Embargoes and Sanctions

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Risks of Sanctions, the Tool America Loves to Use

      by

      There is nearly universal consensus that certain egregious violations of international laws and norms demand a forceful and concerted response. Think only, for example, of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or the development of nuclear weapons capabilities in Iran and North Korea. Harsh economic sanctions have long been viewed as the answer.The eternal question, though, is: What comes next? When do sanctions stop working? Or worse, when do they start working against the United States’ best interests?These are important questions because, over the past two decades, economic sanctions have become a tool of first resort for U.S. policymakers, used for disrupting terrorist networks, trying to stop the development of nuclear weapons and punishing dictators. The number of names on the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions list has risen steadily, from 912 in 2000 to 9,421 in 2021, largely because of the growing use of banking sanctions against individuals. The Trump administration added about three names a day to the list — a rate surpassed last year with the flurry of sanctions that President Biden announced after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Given their increasing use, then, it is useful to understand not only how sanctions can be a tool for successful diplomacy but also how, when not employed well, they can ultimately undermine American efforts to promote peace, human rights and democratic norms across the globe.The Invisible Costs of SanctionsPolicymakers turn to sanctions so frequently — the United States accounts for 42 percent of sanctions imposed worldwide since 1950, according to Drexel University’s Global Sanctions Database — in part because they are seen as being low cost, especially compared with military action.In reality, the costs are substantial. They are borne by banks, businesses, civilians and humanitarian groups, which shoulder the burden of putting them into effect, complying with them and mitigating their effects. Sanctions can also take a toll on vulnerable people — often poor and living under repressive governments, as academics are increasingly documenting.Officials rarely factor in such costs. While sanctions are easy to impose — there are dozens of sanctions programs administered by multiple federal agencies — they are politically and bureaucratically difficult to lift, even when they no longer serve U.S. interests. What’s worse, sanctions also escape significant public scrutiny. Few officials are held responsible for whether a particular sanction is working as intended rather than needlessly harming innocent people or undermining foreign policy goals.Mr. Biden came into office promising to rectify that lack of accountability. The Treasury Department conducted a comprehensive review of sanctions in 2021 and released a seven-page summary that October. The review process was an important step. It concluded, among other things, that sanctions should be systematically assessed to make sure they are the right tool for the circumstances, that they be linked to specific outcomes and include our allies where possible and that care should be taken to mitigate “unintended economic and political impacts” on American workers, businesses, allies and other innocent people.The Treasury Department is making some progress in carrying out the review’s recommendations, but Treasury is just one of many government agencies responsible for fulfilling sanctions. Every one of them should conduct regular, data-driven analyses to ensure that the benefits of sanctions outweigh the costs and that sanctions are the right tool, not just the easiest one to reach for. It is also important that the results of such analyses are communicated to Congress and the public.Sanctions Need Clear, Achievable OutcomesWhat is already known is that sanctions are most effective when they have realistic objectives and are paired with promises of relief if those objectives are met. Perhaps the best example is the 1986 law targeting apartheid-era South Africa, which laid out five conditions for sanctions relief, including the release of Nelson Mandela. Sanctions by the United States and other nations helped convince South Africa’s whites-only government that its policies mandating racial segregation were unsustainable.Sanctions on Communist Poland in 1981 in response to the crushing of the Solidarity movement are another example of how this can work. The United States and its allies gradually lifted sanctions with the release of most imprisoned activists, helping usher in a new era of political freedom in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.It’s notable that the sanctions against South Africa and Poland were aimed at bringing about free and fair elections, not regime change. Sanctions aimed at regime change often incentivize defiance, not reform. They have a terrible track record, as the cases of Cuba, Syria and Venezuela make clear.In Venezuela, open-ended sanctions with sweeping ambition — to oust the dictator Nicolás Maduro — have so far achieved the opposite. After he dissolved the democratically elected National Assembly in 2017 and was declared the winner of a sham presidential election in 2018, the Trump administration imposed maximum-pressure sanctions on Venezuela’s state-owned oil company to cut off a crucial source of funds to the Maduro dictatorship.While harsh individual sanctions against Mr. Maduro were necessary, the blacklisting of Venezuela’s oil sector has exacerbated a humanitarian crisis: As this editorial board warned, cutting off oil revenue deepened what was already the worst economic contraction in Latin America in decades. Sanctions on the oil industry, which accounts for about 90 percent of the country’s exports, caused dramatic cuts in government revenue and significant increases in poverty, according to a study last year by Francisco Rodríguez, a Venezuelan economist at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.The policy, meanwhile, failed to push Mr. Maduro out of power. He instead consolidated his grip on Venezuela, blamed its economic misery on American sanctions and drew his country closer to Russia and China. Sanctions are deeply unpopular in Venezuela, according to numerous opinion polls. Even the representative of Venezuela’s opposition in the United States, a group that previously supported broad sanctions, recently called on Mr. Biden to lift oil sanctions.Since taking office, Mr. Biden has taken steps to modify the sanctions against Venezuela to add specific, achievable objectives. His administration lifted some oil sanctions by giving Chevron permission to do limited work in the country, prompted by the spike in oil prices after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.The White House has promised additional relief if Mr. Maduro takes steps toward holding free and fair elections next year. Francisco Palmieri, the State Department’s chief of mission of the Venezuelan affairs unit in Bogotá, Colombia, recently released a detailed list of what has to be done in order for sanctions to be lifted. It includes setting a date for next year’s presidential election, reinstating candidates who have been arbitrarily arrested and releasing political prisoners.Mr. Maduro hasn’t complied so far. On June 30, he barred yet another well-known opposition figure from holding office. Nevertheless, this more modest policy, which supports a gradual return to democracy rather than abrupt regime change, is a better approach.The Biden administration should be more explicit about which sanctions in Venezuela would be lifted and when, especially those on the state-owned oil company. That would make American promises more credible. An agreement in November between Mr. Maduro and the opposition to use Venezuela’s frozen assets for humanitarian purposes was another promising step, but it is in limbo because the funds have yet to be released.The delay is causing Venezuelans to lose hope in a negotiated solution to the crisis, according to Feliciano Reyna, the president and founder of Acción Solidaria, a nonprofit organization that procures supplies for public hospitals in Venezuela. Although he has a special license to import supplies, he said he still had trouble obtaining what he needed. Some companies, he said, preferred not to sell to Venezuela rather than deal with the headache of making sure it was legal — a phenomenon known as overcompliance.“The situation internally is really dire,” Mr. Reyna said.The loss of hope is, in part, why more than seven million Venezuelans have fled their country since 2015, with more than 240,000 arriving at the U.S. southern border in the past two years. Many experts view sanctions as an important driver of migration from Venezuela because they worsen the economic conditions that push people to leave. In response, a group of Democratic lawmakers — including Representative Veronica Escobar of Texas, who co-chairs Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign — implored him to lift sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba.In addition to making good on its commitments in Venezuela, the Biden administration can do much more to show that the United States is changing its sanctions policy to make it more humane. The first step would be to follow through on the recommendations of its 2021 review and formally take the humanitarian cost of any sanction into account before it is imposed. The Treasury Department in May hired two economists to take on that task; that should become standard practice for any agency with the responsibility for carrying out sanctions.Sanctions Need to Be ReversibleOnce the government begins conducting systematic reviews of existing sanctions, it’s crucial to ensure that any sanction imposed can be reversed.Consider the most glaring failure to do this: the open-ended trade embargo against Cuba. President John F. Kennedy put the embargo in place in 1962 with the stated goal of “isolating the present government of Cuba and thereby reducing the threat posed by its alignment with the Communist powers.” In the years since, American presidents have sent wildly different messages about what it would take to remove sanctions. Barack Obama moved to lift many of them in 2014 — an effort that Donald Trump reversed three years later. Last year Mr. Biden lifted some of the Trump-era sanctions. Yet only an act of Congress can end the embargo.Peter Harrell, who served on the National Security Council staff under Mr. Biden, argues that sanctions should automatically expire after a certain number of years unless Congress votes to extend them. That would cut down on cases of zombie sanctions that go on for decades, long after U.S. policymakers have given up on the sanctions’ achieving their goals.For sanctions to incentivize change rather than merely punish actions in the past, the United States should be prepared to lift sanctions — even against odious actors — if the stated criteria are met.Sanctions, as attractive as they are, rarely work without specific goals combined with criteria for sanctions to be lifted. That applies to current as well as future sanctions. Without goals and relief criteria, these measures — among the most severe in the U.S. foreign policy arsenal — risk working against American interests and principles in the long run.Source photograph by Vicki Jauron, Babylon and Beyond Photography, via Getty Images.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Your Tuesday Briefing: Marcos at the White House

