruso Vladimir Putin, su portavoz de mucho tiempo dio una respuesta rápida y sencilla: “El mismo”.“O diferente, pero el mismo”, le respondió el portavoz, Dmitry Peskov, a una red de televisión rusa, a lo que añadió que estaba seguro de que, si Putin se postula, ganará las elecciones “sin duda” y seguirá siendo “nuestro presidente”.Pocos dudan que Putin se postulará para ganar otro periodo presidencial en las elecciones programadas para marzo. La expectativa generalizada es que haga el anuncio oficial de su candidatura el mes próximo.También hay pocas dudas acerca del resultado de esas elecciones; en el autoritario sistema político de Rusia, siempre se han reportado las victorias de Putin como aplastantes. Ha estado al frente de Rusia, bien sea como presidente o primer ministro, desde 1999.Sin embargo, las próximas elecciones presidenciales son más significativas; se trata de las primeras que se celebrarán después de la invasión rusa a gran escala en Ucrania en febrero de 2022, la decisión más relevante de Putin desde que cruzó por primera vez los muros del Kremlin como dirigente del país hace dos décadas.Además, las elecciones influyen de manera directa en la estrategia de guerra de Putin para 2024; en concreto, si ordenará o no una nueva movilización de soldados, lo que podría ser una medida impopular en el país, después de ganar su quinto mandato como líder de Rusia.“La guerra y la movilización son cada vez menos populares”, afirmó Andrei Pertsev, analista de política rusa para Meduza, sitio web de noticias rusas con oficinas en Riga, Letonia. “Hacen que la gente se sienta ansiosa”.Los críticos cuestionan el propósito de unas elecciones presidenciales en un país en guerra donde la mayoría de los líderes de oposición están encarcelados o han sido forzados a huir al exilio, y la maquinaria electoral controlada por el Kremlin determina quién puede postularse y quién no, además, la mayoría de los medios noticiosos populares solo alaban a quien está en el poder.Reclutas en la Catedral Principal de las Fuerzas Armadas Rusas, dedicada a “las hazañas militares del pueblo ruso”.Nanna Heitmann para The New York TimesGrigorii Golosov, profesor de ciencias políticas en la Universidad Europea en San Petersburgo, Rusia, indicó que Putin quiere asegurarse de que nadie pueda poner en duda su legitimidad al mando del Estado ruso, sobre todo distintos grupos dentro de la clase gobernante del país.“Tanto la población en general como la clase gobernante rusa están conscientes de que no ha existido ninguna rivalidad política real en Rusia desde hace muchos años”, explicó. “Pero no hay una gran diferencia entre la legitimidad real y su imitación”.Golosov señaló que incluso la apariencia de legitimidad electoral ayudaría a Putin a superar una crisis nacional, si acaso ocurriera, y citó como posible ejemplo la rebelión fallida en junio de Yevgeny Prigozhin, jefe de un grupo de mercenarios.“Situaciones similares podrían presentarse en el futuro”, aseveró Golosov.Serán las primeras elecciones que se celebren tras la actualización hecha a la Constitución de Rusia que, de hecho, le permite a Putin competir por quinta vez porque puede argumentar que se reinició el conteo para el límite de su mandato.Se espera que muchos otros candidatos participen en la contienda, incluidos representantes de dos partidos políticos (el Partido Comunista y el Partido Liberal-Demócrata de tendencia nacionalista) que han sido rivales estratégicos convenientes durante las campañas previas de Putin. Como ocurrió durante las dos elecciones previas, es posible que el Kremlin también le permita participar a un candidato liberal, aunque algunos expertos opinan que todavía no hay nada seguro porque lo más probable es que un candidato de esa ideología adopte una postura de campaña contra la guerra en Ucrania.Por ejemplo, Boris Nadezhdin, uno de los pocos políticos rusos que ha anunciado su intención de postularse, calificó la guerra —u operación militar especial, como la llamó— un “error fatal” de Putin y declaró que ponerle fin sería su prioridad número 1.Boris Nadezhdin, a la derecha, en Moscú en 2011. Es uno de los pocos políticos rusos que ha anunciado su intención de postularse a las elecciones presidenciales de marzo.Sergey Ponomarev/Associated Press“Putin está arrastrando a Rusia al pasado”, dijo Nadezhdin en una entrevista con Zhivoy Gvozd, un medio de noticias ruso en YouTube, este mes. “El principal problema es que Putin está destruyendo las instituciones clave de un Estado moderno”.Para poder registrarse formalmente como candidato, Nadezhdin necesitaría recolectar 100.000 firmas de todo el país. La Comisión Electoral Central tendría que examinarlos, un proceso que, según los analistas, le permite al Kremlin filtrar a contendientes no deseados.