Europe

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in UK Politics

      Trump’s attack on London and the UN are a rallying cry for the far right

      by

      Donald Trump has taken to the United Nations to show how pointless Britain’s courting of the US president with a state visit really was.Speaking at the UN’s annual general assembly, he told world leaders that London is heading for sharia law and issued all-too-clippable rallying cries for far-right extremists in Europe.Sir Keir Starmer’s enlistment of King Charles III in a charm offensive with carriage rides around Windsor, state dinners and three days of non-stop flattery delivered nothing but anti-British ranting and un-British extremism.Mr Trump raged: “Look at London, where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor, and it’s so been so changed, so changed. Now they want to go to Sharia law, but you’re in a different country.“You can’t do that. Both the immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe. If something is not done immediately, they cannot, this cannot, be sustained.”Donald Trump told world leaders that London is heading for sharia law and issued all-too-clippable rallying cries for far-right extremists in Europe More

    • 250 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Europe has lost one superpower ally – can it afford to be in the crosshairs of two? | Nathalie Tocci

      by

      Europe’s relationship with the US is unmoored, but it has also lost its bearings with regard to China, caught by competing forces that pull and push in opposite directions.Europe’s China policy used to be a function of Washington’s. When Barack Obama tried and then failed to pivot to Asia in 2011, sucked into turmoil in the Middle East instead, Europeans lulled themselves into the belief that their relationship with Asia could continue to be driven by trade, with security an afterthought.Despite rising tensions in the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan strait, European governments viewed Asia, including China, through a predominantly economic lens. China’s belt and road initiative was initially seen as a purely economic endeavour, lacking strategic edge. It was only as US-China relations soured, under the first Trump administration and then especially under Joe Biden, that Brussels switched gears.China was no longer seen only as a partner, but more warily, as a competitor and systemic rival. Investment screening, tariffs and export controls entered the European lexicon when talking about China. The link to the US was clear. While the EU rejected any decoupling from China, considering it undesirable and impossible, it began advocating “de-risking” instead. Once unpacked, this is no different from other trademark European concepts such as strategic autonomy and economic security. But the timing and the framing of Brussels’s more hawkish line made it clear that its north star on China was Washington.This worked so long as the transatlantic relationship was strong and Washington’s approach to China was clear and predictable. None of that is true today. Toughening up to match China’s assertiveness, for instance, by accepting and even advocating for Nato’s role in east Asia, continues to anger Beijing.But it no longer necessarily rallies favour in Washington. The Trump administration may bully Europeans to inflict costs on China, for example by applying secondary sanctions on countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas. But this does not guarantee that Trump will stand by Europe on Ukraine, or that Washington has any intention of exerting meaningful economic pressure on Beijing. So far, it’s China that has retained the upper hand in the trade war with the US. Trump treats Europe as subservient: he’s happy to see it inflict economic pain on Beijing at its own cost, but wants to avoid incurring such costs himself. As with most things Trump-related, it’s a toss of the coin whether he escalates or strikes deals with Beijing, naturally over the heads of European and Asian partners.With Washington’s north star gone, Europeans are left figuring out what they actually think, and how they’ll act towards China. Should they double down on trade protectionism to counter the negative impact on Europe of Chinese industrial overcapacity? Should they encourage Chinese technology transfers to the