      by

      Also, Russian attacks across Ukraine.President Biden greeted President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines at the White House.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMarcos at the White HouseThe president of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., began a four-day visit to the U.S. with a meeting with President Biden in Washington yesterday. The trip is intended to send a message to China that Marcos plans to deepen his country’s relationship with the U.S.“We are facing new challenges and I couldn’t think of a better partner to have than you,” Biden told Marcos in the Oval Office. Biden added that the U.S. will “continue to support the Philippines’ military modernization.”Marcos’s trip comes days after the U.S. and the Philippines held their largest joint military exercises yet in the South China Sea, aimed at curbing China’s influence. The two countries signed a deal in February to allow the U.S. military to expand its presence in the Philippines. “It is only natural,” Marcos said in the Oval Office, that the Philippines “look to its sole treaty partner in the world to strengthen, to redefine, the relationship that we have and the roles that we play in the face of those rising tensions that we see now around the South China Sea and Asia Pacific.”U.S. outlook: The White House has been focusing on cultivating Marcos, the son of a dictator, as a regional ally since he took office 10 months ago. His predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, was more conciliatory toward China than his predecessors, and, at times, more confrontational with the U.S. Taiwan: The Philippines’ northernmost island is less than 100 miles from the self-governed island. An increased U.S. military presence could allow for a quick troop response in a war with China.China’s position: When the Chinese foreign minister visited the Philippines last month, he had a stern message: It was vital that the government in Manila, the capital, “properly handle issues” related to Taiwan and the South China Sea, and follow through on its earlier commitment not to choose sides.A tank near the front line of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region on Sunday.David Guttenfelder for The New York TimesFighting intensifies in UkraineBoth Russia and Ukraine reported escalating attacks in recent days, a sign that fighting was intensifying ahead of an anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive. Russia launched a broad, predawn aerial assault across Ukraine yesterday, its second wide-ranging attack in just four days. Two people were killed and 40 wounded in Russian strikes on the central city of Pavlograd, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in his nightly address.Ukraine said yesterday that it had launched four strikes on concentrations of Russian troops over the preceding 24 hours. Yesterday, a blast derailed a freight train in Russia, near the border, though a Russian official did not say who was responsible. Over the weekend, a series of explosions also occurred behind Russian lines.Timing: Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksii Reznikov, said on national television that the military was “reaching the finish line” in counteroffensive preparations.One complicating factor: Mud. It’s been raining for weeks in the region, and the ground is unusually wet. Ukraine’s new advanced weaponry is no match for the black, soupy soil.Alireza Akbari was lured from London to Iran in 2019 by a close friend.Khabar Online News AgencyA British spy in IranHe was a senior official in Iran, a trusted keeper of its defense secrets — and a British spy. A Times investigation shows how information shared by the official, Alireza Akbari, upended the world’s view of Iran’s nuclear program and led to his execution in January.Akbari, who was a senior military commander of the Revolutionary Guards, had open access to Iran’s inner circles of power and advised on key state policies. He also spied for Britain for nearly 16 years, according to Western intelligence officials. Intelligence sources told my colleagues Ronen Bergman and Farnaz Fassihi that Akbari revealed, among other things, the existence of Fordo, a uranium enrichment site hidden near Tehran.The revelations, which Britain shared with Israel and other Western intelligence agencies, shocked even those who closely monitored Iran. Fordo’s discovery proved critical in eliminating any doubt that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons and redrew the West’s military and cyber plans for countering the program. It also proved critical in persuading the world to impose sweeping sanctions against Iran.Details: Akbari was an unlikely spy. He displayed a fanatical allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic Republic and an unwavering support of Iran’s leaders, according to interviews with people who knew him. Other revelations: Iran also said he disclosed the identities of over 100 officials, most significantly Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the chief nuclear scientist whom Israel assassinated in 2020.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificA photo made available by the Royal Thai Police shows officers escorting the accused woman to a court in Bangkok.Royal Thai Police, via EPA, via ShutterstockThe police in Thailand charged a woman with nine murders. They found her with a bottle of cyanide after the sudden death of a traveling companion.Chris Hipkins, the prime minister of New Zealand, said that the country would “ideally” become independent one day — but that it had no plans to separate from the monarchy, The Guardian reported.Around the WorldProtestors in Marseille yesterday.Clement Mahoudeau/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOn May Day, some 800,000 French workers took to the streets across the country to protest the new pension plan.Paraguay elected Santiago Peña, a conservative economist, as president, resisting Latin America’s recent leftward shift.Thousands of people fleeing the war in Sudan have overwhelmed Port Sudan, a city on the Red Sea, in their efforts to get to Saudi Arabia.Other Big StoriesU.S. regulators seized First Republic Bank and sold it to JPMorgan Chase. The sale has echoes of the recent banking crisis, but First Republic’s problems seem to be contained.“The Godfather of A.I.” left Google and warned of the technology’s risks: “It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things.”A bronze sculpture was erected in Oslo’s harbor to honor Freya, the walrus who was killed there last year.A Morning ReadJessica Chou for The New York TimesMore young men are getting perms. The hairstyle has changed since its 1980s heyday: Instead of ringlets and hair spray, the modern male perm — inspired by K-pop and TikTok — is tender and softer.ARTS AND IDEASKim Kardashian at the Met Gala last year.Nina Westervelt for The New York TimesA Met Gala previewCelebrities are lining up to walk the red carpet at the Met Gala in New York. (It is scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. in New York, which is 5:30 a.m. in Hong Kong; 7:30 a.m. in Sydney.) The party is usually themed to the annual blockbuster show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute. This year’s show, “Karl Lagerfeld: A Line of Beauty,” pays homage to the imagination and creativity of the longtime designer of Chanel, Fendi and his namesake line. (Lagerfeld died in 2019.)Given the theme, you can expect to see a lot of vintage designer dresses on the runway this year, which could make this the most sustainable Met Gala ever. Vanessa Friedman, our fashion editor, told us that she hoped it would be “a return to more toned-down elegance after years when guests’ clothes have gotten more and more costumey, the better to go more and more viral.”Among the many celebrities attending the celebration, Gala watchers will be on the lookout for one in particular: There’s speculation that Lagerfeld’s white Birman cat (and rumored heir), Choupette, who has her own nanny and Instagram account, may make an appearance.For more: Take our Lagerfeld quiz.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookArmando Rafael for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Simon Andrews.Air-fryer sweet potatoes are faster and less oily than their deep-fried counterparts.What to ReadThe first issue of “It Happened Online,” our new newsletter about the internet, looks at the fate of Twitter’s check marks.What to Watch“Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret,” which adapts Judy Blume’s groundbreaking novel about puberty, is a Times critics pick.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Very (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. My colleagues won the top environmental journalism prize in the Fetisov Journalism Awards for coverage of Congo’s peatlands.“The Daily” is on the fight over the U.S. debt ceiling.I always love hearing from you. Please write to me at briefing@nytimes.com with any thoughts. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      How a Russian Oligarch May Have Recruited the F.B.I. Agent Who Investigated Him