“Creo que la probabilidad de que logre registrarse es prácticamente ínfima”, dijo Golosov, el analista político.En el extremo opuesto del espectro político, Igor Girkin anunció su intención de postularse y unir a todas las fuerzas pro guerra bajo su bandera. Girkin, también conocido bajo su nombre de guerra Strelkov, avivó el nacionalismo ruso como señor de la guerra y bloguero militar en Ucrania, pero también criticó ocasionalmente al Kremlin.Girkin está en prisión acusado de extremismo por criticar la forma en que Putin desplegó la guerra, diciendo que el líder ruso fue “demasiado amable” con sus adversarios.Es poco probable que tanto a Nadezhdin como a Girkin se les permita unirse a la contienda presidencial.Igor Girkin, encarcelado por cargos de extremismo, anunció su intención de postularse y unir bajo su bandera a todas las fuerzas pro guerra.Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated PressNo obstante, las elecciones podrían darle problemas al Kremlin, según algunos expertos. Aunque los resultados son inevitables, las elecciones in Rusia en algunas ocasiones han representado un punto de inflexión significativo cuando el sistema político ha estado más vulnerable que de costumbre. A finales de 2011, por ejemplo, decenas de miles de rusos abarrotaron las plazas centrales de Moscú y otras grandes ciudades rusas en protesta de unas elecciones parlamentarias que consideraron amañadas.Este año, la guerra en Ucrania le suma un nuevo elemento de incertidumbre, en opinión de varios analistas. Si bien Rusia ha podido contener la contraofensiva ucraniana y está organizando sus propios ataques, está sacrificando a decenas de miles de soldados sin conseguir ningún logro significativo ni obligar a Kiev a negociar.Y en tanto se prolongue la guerra, los rusos seguirán ansiosos ante la posibilidad de que sea necesaria otra ronda de movilización de hombres para combatir. El Kremlin ordenó un reclutamiento en el otoño de 2022, pero no ha anunciado ningún otro, pues le preocupa que la respuesta sea negativa a nivel nacional. Esperar hasta que pasen las elecciones eliminaría al menos parte del riesgo político.Una encuesta realizada por la empresa de investigación rusa Field, organización apartidista con oficinas en Moscú, reveló que, por primera vez desde que inició la guerra, más rusos dijeron que apoyan la opción de sostener negociaciones por encima de que continuar el combate armado. Casi dos terceras partes de las personas contactadas por teléfono respondieron que apoyarían un acuerdo de paz en Ucrania si se firmara mañana.La encuesta se realizó con 1611 participantes y 6403 se negaron a tomar parte, lo que subraya la dificultad de realizar encuestas en Rusia.La empresa independiente Levada descubrió cambios similares en su encuesta dada a conocer a finales de octubre, en la que el 55 por ciento de los encuestados indicaron que preferirían conversaciones de paz a que continúe la guerra.Asistentes a una manifestación en Moscú en febrero, dos días antes del aniversario de la invasión rusa a Ucrania.Nanna Heitmann para The New York TimesEl Kremlin está consciente de este cambio en el ánimo, señaló Pertsev de Meduza. Aunque Putin todavía tiene gran interés en la situación militar, Pertsev comentó que el Kremlin ha alejado visiblemente su agenda de la guerra y la ha acercado a problemas mucho más mundanos, como el desarrollo de infraestructura para el país.El lunes, por ejemplo, Putin lideró una ceremonia para la entrega de 570 autobuses a 12 regiones rusas.“La guerra solo empeora todo para la campaña presidencial”, afirmó Pertsev en una entrevista. “Le recuerda a la gente las dificultades”.En vísperas del inicio de la campaña, el Estado ruso organizó una enorme exposición sobre Rossiya en Moscú. Ahí, las personas atraviesan un videotúnel de 150 metros que ilustra los distintos logros del país al mando de Putin, como la construcción de edificios residenciales y carreteras. No se menciona en absoluto la guerra.Pertsev sostiene que la exposición se diseñó para crear un “fondo teatral” para la campaña de Putin. El Kremlin también organizó un concurso en el que las familias pueden ganar certificados de apartamentos nuevos o viajes por Rusia. El periodo del concurso coincide con el de las elecciones.“La estructura vertical de poder de Rusia aprovecha las elecciones para demostrar una vez más que todo va bien y que Occidente no ha acabado con Rusia”, explicó Pertsev. Otro factor importante para realizar las elecciones, en su opinión, es que a Putin “le gusta que su trabajo y el amor de la gente por él se demuestren públicamente”.“Mientras más envejece, más le gusta”, concluyó.Un cartel de reclutamiento militar que ofrece 550.000 rublos en Ovsyanka, Rusia.Nanna Heitmann para The New York TimesIvan Nechepurenko ha sido reportero de la oficina de Moscú desde 2015, donde ha cubierto política, economía, deportes y cultura en Rusia y las exrepúblicas soviéticas. Nació y creció en San Petersburgo, Rusia y en Piatykhatky, Ucrania. Más de Ivan Nechepurenko More