continent, avoid a trade war and jointly develop a strategy with Asia to save the global trade order? Should they embrace Chinese green tech, aware that proceeding with the energy transition and meeting climate ambitions is impossible without it, or try to dilute green dependency on China? And in the global south, as the US exits from the development aid field, can the EU realistically counter China’s vast belt and road initiative, or should it reconcile itself to its own “global gateway” infrastructure initiative being complementary to it?View image in fullscreenNone of these questions have simple answers. Making them harder still are two underlying dilemmas that lie at the heart of Europe’s own future.First is the future of liberal democracy in Europe. Democracy is under threat in the west. Far-right, nationalist and populist forces are on the rise, as is polarisation, radicalisation, disinformation and extremism, threatening fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and the separation of powers. China, unlike Russia and the Maga movement in the US, does not explicitly back these far-right forces, nor does it appear to have any desire to export its model of government. However, given that China is the ultimate case of an economically successful authoritarian system, it inspires those in Europe who want to see their countries move in an illiberal direction. No wonder that China’s closest European partners are Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia, as was blatantly on display when their leaders (or, in Hungary’s case, foreign minister) attended China’s military parade in Beijing in September. When it comes to the magnetic draw that China exerts on authoritarian and illiberal forces in Europe, there’s not much European governments and institutions can expect from Beijing. The onus is on them to demonstrate that liberal democracy delivers.The second dilemma regards security, and in particular the war in Ukraine. While China claims to be neutral maintaining ties with Kyiv and Moscow – and, at least theoretically, supports sovereignty and territorial integrity – in practice it sides with Moscow. President Xi Jinping’s no-limits friendship with Vladimir Putin is increasingly on display, and Beijing’s peace efforts on Ukraine have proved empty. In fact, China has visibly benefited from the war, not only through cheap Russian oil and gas, but especially strategically: Russia has become the junior partner in the relationship.Europe cannot push China to turn its back on Russia, nor expect it to stop trading with Russia. But if China were truly neutral, it wouldn’t support Russia through the export of dual-use technology. If it genuinely wanted the war to end, it would exert pressure on Moscow, just like it did to mitigate Putin’s worst instincts when he irresponsibly threatened the use of nuclear weapons. Especially now that Trump’s failed diplomacy on Ukraine has revealed to all that it’s Putin, and Putin alone, that does not want the war to end.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhen I was in Beijing this month, I argued that Ukraine now represents a core interest for Europe, and that China’s stance on the war is the biggest thorn in Europe-China relations. I said that it was not only a question of values – on which, tragically, any remaining European credibility has collapsed since the Gaza war – but of security interests. The replies I got were telling. Just as Europeans now view their relationship with China through the lens of Russia, China sees Europe through the paradigm of its competition with the US. Beijing believes that if worst comes to worst in US-China relations, Europe would stand with Washington, notwithstanding Trump and the US’s abandonment and betrayal of Europe. For China, I was told, keeping Russia on side is a strategic must. In the current circumstances Russia trumps Europe from Beijing’s perspective. It’s hard not to see the logic.Russia represents a vital threat to European security and Europeans will bend over backwards to keep the US engaged in their defence. This is likely to fail – regardless of how much flattery and self-abasement they offer to Trump. And while Europe could potentially confront Russia without the US, it cannot do so while China is in its crosshairs too.This leaves Europe with no easy way out, but wishing the problem away is no answer.