      by

      The bureau tried to court Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate, as an informant. Instead, one of its own top agents may have ended up working for him.The Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to recruit Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian billionaire, as an informant around 2014, hoping he might shed light on organized crime and, later, possible interference in the presidential election.A decade later, Mr. Deripaska may have turned the tables on the F.B.I.: Prosecutors say the oligarch recruited one of the bureau’s top spy catchers, just as he entered retirement, to carry out work that they say violated U.S. sanctions.The charges unsealed this week against Charles McGonigal — who ran the counterintelligence unit at the bureau’s New York field office and investigated Russian oligarchs, including Mr. Deripaska, according to the indictment — showed the extent of the oligarch’s reach into the highest levels of U.S. power.There is no indication in the Manhattan indictment that Mr. McGonigal was working for Mr. Deripaska while still employed by the F.B.I. Still, the case — and a parallel indictment in Washington that charged Mr. McGonigal with receiving at least $225,000 in secret payments from a former employee of an Albanian intelligence service while still at the agency — has raised questions about how compromised he may have been.Mr. Deripaska, an aluminum magnate, had been on the radar of U.S. authorities for years and remains under sanctions. He was known to be an ally of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin. The Treasury Department had reported that he had ties to organized crime.“Deripaska is a well-known man to anybody who follows Russia,” said Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland and a former State Department official who helped craft sanctions against Russia. “I wouldn’t have accepted a luncheon invitation from the guy,” he added.The implications of the allegations against Mr. McGonigal are alarming, Mr. Fried said. “In a broader sense, it does seem to suggest that the corrupting influence of the Russian oligarchs, the money, is real.”In a statement, a spokeswoman for Mr. Deripaska, Larisa Belyaeva, said that he did not hire Mr. McGonigal for any purpose and that he had never been close to Mr. Putin. A lawyer for Mr. McGonigal declined to comment.For years, Mr. Deripaska, 55, has employed a small army of lobbyists, lawyers, consultants and fixers to protect his business and personal interests and smooth his access to Western countries.In recent months, though, federal prosecutors in New York have charged several of those representatives in indictments that accuse them of a range of sanctions violations.Mr. Deripaska was himself indicted last fall, with authorities saying he schemed to have his girlfriend give birth to their child in the United States. At the time, American authorities said he had not been arrested and was considered a fugitive.Mr. Deripaska became rich by prevailing over rivals and partners in the 1990s, when well-connected Russians competed for control over state resources in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse. He earned a reputation for being ruthless and litigious.He also made connections to powerful figures, particularly in Britain. He spent years trying to buy respect and credibility in the United States, London and elsewhere — hosting parties at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, hiring former senior U.S. officials as lobbyists and courting powerful British political figures.He had worked in the past with the U.S. government, including on a failed effort to rescue an F.B.I. agent who had been captured in Iran, for which Mr. Deripaska spent as much as $25 million of his own money.Still, successive administrations in Washington sought to limit his ability to travel to the United States, despite personal intercessions from Mr. Putin. The F.B.I. searched multimillion-dollar homes linked to Mr. Deripaska in 2021 as part of the investigation into whether he had violated the sanctions imposed on him.Mr. Deripaska came to broader public attention in the United States around the 2016 election, because he had employed Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman, as an adviser.From roughly 2014 to 2016, the F.B.I. tried to court Mr. Deripaska as a potential informant, seeking information on Russian organized crime and on possible Russian aid to Mr. Trump’s campaign, The New York Times reported in 2018. At one point, The Times reported, agents appeared at Mr. Deripaska’s home in New York and pressed him about Mr. Manafort and whether he had served as a link between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. (He told them the theory was “preposterous.”)According to the indictment, in 2018, Mr. McGonigal reviewed a “then-classified list of oligarchs with close ties to the Kremlin” who were being considered for sanctions.“Since at least 2016, Russia has been a central counterintelligence focus of the F.B.I. and U.S. government,” said Brandon L. Van Grack, a lawyer in private practice who was a prosecutor for Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. “This former agent was as acutely aware of that concern as anyone at the F.B.I.”In April 2018, the Trump administration announced sanctions on seven oligarchs and companies they owned or controlled as punishment for Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, the 2014 annexation of Crimea and other acts.Mr. Deripaska and his company, Rusal, were among them. In its announcement of the sanctions, U.S. Treasury officials cited Mr. Deripaska’s connections to a senior Russian official and his work in Russia’s energy sector. The authorities said he had been investigated for money laundering and had been accused of threatening business rivals, illegally wiretapping a government official and taking part in extortion and racketeering. They also cited allegations that Mr. Deripaska had bribed a government official, ordered the murder of a businessman and had links to Russian organized crime.Mr. Deripaska denied the allegations, which his allies have said were punishment for refusing to cooperate with U.S. authorities. (In 2019, the Trump administration lifted sanctions against Mr. Deripaska’s companies under an agreement intended to reduce his control and ownership, though a confidential document showed the deal may have been less punitive than advertised.)For Mr. Deripaska, the sanctions represented not just an existential threat to his business, but a rejection of the cosmopolitan power broker image he had long sought to project in the West.Mr. Deripaska fought back, seeking to undo the sanctions or lessen their potentially lethal effect on his businesses. The Times reported in late 2018 that a secret lobbying effort by his team of lawyers, consultants, bankers and well-connected allies had made “substantial headway,” including winning postponements on the sanctions.“One of the risks and hazards of sanctioning wealthy people is they are better positioned to fight back,” said Carlton Greene, a sanctions and international money laundering expert.It is not clear from the indictment how Mr. McGonigal got onto Mr. Deripaska’s radar.According to the indictment against Mr. McGonigal, while he was still working for the bureau in 2018, Sergey Shestakov — a former Soviet and Russian diplomat and translator who was also charged in the case — introduced Mr. McGonigal by email to an employee of Mr. Deripaska. That person was identified in the charges as Agent-1 and described as a former Soviet and Russian Federation diplomat.Mr. Shestakov asked Mr. McGonigal to help Agent-1’s daughter, a college student, get an internship with the New York Police Department in counterterrorism, intelligence gathering or “international liaisoning,” according to the indictment. Mr. McGonigal told an F.B.I. subordinate that he wanted to recruit Agent-1, whom he described as a Russian intelligence officer, the indictment says.The indictment says Mr. McGonigal agreed to help the daughter, and with help from a contact at the Police Department he secured a meeting for her with a police sergeant.In 2019, after his retirement, Mr. McGonigal introduced Mr. Deripaska’s agent to an international law firm in Manhattan to help Mr. Deripaska have the sanctions removed, according to the indictment. During the negotiations, McGonigal met with Mr. Deripaska in London and Vienna, prosecutors said. When Mr. Deripaska signed with the firm, it brought on Mr. McGonigal as a consultant and investigator.In the spring of 2021, Agent-1 began negotiating with Mr. McGonigal to work directly for Mr. Deripaska, without the law firm. He wanted Mr. McGonigal to investigate a business rival, according to the indictment.Between August and November 2021, prosecutors say, Mr. Deripaska made payments to Mr. Shestakov and Mr. McGonigal from a Russian bank through accounts in Cyprus and New Jersey. In October of that year, F.B.I. agents searched homes linked to Mr. Deripaska in New York City and Washington.On Nov. 21, 2021, F.B.I. agents seized Mr. Shestakov’s and Mr. McGonigal’s electronic devices. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      As Venezuelan Antagonists Talk, the U.S. Softens Its Stance

      by

      Negotiations between the Venezuelan government and opposition could lead to an easing of the country’s protracted crisis.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — A rare meeting between leaders of Venezuela’s bitterly divided government and opposition is expected to result in two major agreements meant to ease the country’s complex political and humanitarian crisis.The meeting partly reflects the economic ripple effects of Russia’s Ukraine invasion, which has reduced global oil supplies and pushed the United States to reconsider its restrictions on energy companies operating in Venezuela.If all goes as planned, the talks, scheduled for Saturday, will lead to an agreement to transfer up to $3 billion in Venezuelan government funds frozen overseas into a humanitarian program administered by the United Nations — a concession by President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, who has long denied the scope of the suffering that has unfolded under his tenure. At the same time, the United States is expected to approve a license request by Chevron Corp. to expand operations in Venezuela, according to three people familiar with the deal. The agreement could represent an important step toward allowing Venezuela to re-enter the international oil market, something Mr. Maduro desperately needs to improve the economy.U.S. State Department officials have publicly applauded the return to negotiations between the two parties, after an earlier effort was cut off by the Maduro government last year. But a Biden administration official familiar with the talks said that any action related to Chevron in Venezuela “is contingent on if the parties actually announce specific commitments to support the people of Venezuela.”The official requested anonymity to be able to speak freely about the matter.For years, Chevron and other oil companies have been prevented from large-scale operations in Venezuela by U.S. sanctions designed to starve Mr. Maduro’s government.President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela speaking in Caracas earlier this month.Federico Parra/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFollowing the expected accord, other companies are likely to press the United States to further lift Venezuela-related restrictions, including sanctions that ban entities in India and elsewhere from importing Venezuelan oil, said Francisco Monaldi, director of Rice University’s Latin America Energy Program.The United States is likely to tie such actions to further concessions by Mr. Maduro. But if it does lift the sanctions, that would be an economic “game changer” for Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, Mr. Monaldi added.“My concern,” he said of the expected Chevron license, “is that the U.S. seems to be giving a lot for very little.”A Chevron spokesman would not comment on the expected agreement.The meeting between the Venezuelan government and opposition leaders, held in Mexico, is the outcome of more than a year of conversations between the two sides about how to address the country’s economic, political and humanitarian crisis, which dates to at least 2014.But the talks also are part of a larger softening of U.S. policy toward Venezuela, which many analysts say is related to a growing global need for non-Russian oil sources. Venezuela is believed to hold the largest oil reserves of any country.The United States is a supporter of the Venezuela dialogue, not a participant.The Biden administration official said that any action related to Chevron in Venezuela was not a response to energy prices. “This is about the regime taking the steps needed to support the restoration of democracy in Venezuela,” the person said.Any new license would be time-limited and would prevent Venezuela from receiving profits from the oil sales by Chevron, the official added, explaining that the Biden administration “would retain the authority to amend or revoke authorizations should the Maduro regime fail to negotiate in good faith.”For years, the Trump administration tried to weaken Mr. Maduro through sanctions and isolation, recognizing the opposition leader Juan Guaidó as president and pulling Washington’s top diplomats out of Caracas.The Biden administration has opted for more engagement.In June, the American ambassador to Venezuela, James Story, who is now based in neighboring Colombia, flew to Caracas to meet with government and opposition leaders. In October, the United States granted clemency to two nephews of Mr. Maduro’s wife in exchange for seven Americans held captive in Venezuela. The nephews had been sentenced to 18 years in prison for conspiring to smuggle cocaine.The Venezuelan opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, speaking in Caracas on Monday.Miguel Gutierrez/EPA, via ShutterstockIt would take years for Venezuela’s neglected oil infrastructure to have an impact on the global market. But with no sign that tensions between Russia and the West could ease soon, some leaders believe the wait could be worth it.“I think energy was one of the things that made it possible, perhaps politically, for Biden to take the rather bold step of communicating directly” with Mr. Maduro’s government, said Phil Gunson, an analyst with the International Crisis Group who has lived in Venezuela for more than two decades.But he cautioned that the American softening on Venezuela predated the war in Ukraine.“Energy is a factor” in the strategy shift, he said, but “it’s not the only factor.”Venezuela was once among the most affluent countries in Latin America, its economy buoyed by oil. But mismanagement and corruption by leaders claiming socialist ideals plunged the economy into disarray, while Mr. Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, gutted its democratic institutions.The situation has prompted the largest cross-border migration crisis in the Western Hemisphere, with more than 7 million Venezuelans — a quarter of the population — fleeing, according to the United Nations. Recently, a record number of Venezuelans have arrived at the U.S. border, most of them trekking through a harrowing jungle called the Darién Gap to get there.The talks in Mexico are supposed to be part of a series of meetings between the Venezuelan government and opposition. Much of the opposition hopes that political concessions will be next on the agenda.Mr. Maduro is focused on getting American sanctions lifted, which would help him improve the economy — and perhaps win a presidential election already slated for 2024.The Venezuelan opposition has long said its goal is to push Mr. Maduro to set free and fair conditions that would give them the opportunity to oust in him in that election.Mr. Guaidó recently called that vote “the door to democracy, freedom and the reunion of the family.”Lining up to vote during regional elections in Caracas last November.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesIn the past, Mr. Maduro has controlled the vote by banning many opposition figures from political participation, jailing others and co-opting many political parties. He holds elections to project a veneer of legitimacy.Speaking on state television about the Mexico talks this week, Mr. Maduro said he wanted to make it clear: “Nobody is going to impose anything on us, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.”The United States still recognizes Mr. Guaidó as the country’s president, though his global influence has fallen significantly after a bid to support him failed to oust Mr. Maduro.Mr. Monaldi, the energy expert, said the Chevron deal was not merely symbolic — within two years, the company could be pumping more than 200,000 barrels a day in Venezuela, adding to the approximately 765,000 barrels pumped daily today, according to Argus, an industry monitor.For the United States and for the opposition, the talks are a gamble.On the one hand, simply getting Mr. Maduro to negotiate is a victory, and the $3 billion humanitarian deal could be a major step toward alleviating suffering.On the other hand, said Mr. Gunson, the aid and the Chevron deal could improve economic conditions, lifting Mr. Maduro’s popularity.Still, he hasn’t given an inch on the political front.“That’s why there’s so much nail biting for the people in the administration who are pushing this policy,” said Mr. Gunson. “Because if Maduro essentially says, ‘Thank you very much,’ and doesn’t offer any concessions, then they’re going to look pretty foolish.”Isayen Herrera contributed reporting from Caracas, Venezuela, and Clifford Krauss from Houston. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Biden and Netanyahu Gear Up for a Complicated New Era