      Nathalie Tocci is a Guardian Europe columnist More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      From ‘hellhole’ UK to anti-Muslim rhetoric in Japan, Charlie Kirk took his message abroad

      by

      Charlie Kirk directed most of his rhetoric at the US political scene, but he also strayed into foreign affairs, drawing both favourable and critical comparisons between life in the US and in other countries on his shows and doing the occasional speaking tour.In May, Kirk visited the UK, debating against students at Oxford and Cambridge universities and appearing on the conservative GB News channel. Days before he was fatally shot in Utah he took his message to relatively new audiences on a tour to South Korea and Japan.Last weekend he addressed like-minded politicians and activists at a symposium in Tokyo organised by Sanseito, a rightwing populist party that shook up the political establishment in upper house elections this summer.In Tokyo, Kirk described Sanseito, which ran in July’s elections on a “Japanese first” platform, as “all about kicking foreigners out of Japan”, where the foreign population has risen to about 3.8 million out of a total of 124 million.Foreign residents and supporters of mass migration were, he claimed, “very quietly and secretly funnelling themselves into Japanese life. They want to erase, replace and eradicate Japan by bringing in Indonesians, by bringing in Arabs, by bringing in Muslims”.He spoke at length about his trip in a podcast released the day before his death, returning to a familiar theme – criticising women who choose not to have children – that echoed the views of his host in Japan, the Sanseito leader, Sohei Kamiya.In Seoul, he addressed more than 2,000 supporters at the Build Up Korea 2025 event, which drew predominantly young Christians and students from evangelical schools, representing a self-styled Korean Maga movement that has rallied in support of the impeached former president Yoon Suk Yeol.The event invited a host of far-right American personalities, who openly promoted conspiracy theories including claims that China orchestrated “stolen elections” in both America and South Korea, and that Lee Jae Myung’s recent presidential victory was fraudulent.Kirk criticised special prosecutor investigations into Yoon and his martial law, describing “several disturbing things happening right now in South Korea” where “pastors are being arrested” and “homes are being raided”, adding: “If South Korea keeps on acting like this, it is the American way to step up and fight for what is right.”Kirk said he had “learned a lot” from his time in South Korea and Japan, recalling how safe he had felt on the clean and orderly streets of Seoul, where there were “no bums, no one asking you for money”.In his three-day visit to the UK in May, he clashed with students at the Cambridge Union debating society, arguing that “lockdowns were unnecessary”, “life begins at conception”, and the US Civil Rights Act was a “mistake”.Kirk made the same points in Oxford, also alleging immigrants were “importing insidious values into the west” and that police violence against Black people was a result of a “disproportionate crime problem” in the Black community.He told the rightwing GB News that the UK was a “husk” of its former self and needed to “get its mojo back”. The perception among US conservatives, he said, was that “this is increasingly a conquered country … We love this country from afar, and we’re really sad about what’s happening to it, and what has happened to it”.On his first show after returning to the US, Kirk described the UK as a “totalitarian third world hellhole”, adding: “It’s tragic. I don’t say that with glib, I don’t say that with delight. It is sad. It’s chilling and it’s depressing.”He claimed he had seen a cafe in which “every single table was taken by a Mohammedan and a fully burqa-wearing woman – not a single native Brit” and that people were being arrested for online posts that displayed no apparent harmful intent.“They invented free speech,” he said. “Now there’s so much wrong with that country and it is not worthy of making fun of. I mean, you can have some laughs and some comedy, but it is depressing. It is dark.”View image in fullscreenWhile he was fond of referencing Europe in his shows, Kirk’s only other recent public visit there appears to have been a trip to Greenland in January in the company of Donald Trump Jr.He said afterwards that Greenlanders should be allowed to “use personal autonomy and agency to disconnect from their Danish masters”, then have “the opportunity to be part of the US, no different than either Puerto Rico or Guam” (two self-governing “unincorporated territories” of the US) in order to be “wealthier, richer … and protected”.Kirk was also sharply critical of many countries in his videos and podcasts. “France has basically become a joke, for a lot of reasons,” he said last year, amid widespread French protests over pension changes. “What’s happening in France should serve as a warning to America.”After JD Vance attacked Europe for alleged free speech shortcomings this year, Kirk hit out at Germany. “Germans are a bunch of troublemakers,” he said. “German prosecutors say someone can be locked up if they insult someone online. Free speech is not a German value. Totalitarianism is a German value.”He was a vocal supporter of Trump’s China-focused policies, backing the president’s attacks on Harvard University in April, and the punishing trade war with Beijing.In April, he claimed Harvard had “raked in” more than $100m from China. “We need to ask serious questions in this country about whether we can trust our elite universities to put America first when so much money is flowing to them from America’s number one rival.”The same month, he told Fox News the US had become “a glorified vassal state” subservient to the Chinese Communist party, by relying on China for rare earth minerals. He said the CCP wanted to create “lots of little colonies all around the world through the belt and road initiative”.He also waded into the complicated waters of cross-strait relations. In April, Kirk told his podcast he had “a soft spot for the people of Taiwan”, but also showed a limited understanding of its history and the complexities of the dispute.“I would say, sadly if we took Taiwan, it would probably start a nuclear war. Our leaders have largely mishandled China. We probably should have taken it in 1950 right after world war two,” he said.There has never been any discussion of the US “taking” Taiwan. The US is Taiwan’s most important backer, providing billions of dollars in weapons and some military training, and has not ruled out coming to its defence in the event of a Chinese attack or invasion.In a video in May, Kirk used the escalating hostilities between India and Pakistan to push his argument against US military intervention abroad. Describing Pakistan as a “very, very sneaky actor”, Kirk was emphatic that “very simply, this is not our war … This is a great test of whether every great conflict is America’s problem”.Kirk was equally dogmatic on the issue of Indians being granted more visas as part of a US-India trade deal, accusing Indians of taking American jobs.“America does not need more visas for people from India,” he said. “Perhaps no form of legal immigration has so displaced American workers as those from India. Enough already. We’re full. Let’s finally put our own people first.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Macron says 26 nations ready to provide postwar military backing to Ukraine

      by

      Twenty-six nations have pledged to provide postwar security guarantees to Ukraine, including an international force on land and sea and in the air, Emmanuel Macron said after a summit at which European leaders sought to pin down Donald Trump on the level of support he is willing to give Kyiv.“The day the conflict stops, the security guarantees will be deployed,” the French president told a press conference at the Élysée Palace in Paris, standing alongside Volodymyr Zelenskyy.After the summit, Macron told reporters: “We have today 26 countries who have formally committed – some others have not yet taken a position – to deploy a ‘reassurance force’ troops in Ukraine, or be present on the ground, in the sea or in the air.”The troops would not be deployed “on the frontline” but aim to “prevent any new major aggression”, Macron said.Macron initially said the 26 nations – which he did not name – would deploy to Ukraine. But he later said some countries would provide guarantees while remaining outside Ukraine, for example by helping to train and equip Kyiv’s forces. He did not say how many troops would be involved in the guarantees.The Ukrainian president hailed the move. “I think that today, for the first time in a long time, this is the first such serious concrete step,” he said.US contributions to the guarantees would be finalised in the coming days, Macron said.On Friday, a spokesperson for the Kremlin said that western countries “cannot” provide security guarantees for Ukraine, according to remarks reported by Russian state media.“This cannot be a guarantee of security for Ukraine that would suit our country,” Dmitry Peskov told state news agency RIA Novosti.Thursday’s meeting of 35 leaders from the “coalition of the willing” – of mainly European countries – was intended to finalise security guarantees and ask the US president for the backing that Europeans say is vital to make such guarantees viable.Many European countries including Germany, Spain and Italy have refused so far to provide troop commitments. A German spokesperson said: “The focus should be on financing, arming and training the Ukrainian armed forces,” a formula that is not vastly different from what Europe is now providing.Alarmed European leaders travelled to the White House in the wake of the August Alaska summit between Trump and Vladimir Putin fearing that the US president may be about to force Volodymyr Zelenskyy into a humiliating surrender, including loss of territory.View image in fullscreenTrump responded to the European lobbying by claiming he had won the Russian leader’s agreement to hold direct talks with the Ukrainian president, but Russia rejected any such commitment and largely maintained its demand for the surrender of Ukrainian territory and a commitment that Ukraine will never join Nato.Trump had set a deadline of 1 September for a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, but Trump is known to set deadlines that he then ignores.“We had a great relationship,” Trump said of Putin in an interview with the rightwing news website The Daily Caller. He said he was now very disappointed in the Russian president: “Thousands of people are dying; it’s a senseless war.”Europe has been desperate to ensure Trump does not wash his hands of the war, but it has been unable to convert Trump’s stated frustration with Putin into a plan to try to strangle the Russian economy.Macron in Paris sought to give the impression that Europe, unlike Russia, stuck to its commitments. He said: “The contributions that were prepared, documented and confirmed at the level of defence ministers under the strictest secrecy allow us to say: this work is complete and will now be politically approved.”Europe has been hoping for months that Trump would activate long-promised sweeping economic sanctions on countries that import Russian oil. The 50% tariffs that the US imposed on India, partly for importing Russian oil, appear to have driven the traditionally non-aligned Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, closer into the arms of China and Russia.Stung by his diplomatic failure so far, Trump has given the impression of wanting to focus on domestic policy, including crime and the economy.The US was represented at the Paris talks by Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who also met Zelenskyy separately.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenAfter the summit, Starmer’s office said it was necessary “to go even further to apply pressure on Putin to secure a cessation of hostilities.”“The prime minister said Putin could not be trusted as he continued to delay peace talks and simultaneously carry out egregious attacks on Ukraine,” No 10 added.Russia has said it will not tolerate European troops in postwar Ukraine.The coalition of the willing includes about 30 nations backing Ukraine, mainly European but also Canada, Australia and Japan. It has met repeatedly at military and political level but not published any detailed plan of action, reflecting internal divisions and uncertainty about the nature of the US contribution.In a breakthrough of sorts, the plan for Europeans to buy US arms for use in Ukraine has started to bear fruit. On 28 August, the US state department announced the delivery of 3,350 ERAM long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, worth $825m (£615m, €705m).The funding came from Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and the US, but the financial contribution of each country was not disclosed. The ERAM missiles have a range similar to that of the Franco-British Scalp-EG missiles, which Ukraine fired at occupied Crimea and the Russian region of Kursk.Zelenskyy said he had not seen “any signs from Russia that they want to end the war”.The Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, said it was not for Putin to decide if European troops would be stationed inside Ukraine. He said: “I think we really have to stop making Putin too powerful.”The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, described Putin as the most severe war criminal of our time.On Wednesday in Beijing, Putin attended a military parade alongside Xi Jinping and hailed Russian forces’ progress in Ukraine, saying troops were advancing on “all fronts”.But there are signs that sanctions are finally taking a toll on the Russian economy after two years of high growth fuelled by defence spending.The Sberbank chief, German Gref, one of Russia’s most powerful bankers, warned on Thursday that the economy was stagnating and that unless the central bank cut interest rates then the country would fall into recession.Russia’s war economy grew at 4.1% in 2023 and 4.3% in 2024 but it is slowing sharply under the weight of high interest rates required to dampen inflation. More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I would not feel safe’: Americans on the sorrow – and relief – of leaving Trump’s US for Europe