      by

      The two leaders have forged a relationship over four decades that vacillates between warmth and combat.When President Biden took office last year, he held the advantage in a tumultuous, four-decade relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, the longtime Israeli prime minister.Mr. Biden had vanquished former President Donald J. Trump, who was a close ally of Mr. Netanyahu, and the new American president made clear that one of his first foreign policy initiatives would be to restart the Iran nuclear deal that the Israeli prime minister hated, and consistently sought to undermine.Meanwhile, in Israel, Mr. Netanyahu faced charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Within months, he would be ousted from office after more than a dozen years as the leader of the Jewish state.Now, the tables have turned.Mr. Biden’s hopes for a nuclear deal with Iran have all but collapsed, and Iran has begun supplying missiles and drones to Russia for use in Ukraine. Polls suggest the president faces a stinging rebuke in midterm elections next week that may end his domestic legislative agenda. Mr. Trump remains a potent force in American politics, likely to run again in 2024.And on Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu secured his own return to power with a new, far-right coalition that will once again make him prime minister — an endorsement of the aggressive, in-your-face style that has been at the heart of his clashes with Mr. Biden and other American presidents over the years.The two leaders will find themselves in the position of sparring anew over issues that have long strained their relationship.It is the most complicated of relationships, vacillating between warmth and combat, sometimes on the same day. But Dennis Ross, the former Mideast negotiator who used to accompany Mr. Biden, when he was vice president, on trips to see Mr. Netanyahu, noted in an interview on Thursday that the relationship was better than the one between Mr. Netanyahu and President Barack Obama.“Bibi’s view of Biden is different than Bibi’s view of Obama,” Mr. Ross said, using the common nickname for Mr. Netanyahu. “Bibi was convinced that Obama was trying to undercut him, and Obama was convinced that Bibi was working with the Republicans to undercut him.”“He viewed Biden as someone who he would disagree with, but that Biden’s heart and emotions were all with Israel,” said Dennis Ross, who oversaw Mideast diplomacy at the National Security Council in Mr. Obama’s presidency.Disagreements remain. The president favors a Palestinian state to resolve the decades-long clash with Israel. Mr. Netanyahu does not. The Israeli prime minister called the 2015 Iran nuclear deal a disaster for Israel and the region. Mr. Biden said it was the best way to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And the two men have been at odds for years over the construction of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.The State of the WarGrain Deal: Russia rejoined an agreement allowing the shipment of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea, one of the few areas of cooperation amid the war, easing uncertainty over the fate of a deal seen as crucial to preventing famine in other parts of the world.Nuclear Rhetoric: As President Vladimir V. Putin makes public threats and Russian generals hold private discussions, U.S. officials say they do not believe that Moscow has decided to detonate a tactical nuclear device in Ukraine, but concerns are rising.Turning the Tables: With powerful Western weapons and deadly homemade drones, Ukraine now has an artillery advantage in the Kherson region. The work of reconnaissance teams penetrating enemy lines has also proven key in breaking Russia’s hold in the territory.Sea Drone Attack: The apparent use of remote-controlled boats to attack the Russian naval fleet off the Crimean port city of Sevastopol suggests an expansion in Ukraine’s battlefield capabilities after months of military aid from Western nations.But in the 16 months since Mr. Netanyahu was ousted and then returned to power, the world has changed. Iranian leaders, preoccupied by protests at home, seem uninterested in returning to the nuclear deal from which Mr. Trump — to the delight of Mr. Netanyahu — withdrew in 2018.Meanwhile, Iran is supporting President Vladimir V. Putin’s war in Ukraine, selling drones and missiles to Russia for use on the battlefield. And the frequent source of tension, the future of a Palestinian state, is barely on the agenda these days, in part because of divisions within the Palestinian leadership.During Mr. Trump’s four years in office, Mr. Netanyahu faced little pressure from the United States to bend to the will of an American president. Mr. Trump never challenged Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign of sabotage and assassination in Iran, or his refusal to pursue a two-state solution with the Palestinians. The relationship between the two leaders did not seem to fray until Mr. Netanyahu congratulated Mr. Biden for his victory in 2020, leading the former president to accuse his Israeli counterpart of disloyalty.President Donald J. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu supported each other on key policies, but Mr. Trump eventually accused the Israeli leader of disloyalty.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Netanyahu had held off calling to congratulate Mr. Biden for several hours, worried about angering Mr. Trump, the candidate he openly preferred. But the delay did little good in the end. Mr. Biden returned the favor, taking weeks to hold a first phone call with Mr. Netanyahu. And, partly because of Covid-19 lockdowns, the two men did not meet in person before Mr. Netanyahu lost office.As vice president, Mr. Biden often found himself at odds with Mr. Netanyahu or his government.More than a decade ago, according to former officials, it was Mr. Biden who complained during a Situation Room meeting that Israel, under Mr. Netanyahu’s leadership, had been too hasty in updating secret computer code to sabotage Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment plant. The malware spread around the world, its revelation leading to the unraveling of the story of a covert program, code-named Olympic Games, run by both countries.At other times, Mr. Biden voiced concerns that Israel’s assassination of nuclear scientists was undercutting the effort to reach a diplomatic deal to limit its production of nuclear material.The disagreements over policy between Mr. Biden and Mr. Netanyahu sometimes seemed to stoke personal animosities.On a visit to Israel in March 2010, Mr. Netanyahu’s government announced the construction of new settlement projects in East Jerusalem, territory that would have been up for negotiation over the boundaries of a Palestinian state. Mr. Biden, who had just hours earlier gushed effusively about the security relationship between the two nations, was surprised by the announcement — and angry.That night, Mr. Biden delayed his arrival at a dinner with Mr. Netanyahu and his wife for more than 90 minutes, a diplomatic rebuke intended to make his displeasure clear. (Mr. Netanyahu maintained he was not involved in the decision on settlements or the timing of the announcement during Mr. Biden’s visit.)After Mr. Netanyahu was ousted by his party in 2021, he lashed out at the Biden administration in his final speech, comparing the hesitance to confront Iran’s nuclear program to the failure by a past American president to more quickly confront Hitler during World War II.“In 1944, at the height of the Holocaust, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to bomb the railway leading to the extermination camps, and refused to bomb the gas chambers, which could have saved millions of our people,” Mr. Netanyahu said.The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Biden goes back decades, to when Mr. Biden was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Mr. Netanyahu was the deputy Israeli ambassador in Washington.Mr. Biden has often spoken fondly of Mr. Netanyahu since then, despite their political differences, and once described giving him a photograph with a warm caption: “Bibi, I don’t agree with a damn thing you say, but I love you.”“Biden has this instinctive attachment to Israel,” Mr. Ross said. The belief that Israelis feel “existentially threatened” by their adversaries, Mr. Ross said, led Mr. Biden to be more inclined to understand Mr. Netanyahu’s point of view.After Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister in 1996 and then lost the position three years later, Mr. Biden was the only American politician to write him a letter after his election defeat, Mr. Ross said. During moments of heightened friction between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama, it fell to Mr. Biden to play peacemaker.But there have been sharp moments when the differences came into open view.In 2015, Mr. Biden declined to attend an address that Mr. Netanyahu delivered in Congress after the Israeli leader accepted an invitation from the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a Republican, without notifying the White House. The speech was devoted to opposing the Iran nuclear deal, and Mr. Biden’s absence exacerbated the dispute between Mr. Netanyahu and the Obama administration about the wisdom of the deal.That deal did freeze Iran’s activity for several years, until it was unwound by Mr. Trump, and the Iranians resumed nuclear fuel production.As president, Mr. Biden used his early political capital to seek a return to the deal that Mr. Trump trashed. He pushed forward at a time when Mr. Netanyahu was politically weak. But even during those moments, Mr. Biden vowed to stand with Israel, whoever its leaders might be.That was on display during Mr. Biden’s visit to Israel in mid-July, when he met with the government of Yair Lapid.Mr. Biden was clearly relaxed and enjoyed the trip, especially in comparison to his next stop, in Saudi Arabia. He went to see Mr. Netanyahu, in what was described as a warm but brief meeting. Later, Mr. Netanyahu said he had told Mr. Biden that the United States needed to threaten Iran with more than economic sanctions or a defensive military partnership between Middle Eastern states.“We need one thing,” he said. “A credible offensive military option is needed.”Mr. Netanyahu will undoubtedly press that point as prime minister, now that negotiations on re-entering the nuclear deal are stalled. With Iran producing more and more uranium enriched at near bomb-grade levels, he will surely call for more sanctions and more threats of military action. And with little prospect of a diplomatic solution, Mr. Biden may have less room to push back.Mr. Biden, for his part, will likely press Israel to declare itself on the side of containing Russia, a step Israel has refused to take, saying it needs to work with Moscow in Syria.Each of these problems has a different shape than when Mr. Biden came to office. History suggests that the inevitable tensions with Mr. Netanyahu, born of different national interests, are nonetheless bound to emerge quickly. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Your Tuesday Briefing: Jair Bolsonaro Loses