      by

      The scramble began in November as news broke that Donald Trump had been re-elected. Benjamin and Chrys Gorman had long said they would leave the US before seeing Trump inaugurated again, giving them exactly 76 days to sell their home, cars and most of their belongings and move four people, three dogs and two cats to Barcelona.“I was saying: we’ve got more time than that, it won’t go that fast,” said Gorman. “My wife said no, we need to be out of here – not just on inauguration day, but a few days before. And she was so right.”Within hours of taking office, Trump signed an executive order defining sex as only male or female. The change was to be reflected on official documents, sowing confusion over what it meant for Americans with the non-binary identification of “X” in their passports.Relief gripped the Gormans as they watched it play out from afar. “Our kid’s passport has an X gender marker,” said Gorman. “So we managed to escape just in time.”View image in fullscreenSince Trump’s return to power, relocation firms from London to Lisbon and Madrid to Milan say they’ve seen a surge in inquiries from Americans. Undaunted by the gains made by the far right across the continent, many Americans cite a desire to escape the US’s increasingly polarised climate and an administration whose wide range of targets has included immigrants, diversity measures and political opponents.Statistics suggest that the barrage of interest is translating into action; in the first two months of the year, US applications for Irish passports were at their highest level in a decade – up 60% from the same period last year. In the first three months of the year, France reported a rise in the number of long-stay visa requests from Americans, while in March, the number of Americans who had solicited British citizenship in the 12 months before surged to its highest since record-keeping began in 2004.While the figures remain relatively small given the size of the US population, the movement has been galvanised by a steady drip of celebrity announcements. Rosie O’Donnell said in March that she had moved to Ireland, describing it as “heartbreaking to see what’s happening politically” in the US, while Ellen DeGeneres recently cited Trump’s re-election to explain why she and her wife, Portia de Rossi, had moved to the Cotswolds in 2024. Earlier this month, Jimmy Kimmel revealed that he had acquired Italian citizenship, saying that the US under Trump was “just unbelievable”.Across Europe, governments and institutions have sought to capitalise on the exodus, launching programmes aimed at attracting stateside talent or, in the case of one enterprising Italian village, seeking to bolster its population with disgruntled Americans.Among the first was France’s Aix-Marseille University, which in March put out an offer of “scientific asylum” for researchers reeling from Trump’s crackdown on academia. Three months later, the university said it had received more than 500 inquiries for the 20 spots.View image in fullscreenThose selected included Lisa, a biological anthropologist who was preparing to move her husband, a school teacher, and two children across the Atlantic. “When Trump was re-elected, the feeling was: ‘We gotta go,’” she told the Guardian earlier this summer. She asked that her last name not be used to protect her university in the US from reprisals.The sentiment had strengthened as she watched the Trump administration take aim at universities, dismantle research funding and undermine science. “We’re months into this presidency, and a lot has already happened. I can’t imagine what’s going to happen in another three and a half years.”The opportunity to swap the northern US for southern France was welcome, but not without its drawbacks. “It is a big pay cut,” she said. “My kids are super gung-ho. My husband is just worried that he won’t find a job. Which is my worry too, because I don’t think I’ll be able to afford four of us on my salary.”In January, as thousands of Trump faithful turned up in Washington DC for a televised viewing of his inauguration, Deborah Harkness knew the time had come to act on her longstanding dream of moving to southern Spain. “As soon as he was inaugurated, I started making plans,” she said.Months later she was in Málaga, watching as Trump’s administration sought to drastically reshape the judiciary, public broadcasting, higher education and immigration. “What frightens me most is how normalised it’s all become,” she said. “The chaos, the cruelty, the disinformation – that’s how authoritarianism takes hold.”The view was echoed by Monica Byrne, who in 2023 left North Carolina for Cork, Ireland. Trump was a factor in her decision, but only in that she saw his rise to power as a symptom of the bigger issues facing the US. “I didn’t know whether Trump specifically was going to come back, but I knew fascism was,” she said. “So it was more about the abject failure of the Democrats and knowing they weren’t going to protect us from fascism generally.”View image in fullscreenTrump’s re-election cemented her decision to remain abroad and enrol in a master’s programme in Ireland. “I get frustrated when people say: ‘You’re very lucky or you must be happy you’re not there,’” she said. “There is some degree of that, but 90% of the people I care about and love are in the States and are affected.”In Barcelona, Gorman and his family have been slowly settling into the rhythms of the city. “So many things have just been shockingly better,” he said. “For example, my wife was saying that the other day she was walking along La Rambla and a car backfired. And she was the only person who ducked.”While they were thrilled to have left behind the gun violence and shooter drills of the US, the challenge was now in explaining to their loved ones that they were unlikely to return home once Trump’s term ends. “I don’t foresee this movement ending with the end of the Trump administration … I think that the rot is much deeper,” said Gorman.“If he wouldn’t have a huge base of support, Trump is just, you know, your crazy uncle yelling things on a porch. That base of support needs to be addressed. Why was there support for this kind of fascism?” he added. “And that’s a much deeper question. I would not personally feel safe going back to a country that doesn’t fully reckon with its fascist impulses.” More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Russia says Europe’s leaders don’t want peace in Ukraine as Vance says US will keep trying