      by

      But he has not conceded Brazil’s presidential election.Supporters of President Jair Bolsonaro watched as the results of Brazil’s presidential election were announced on Sunday.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesLula defeats Bolsonaro in BrazilBrazilians elected Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a leftist former president, to lead the country. Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s divisive far-right leader, narrowly lost the election.Far-right lawmakers, conservative pundits and many of Bolsonaro’s supporters recognized his opponent’s victory, but Bolsonaro himself has yet to concede. Here are live updates.Lula, as the president-elect is known, made climate a cornerstone of his campaign and has vowed to protect the Amazon. Lula will likely work to undo Bolsonaro-era policies that accelerated the destruction of the rainforest, but congressional opposition will probably limit his agenda.Analysis: Bolsonaro’s silence is becoming increasingly worrying because he has been warning for months that he might not accept defeat. His efforts to undermine Brazil’s election system drew concern at home and abroad.Lula: The 77-year-old president-elect also led Brazil during its boom in the first decade of the century. He left office with an 80 percent approval rating but then was convicted on corruption charges and spent 580 days in prison. The convictions were annulled last year after Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that the judge in his cases was biased.Bolsonaro: His volatile term was marked by clashes with the courts, attacks on democratic institutions and a pandemic that killed more people than any other country but the U.S. Bolsonaro’s political immunity ends once he leaves office on Jan. 1, and he faces a variety of investigations that could gain steam.Some people tried to swim to the fallen structure and climb up its tangled netting. Others were swept away.Ajit Solanki/Associated PressA deadly Indian bridge collapseAt least 134 people died on Sunday — many of them schoolchildren on vacation during Diwali — when a historic bridge collapsed in the western Indian state of Gujarat.In the midst of India’s most festive season, pedestrians had packed the suspension bridge, which was built in the Victorian era and had newly reopened. The 755-foot-long bridge (about 230 meters) is a famous tourist destination because of its sensation of swaying; people had bought tickets for about 20 cents.The State of the WarGrain Deal: After accusing Ukraine of attacking its ships in Crimea, Russia withdrew from an agreement allowing the export of grain from Ukrainian ports. The move jeopardized a rare case of wartime coordination aimed at lowering global food prices and combating hunger.Turning the Tables: With powerful Western weapons and deadly homemade drones, Ukraine now has an artillery advantage over Russia in the southern Kherson region, erasing what had been a critical asset for Moscow.Fears of Escalation: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia repeated the unfounded claim that Ukraine was preparing to explode a so-called dirty bomb, as concerns rose in the West that the Kremlin was seeking a pretext to escalate the war.A Coalition Under Strain: President Biden is facing new challenges keeping together the bipartisan, multinational coalition supporting Ukraine. The alliance has shown signs of fraying with the approach of the U.S. midterm elections and a cold European winter.After people grabbed the netting to make the bridge shimmy, as countless others had done before them, the cables suddenly snapped, spilling people into the river.Now, India is asking why its infrastructure has failed so calamitously once again. The bridge had been opened without a “fitness certificate” or the authorities’ permission, an official told local news media. The company running the bridge blamed the victims, but it is unclear why it allowed so many on the bridge at once.Politics: Gujarat is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state. An opposition leader said that leaders of his party — which has governed the state for more than two decades — announced the bridge’s opening as a “Diwali gift” to the people of the town without ensuring its safety.How Russia pays for its warWestern nations imposed sanctions on Russia after it invaded Ukraine. But the punishments may have only limited effect: The value of Russia’s exports actually grew after the invasion, a Times analysis shows.The volume of Russia’s imports has plunged as sanctions and trade limits went into effect, but a few countries have deepened their relationships with Russia since the war began. Imports from Turkey have increased by 113 percent, and Chinese imports have increased 24 percent.Russia remains one of the world’s most important producers of oil, gas and raw materials. Many countries have found living without Russian raw materials incredibly difficult, and the high price of oil and gas in the last year has offset revenue lost to sanctions. India and China have emerged as much bigger buyers of Russian crude, albeit at a discounted rate.Infrastructure: Russian strikes knocked out most of Kyiv’s water.Grain: After suspending its participation in a grain deal, Russia said it won’t guarantee security for any cargo vessels crossing the Black Sea. Some African countries face immediate pain from its suspension.THE LATEST NEWSThe Seoul CrushPeople came to a makeshift memorial for the victims in Seoul.Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesOnly 137 police officers were in the area in Seoul where more than 150 people died in a Halloween crowd crush. For comparison, the police dispatched 1,300 officers for a BTS performance last month in Busan, which drew 55,000.The authorities also underestimated the size of the crowd, which swelled to 130,000. A politician in the opposition called it a “man-made disaster.”More than 100 of the dead were in their 20s.Asia PacificChina launched the third and final module of its Tiangong space station.Chinese stocks whipsawed yesterday. The volatility may reflect investors’ unease about Xi Jinping’s tightening grip on power as China’s leader.Gautam Adani is Asia’s richest man. His business decisions could help determine whether India helps the world avert a climate catastrophe.U.S. NewsThe Supreme Court heard arguments on college admissions policies, and the conservative majority seemed skeptical of affirmative action. Legal abortions fell around six percent in the two months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.The trial of Donald Trump’s company began in New York yesterday.“This case is about greed and cheating,” a prosecutor told jurors.Science TimesAn artist’s impression of a “planet killer” asteroid, which had been hidden by the sun’s glare.DOE FNAL / DECam / CTIO / NOIRLab / NSF / AURA /J. da Silva – Space EngineScientists have identified an asteroid that poses a distant threat to Earth.Cholera is spreading: Droughts, floods and wars have forced many around the world to live in unsanitary conditions.A new study found that large groups of insects can create an atmospheric electrical charge as strong as those created by thunderstorms.In 2020, an enormous telescope in Puerto Rico collapsed. There is no plan to rebuild it, and astronomers and islanders are in mourning.A Morning ReadFor 8-year-old Shaffan Muhammad Ghulam to leave Australia would most likely be a death sentence, his doctors say.David Dare Parker for The New York TimesAustralia is considered a world leader in health care. But the country, along with neighboring New Zealand, is among the very few to routinely reject potential migrants on the basis of medical needs. That can leave families with one ill or disabled member stuck in legal limbo.CHINA INSIGHTIn the minutes before Hu Jintao was led away, he appeared to be reaching for a document on the table.The New York Times; video by CNA, via ReutersWhat happened to Hu Jintao?Nothing unscripted happens at the Communist Party congress in China. Nothing unscripted is allowed to happen.But last week, Hu Jintao, who once led China and was seated next to Xi Jinping, was abruptly led out of the closing ceremony. His apparently reluctant departure was the lone disruption in the meeting, where China’s leaders are anointed twice a decade, and analysts have said the chaos of the moment suggested that it was not planned.The moment led to wild speculation: Was Hu, 79, suffering from poor health, as Chinese state media would later report? Or was he being purged in a dramatic show by Xi, China’s current leader, for the world to see?A Times video analysis offers a clue. Hu — who was historically the only person with the stature to challenge the leader — was all but ignored by Xi; Li Keqiang, China’s premier; and other top politicians as he was escorted away. After he left, only Xi remained in the spotlight, an empty chair beside him.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookMichael Kraus for The New York TimesWelsh rarebit is an easy, cheesy late-night snack.Real EstateIf you’ve got a spare $4.6 million, check out this abandoned-fort-turned-estate in Rajasthan, in northwest India.PhotographyBoris Mikhailov is Ukraine’s greatest artist, our critic writes.The World Through a LensThere’s a circus at sea.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Bit of tomfoolery (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. The U.S. tested the first hydrogen bomb 70 years ago in the Marshall Islands.“The Daily” is about Xi Jinping.You can reach Amelia and the team at briefing@nytimes.com. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Putin Says Russia Is Battling ‘Strange’ Western Elites