      by

      Russia accused western European leaders on Sunday of not wanting peace in Ukraine, as Moscow’s most senior diplomat praised efforts by Donald Trump to end the war, while Vice-President JD Vance said the US would “keep on trying” to broker talks in the absence of a deal.Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, made the comments during a sometimes contentious interview on NBC on Sunday morning, during which he denied his country had bombed civilian targets in Ukraine.Trump, he said, had set himself above European leaders who accompanied Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for talks at the White House last week, immediately after the summit between the US president and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on 15 August.“We want peace in Ukraine. He wants, President Trump wants, peace in Ukraine. The reaction to [the] Anchorage meeting, the gathering in Washington of these European representatives and what they were doing after Washington, indicates that they don’t want peace,” Lavrov said.The Alaska talks produced neither a ceasefire nor an agreement for Zelenskyy and Putin to meet, and was widely considered to be a public relations triumph for the Russian leader.Lavrov brushed aside Trump’s apparent frustration at the outcome and the US warning of “massive sanctions or massive tariffs or both” against Moscow. He said “yes” when asked if Putin wanted peace and said Putin and Trump respected each other, while assailing the alliance of leaders such as France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, Britain’s Keir Starmer and European Union president Ursula von der Leyen who came to the White House last week to bolster Zelenskyy’s visit.European leaders in recent days have pledged to support security guarantees as part of a peace agreement, although Russia has flatly rejected the prospect of troops from countries in Europe being positioned in Ukraine.Trump has ruled out sending the US military, and on Friday it was reported that his administration had blocked Ukraine’s use of US-supplied long-range missiles to attack Russia.Meanwhile, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney told Zelenskyy on Sunday that he backed Ukraine’s calls for robust security guarantees and that Canada would not rule out sending troops.Earlier, Lavrov became defensive when NBC asked him if Putin was “stringing along” Trump by appearing conciliatory to his peace overtures but continuing to bomb Ukraine, attacks which last week included an airstrike on an American electronics manufacturing company in the west of the country.“It is not for the lawmakers or for any media outlet to decide what President Trump is motivated by. We respect President Trump because President Trump defends American national interests. And I have reason to believe that President Trump respects President Putin because he defends Russian national interests,” he said.Critics, including some conservative voices, are alarmed by what they see as Putin manipulating Trump over Ukraine and US elections.Lavrov meanwhile denied that Russia attacks civilian targets including schools, hospitals and churches, hinting at Russia’s extraordinary claims throughout the war that Ukraine is attacking its own people.“Our intelligence has very good information, and we target only military enterprises, military sites or industrial enterprises directly involved in producing military equipment for [the] Ukrainian army,” he said.Vance appeared separately in the same Sunday morning program and insisted Russia deserved credit for indicating it was ready to end a conflict that Trump has said more than 50 times he would solve “in one day”, while in contrast the vice-president warned of a longer process.“I think the Russians have made significant concessions to President Trump for the first time in three and a half years of this conflict,” Vance said.“They’ve recognized that they’re not going to be able to install a puppet regime in Kyiv. That was, of course, a major demand at the beginning. And importantly, they’ve acknowledged that there is going to be some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”Vance said historically that peace negotiations go “in fits and starts” and warned that he did not think ending the war was “going to happen overnight”.Vance said of Russia, in a comment that was not further clarified: “Should they have started the war? Of course, they haven’t. But we’re making progress”. Trump in February blamed Ukraine, saying, “you never should have started it.”Any sanctions against Russia, Vance said, would be on a “case by case basis”, but he remained hopeful that US efforts could bring Zelenskyy and Putin together.“It’s complicated, but we’re going to keep on trying to convince these parties to talk to each other and continue to play the game of diplomacy, because that’s the only way to get this thing wrapped up.”Lavrov remained adamant that Russia also wanted peace, and acknowledged “Ukraine has the right to exist”. But he said it “must let people go”, referring to Putin’s demand that it give up Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula seized by Russia in 2014, as well as southern and eastern parts, such as the Donbas, captured since 2022, as part of a peace agreement.“In Crimea [they] decided that they belong to the Russian culture,” he said, citing a disputed 2014 referendum condemned by most of the world as illegal.On Friday, Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat of Connecticut, said on CNN that stronger US action was needed because “Putin is not going to stop until we stop him.”

      Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Pentagon has blocked Ukraine from striking deep inside Russia – report

      by

      US defense officials have blocked Ukraine from using US-supplied long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia since late spring as part of a Trump administration effort to get Vladimir Putin to engage in peace talks , according to a report on Saturday.The Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon has blocked Ukraine from using US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems, or Atacms.Two US officials told the outlet that on at least one occasion, Ukraine had sought to use Atacms against a target but was denied under a “review mechanism” developed by Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy, that governs how US long-range weapons or those provided by European allies that rely on American intelligence and components can be used.The review process also applies to Britain’s Storm Shadow cruise missile because it depends on US targeting data, according to two US officials and a British official, the Journal said.The review system reportedly gives US defense secretary Pete Hegseth approval over the use of the Atacms, which have a range of nearly 190 miles (305km). Ukraine was previously given authority by the Biden administration to use the missile system against targets inside Russia in November after North Korean troops entered the war.Before the inauguration in January, Trump told Time magazine that the decision to allow Ukraine to use US weapons systems to attack targets inside Russia had been a mistake.“I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that? We’re just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done,” he said.It is unclear whether the US defense department’s review process amounts to a formal policy change. But it comes alongside increasing control of munitions to Ukraine as US stocks are themselves depleted.In a statement to the Journal, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump “has been very clear that the war in Ukraine needs to end. There has been no change in military posture in Russia-Ukraine at this time.”But last week, amid efforts to broker talks between the Russian president and Voldomyr Zelenskyy, Trump said that Ukraine couldn’t defeat Russia unless it could “play offense” in the war.“It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invader’s country,” Trump wrote on Thursday. “It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning.”Last month, the US agreed to supply Ukraine with new weapons systems but only if European nations paid for them. While Trump has said that the US is “not looking” to provide longer-range weapons that could reach Moscow, US officials told the Journal that the administration has approved the sale of 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition air-launched missiles, or Erams, which have a range of 280 miles (400km). More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Canada finally faces a basic question: how do we defend ourselves? | Stephen Marche