      by

      Ahead of U.S. elections, the Russian leader sounded like some right-wing Westerners, saying his fight is not with those in the West who hold “traditional values.”President Vladimir V. Putin declared on Thursday that Russia’s battle was with “Western elites,” not with the West itself, in a speech seemingly aimed more at winning over political conservatives abroad than his own citizens.Mr. Putin, addressing an annual foreign policy conference outside Moscow, appeared intent on capitalizing on political divisions in the United States and its allies that have only heightened since they began showering Ukraine with military aid to fend off the Russian invasion.Many of the Russian leader’s themes were familiar, but they took on particular resonance given the coming midterm elections in the United States and growing discontent in Europe over the costs of the war.“There are at least two Wests,” Mr. Putin said.One, he said, is a West of “traditional, mainly Christian values” for which Russians feel kinship. But, he said, “there’s another West — aggressive, cosmopolitan, neocolonial, acting as the weapon of the neoliberal elite,” and trying to impose its “pretty strange” values on everyone else. He peppered his remarks with references to “dozens of genders” and “gay parades.”Mr. Putin, as he often does, portrayed Russia as threatened by the possible expansion of NATO — and the values of its liberal democracies — to countries like Ukraine that were once part of the Soviet Union.He denied that Moscow was preparing to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine. “We have no need to do this,” he said. “There’s no sense for us, neither political nor military.”It is Mr. Putin himself, however, who has raised that prospect, as have other senior Russian officials. And past Kremlin assurances about its intentions have proved unreliable. In the days before the war began, for example, Russia denied that it planned to invade Ukraine.Mr. Putin has tried to blame the West for the war in Ukraine. This residential building in Kyiv was hit by missiles on the second day of the Russian invasion.Lynsey Addario for The New York Times“This is a trick — it shouldn’t make anyone relax,” said Tatiana Stanovaya, a Russian political analyst, noting that Mr. Putin has blamed the West and its support for an independent Ukraine for every escalation in the war. “His goal is to show that escalation is the product of Western policies.”In his nearly four-hour speech and question-and-answer session, the Russian leader did not mention the U.S. midterm elections taking place on Nov. 8. But his barbs against “elites” were a reminder that he still hopes to build alliances with supporters of Russia in the West.The State of the WarFears of Escalation: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia repeated the unfounded claim that Ukraine was preparing to explode a so-called dirty bomb, as concerns rose in the West that the Kremlin was seeking a pretext to escalate the war.The Looming Fight for Kherson: As Russian forces pillage the occupied southern port city and pressure residents to leave for Russia, a nearby hydroelectric dam has emerged as a linchpin in what is shaping up to be the site of the next major battle in Ukraine.A Coalition Under Strain: President Biden is facing new challenges keeping together the bipartisan, multinational coalition supporting Ukraine, which has shown recent signs of fraying with the approach of U.S. midterm elections and a cold European winter.Anti-Drone Warfare: Since Russia began terrorizing Ukrainian cities in recent weeks with Iranian-made drones, Ukraine has turned its focus to an intense counter-drone strategy. The hastily assembled effort has been surprisingly successful.In the United States, Republican leaders have said that should they regain control of the House and Senate, President Biden can no longer expect a “blank check” when it comes to sending military aid to Ukraine, despite strong popular backing for that aid. Even some Democrats, faced with restive constituents, have appeared to distance themselves from support for the war effort.And Mr. Putin’s attack on “elites” may also play well in the United States, where many Republican candidates have rallied voters by denouncing leaders they say are out of touch, and their liberal approaches to divisive social issues.“In the United States,” he said, “there’s a very strong part of the public who maintain traditional values, and they’re with us. We know about this.”Mr. Putin’s attempts to gain political ground in the West came as his military is struggling — often without success — to keep hold of the territory it seized in Ukraine after invading on Feb. 24.Ukrainian soldiers receiving a meal near the front line in the Kherson region on Thursday.Ivor Prickett for The New York TimesIn the question-and-answer session, the foreign policy analyst moderating the event, Fyodor Lukyanov, pressed Mr. Putin on those setbacks, and said there was a widespread view that Russia had “underestimated the enemy.”“Honestly, society doesn’t understand — what’s the plan?” Mr. Lukyanov asked.Mr. Putin brushed aside the implicit criticism, arguing that Ukraine’s fierce resistance showed that he was right to launch the invasion. The longer Russia had waited, he said, “the worse it would have been for us, the more difficult and more dangerous.”Mr. Putin also repeated Russia’s claims that Ukraine was preparing to detonate a “dirty bomb” to spread radioactive material on its territory and then blame Moscow. Ukraine and the West say that the claims — for which Russia has offered no evidence — are baseless disinformation that could be used as a pretext by the Kremlin to use a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb.Ms. Stanovaya, the political analyst, said Mr. Putin appeared to be trying to harness worldwide anti-establishment sentiment.“There’s now a sense that he is building an anti-Western coalition on a global scale,” she said. “He doesn’t think he’s been backed into a corner. He thinks he’s a witness to the birth of a new world.”Mr. Putin himself said he was confident that eventually, the West would be forced to engage Russia and other world powers in talks on a future world order.“I always believed, and believe, in the power of common sense,” Mr. Putin said. “I am therefore convinced that sooner or later, the new centers of the multipolar world order and the West will have to start a conversation of equals.”As Western leaders have tried to punish Moscow for the war with crushing sanctions, Russian leaders have sought to build new ties to other nations and strengthen existing ones. On Thursday, the government of one of those nations, China, an increasingly important ally, offered a full-throated endorsement of Mr. Putin’s leadership.In a telephone call with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that any attempt to block the progress between the two countries would never succeed, the Chinese ministry said in a statement.In Ukraine on Thursday, Russian forces pursued their drone and missile assaults on infrastructure, leaving hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians without power. And the Ukrainian military said it was increasing the number of soldiers near its northern border with Belarus, where it noted what it said were unusual troop movements.Tanks during Russian and Belarusian military drills in Belarus in February, days before the invasion of Ukraine.Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr./Associated PressBrig. Gen. Oleksii Hromov said Kyiv had no new evidence to suggest that Belarusian or Russian forces were preparing a strike force, but concern has mounted in recent days after the Kremlin dispatched thousands of soldiers to Belarus.Moscow used Belarus, its closest military and political ally, to help stage its invasion of Ukraine, and the movement of Russian soldiers there is closely monitored by Ukraine and its Western allies.Ukraine’s government has issued broad statements in recent weeks indicating that it was aware of the threat of an offensive from that direction, with the military releasing a video recently warning that “if the Belarusian army supports Russian aggression,” Kyiv would respond “with our entire arsenal of weapons.”But the more immediate concern for Ukrainian officials is the continuing use of Belarus as a launching pad for aerial assaults.Russia has deployed its troops to airfields in Belarus, and this week, it used Belarusian territory to carry out 10 launches of Iranian-made drones, General Hromov said.Reporting was contributed by More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Faces New Challenges With Coalition on Ukraine Support

      by

      The domestic and international consensus has shown signs of fraying as midterm elections loom in the United States and Europeans face the prospect of a cold winter.WASHINGTON — The White House said on Wednesday that it sees no current prospects for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, even as President Biden faces new challenges keeping together the bipartisan, multinational coalition supporting the effort to drive out Russian invaders.The domestic and international consensus that Mr. Biden has struggled to build has shown signs of fraying in recent days with the approach of midterm elections and a cold European winter. But Mr. Biden’s advisers have concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia remains committed to force and that Ukrainian leaders are unwilling to give ground following recent battlefield victories.“Neither side is in a position to sit down and negotiate,” John F. Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the National Security Council, told reporters on Wednesday. “Putin is clearly continuing to prosecute this war in a brutal, violent way,” he said, while the Ukrainians given their momentum “are not in a position where they want to negotiate.”Mr. Kirby emphasized that the Americans will defer to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine while trying to strengthen his position in any negotiations that may eventually occur. “If and when it comes to the table,” Mr. Kirby said, Mr. Zelensky “gets to determine when that is; he gets to determine what success looks like, and he gets to determine what or what he is not willing to negotiate with the Russians.“But we’re just not there yet,” he said.The assessment came a day after a group of House Democratic progressives withdrew a letter to Mr. Biden calling for a revised strategy and broaching the possibility of direct talks with Russia to resolve the conflict. Although the 30 progressives backed off in the face of a backlash within their own party, the restiveness on the left served as a warning sign of fatigue after eight months of war financed in large part by American taxpayer dollars.The emerging erosion of support for the current strategy is more pronounced on the political right. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, positioned to be the new House speaker if Republicans win the House next month as expected, last week threatened to curb future aid to Ukraine, aligning himself with former President Donald J. Trump and the Fox News host Tucker Carlson.On the other side of the ocean, European allies facing the onset of cold weather with Moscow controlling the fuel spigot see the future course of the conflict with Russia in different ways. Some former Soviet-bloc countries in Eastern Europe want Russia firmly defeated and its troops driven out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, while countries like Germany, France and Italy believe such a full-scale victory is unrealistic and worry that Washington is not thinking clearly about how the war might end.Even between allies sharing similar views, tensions have risen over energy and defense strategy. President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany met in Paris on Wednesday to discuss their differences over a French-backed European Union cap on natural gas prices that Germany has resisted even as it subsidizes its citizens’ gas bills.Ratcheting up the pressure further, Mr. Putin on Wednesday for the first time personally claimed that Ukraine was preparing to set off a so-called dirty bomb, repeating unsubstantiated assertions made previously by lower-level Russian officials. American officials once again dismissed the contention, calling it a possible pretext for Russia to escalate its attack on Ukraine.As Russian forces conducted an annual military exercise testing nuclear-capable missiles, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on more than 20 Russian and Moldovan individuals and entities reportedly involved in a Russian scheme to interfere in Moldova’s political system.For Mr. Biden, who has built a broad coalition for his approach at home and abroad, the next few weeks could be pivotal. While the Ukrainian war effort still enjoys wide support in the United States, polling suggests some attrition, especially among Republicans.Twenty percent of Americans interviewed by the Pew Research Center last month said the United States is providing too much help to Ukraine, up from 12 percent in May and 7 percent in March. Thirty-two percent of Republicans said too much was being done for Ukraine, compared with 11 percent of Democrats. About 46 percent of Republicans said the United States was doing about the right amount or not enough, while 65 percent of Democrats agreed.“Unfortunately, what we’re seeing I think is Russian far-right propaganda talking points filtering into the U.S. political environment, and knowingly or unknowingly we see U.S. politicians basically using talking points that will do nothing but bring a big smile to Putin’s face,” said Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership and a former Pentagon official under President Barack Obama..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.White House officials said privately that they had nothing to do with the swift retreat of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that proposed negotiations with Russia, but were reassured by the quick reversal. The increasing Republican skepticism, however, means that a midterm election victory by the opposition would raise questions about future aid packages.Even before Mr. McCarthy’s statement promising to resist a “blank check” for Ukraine, 57 Republicans in the House and 11 in the Senate voted against $40 billion in assistance in May and more of the party’s candidates on the campaign trail have expressed resistance to more money for Ukraine.But other Republicans have been steadfast backers of Ukraine, most notably Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party’s leader in the upper chamber who pointedly rebuffed Mr. McCarthy’s no-blank-check comment.“We have enjoyed and continue to enjoy terrific bipartisan support for our approach to Ukraine and the kinds of security assistance that we’re providing, and we’re going to need that support going forward,” Mr. Kirby said. “The president’s not worried about that.”Biden allies said Democrats had proved to be self-correcting when it came to the progressives’ letter but urged the president to explain his strategy to the public and the stakes involved.“This is a difficult and dangerous situation that requires staying power and to some extent sacrifice on the part of the United States,” said Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey and a staunch supporter of Ukraine aid. “It’s always important for the president to be making the case to Congress and to the American people that this is in the national interest and the right thing to do.”Still, as the war grinds on, in Europe it feels more and more like an American venture. American contributions of war matériel and money exceed those of all the other allies put together, and American strategy choices are dominant, aided by the brutality of the Russian war, the bravery of the Ukrainian government and military and Mr. Putin’s clear disinterest in negotiations, let alone a Russian withdrawal.In these European countries, there is quiet worry that Ukraine will do so well as to drive Mr. Putin into a desperate gamble of escalation — a worry not unknown in Washington, too. For the Germans and the French, a settlement along the lines that existed before the Feb. 24 invasion would seem quite sufficient — a defeat for Mr. Putin but not a rout. The fear is that too big a loss of face for Russia would push Mr. Putin into using nuclear weapons in some fashion, or a “dirty bomb” conventional explosive with radioactive material that could be blamed on the Ukrainians in order to justify a significant escalation.That is a major reason that Germany and France seem to be carefully calibrating the sophistication of the weapons they send to Ukraine, as Mr. Biden does too. Europe has pretty much run out of Soviet-era weapons to send to Ukraine, and its own stocks, intended for its own defense, are also low, a function of the post-Cold War “peace benefit” that caused military spending to plummet all over the continent, a trend only slowly being reversed in earnest.There is a significant disparity between the flood of arms supplied by the United States, Britain, and Poland and what the rest of Europe is providing, which has raised the persistent question of whether some countries are slow-walking supplies to bring about a shorter war and quicker negotiations.Taken as a whole, the West is providing Ukraine “just enough” weaponry “to survive, not enough to regain territory,” said Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst. “The idea seems to be that Russia should not win, but also not lose.“What countries send and how slowly they send it tells us a lot about the war aims of Western countries,” he added. “And it becomes even more important now because Ukraine is more dependent on Western arms.”For all of that, Eric S. Edelman, a counselor at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington and a former under secretary of defense under President George W. Bush, said the Europeans have stuck together more firmly than many had expected.“Public support remains quite strong,” Mr. Edelman said. “And although there will definitely be negative economic effects — particularly in Germany — the Euros have taken a lot of steps to buffer themselves” by storing energy and diversifying supplies. “Putin,” he said, “may find that he has made a bad bet.”Still, he added, “notwithstanding this generally bullish assessment, one should never underestimate the challenges of coalition maintenance and alliance management.”Peter Baker More