      by

      The second Trump administration has been worse than Canada’s worst nightmare. The largest military force in the history of the world, across a largely undefended border, is suddenly under the command of a president who has called for our annexation. Canada could not be less prepared. The possibility of American aggression has been so remote, for so long, that the idea has not been seriously considered in living memory. Donald Trump has focused on economic rather than military pressure, but the new tone in Washington is finally forcing Canada to ask itself the most basic question: how do we defend ourselves?For most other countries in the world, self-defence is the key to national identity. Canada’s immense good fortune has been that we haven’t really needed a strong military to build our country. In the war of 1812, we were British, and the British kept us alive because we were British. There hasn’t been an attack on our homeland since. Confederation, the founding of the country, was the result of a political negotiation rather than a conquest or a violent independence movement. Our military was based on a fundamental assumption about our place in the world, and the nature of the world itself. Our place in the world was to contribute to the global order. The global order shared our fundamental values. Peacekeeping was more our style than defense.Recently, I’ve been working on Gloves Off, a podcast about how Canada can protect itself from any threat emanating from the US, and from every other country in the world now that the US is no longer our protector and guardian. The consensus from military and security experts is that we would be “a snack”.It is far from unusual for countries sliding toward authoritarianism, such as the the United States, to use foreign engagements to justify the suspension of their own laws. Trump has already started trumping up crazy excuses for anti-Canadian sentiment – a supposed flow of fentanyl over the border and other nonsense. His ambassador says Trump thinks our boycotts make us “nasty” to deal with.So what does Canada need to do to develop the capacity to defend itself?The good news is that Canada’s new reality is far from unique. In fact, it’s the historical norm. Finland is a potential model for us. It has lived its entire existence next to a belligerent country that is either expanding imperially or collapsing dangerously. The Finns do not have nuclear weapons. They are only 5.5 million people, next to Russia’s 143 million.Finland’s strategy is whole society defence. Matti Pesu, a senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, and a reserve commander of an armoured personnel carrier, explained that whole society defence does not pretend to be able to overcome a potential Russian onslaught. “Power asymmetry is an absolutely essential factor in the Finnish security thinking,” he told me. “Given how much bigger Russia is, in order to thwart that potential threat, we need to mobilize broadly the resources available in society.”Because Finland is geared, throughout its national institutions, towards self-defence, its resistance to Russia is credible. The idea is not to match Russian military capacity, but to make the conquest of Finland not worth the trouble. “Full societal resources of a smaller nation can actually be enough to thwart the potential threat from a larger power because the costs for the larger power to invade could actually be much higher than the potential benefits it would gain from such an invasion,” Pesu explains. The more capable a country is of causing pain to occupiers, the less likely the occupation happens in the first place.Conscription is essential. The Finns can put a million soldiers in the field within 72 hours. But every facet of Finnish government, from the healthcare system to the national broadcaster, has a role in the security system, and knows its role in a possible military conflict. “A preparedness mindset permeates the whole society,” Pesu says. “From the state level all the way to an individual living somewhere in the country.”To rise to Finland’s level, Canada would need to reorchestrate its entire frame of reference. The prime minister, Mark Carney, has recently announced serious boosts to national military spending: 2% by the end of this year, rising to 5% at some point in the future. But the government has pushed its readiness targets back to 2032. And those are targets that align with our typical military practices: meeting our commitments to our alliances. That money sounds good on a theoretical level. But the Canadian military situation has not fundamentally altered. We have not reset our position.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe period we are entering is a period of deep chaos, of the weakening of international institutions, of multiple, interlocked collapses. Any reliance on international institutions and their restoration is a false hope. If Canada is to remain a stable democracy, we will have to find the stability in ourselves. A whole society defence would bolster us against the chaos that threatens us from every side and from within. In an era of splintering society, conscription is a force of unification, what Pesu calls “a strong democratic linkage”. Canada is a big country, with huge geographical and demographic diversity. We are as vulnerable as any other society to the informational chaos that is overtaking the world, to the incipient breakdown. A whole society defence would be a massive force for unification. It would establish, to Canadians at least, that there are crises we are going to face and we need to face them collectively. The thing about a whole society defence is that it determines that you are living in a whole society, a society that needs defending.Canada has no history of needing to defend itself. In fact, not needing a military is baked into our national identity – and that creates a psychological bind. To preserve who we are, we have to overcome one of our oldest tendencies, one of our best tendencies: our peace-loving nature, our idea of our country as an escape from history rather than its perpetrator or victim.And that leads to a very scary question: what will be the crisis that makes us realize that we need whole society defence? Let us hope it won’t be Canada’s last.

      Stephen Marche lives in Toronto and is the author of The Next Civil War and On Writing and Failure More