Europe

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Playing for Time, U.K. Leader Sets Up Chance of U.S. Election Overlap

      by

      Prime Minister Rishi Sunak signaled that voters will go to the polls in the fall, around the time that the United States will be in the midst of its own pivotal vote.When Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said this week that he was not likely to call a general election in Britain before the second half of the year, he was trying to douse fevered speculation that he might go to the voters as early as May. But in doing so, he set up another tantalizing prospect: that Britain and the United States could hold elections within days or weeks of each other this fall.The last time parliamentary and presidential elections coincided was in 1964, when Britain’s Labour Party ousted the long-governing Conservatives in October, and less than a month later, a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, swept aside a challenge from a right-wing Republican insurgent. The parallels to today are not lost on the excitable denizens of Britain’s political class.“It’s the stuff of gossip around London dinner tables already,” said Kim Darroch, a former British ambassador to Washington who is now a member of the House of Lords. For all the Côte du Rhône-fueled analysis, Mr. Darroch conceded, “it’s hard to reach any kind of conclusion about what it means.”That doesn’t mean political soothsayers, amateur and professional, aren’t giving it a go. Some argue that a victory by the Republican front-runner, Donald J. Trump, over President Biden — or even the prospect of one — would be so alarming that it would scare voters in Britain into sticking with Mr. Sunak’s Conservative Party, as a bid for predictability and continuity in an uncertain world.A supporter of Donald J. Trump laying out signs on Tuesday before an event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesOthers argue that the Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, could win over voters by reminding them of the ideological kinship between the Conservatives and Mr. Trump, who remains deeply unpopular in Britain. Mr. Trump praised Mr. Sunak last fall for saying he wanted to water down some of Britain’s ambitious climate goals. “I always knew Sunak was smart,” Mr. Trump posted on his Truth Social account.Still others pooh-pooh the suggestion that British voters would make decisions at the ballot box based on the political direction of another country, even one as close and influential as the United States. Britain’s election, analysts say, is likely to be decided by domestic concerns like the cost-of-living crisis, home-mortgage rates, immigration and the dilapidated state of the National Health Service.And yet, even the skeptics of any direct effect acknowledge that near-simultaneous elections could cause ripples on both sides of the pond, given how Britain and the United States often seem to operate under the same political weather system. Britain’s vote to leave the European Union in June 2016 is often viewed as a canary in the coal mine for Mr. Trump’s victory the following November.Already, the campaigns in both countries are beginning to echo each other, with fiery debates about immigration; the integrity — or otherwise — of political leaders; and social and cultural quarrels, from racial justice to the rights of transgender people. Those themes will be amplified as they reverberate across the ocean, with the American election forming a supersized backdrop to the British campaign.“The U.S. election will receive a huge amount of attention in the run-up to the U.K. election,” said Ben Ansell, a professor of comparative democratic institutions at Oxford University. “If the Tories run a culture-war campaign, and people are being fed a diet of wall-to-wall populism because of Trump, that could backfire on them.”Some argue that if the elections coincide, Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, could win over voters by reminding them of the similarities between the Conservatives and Mr. Trump.Justin Tallis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesProfessor Ansell identified another risk in the political synchronicity: it could magnify the damage of a disinformation campaign waged by a hostile foreign power, such as the efforts by Russian agents in Britain before the Brexit vote, and in the United States before the 2016 presidential election. “It’s a two-for-one,” he said, noting that both countries remain divided and vulnerable to such manipulation.On Thursday, Mr. Starmer appealed to Britons to move past the fury and divisiveness of the Brexit debates, promising “a politics that treads a little lighter on all of our lives.” That was reminiscent of Mr. Biden’s call in his 2021 inaugural address to “join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature.”Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who studied at Oxford and has advised Conservative Party officials, said he warned the Tories not to turn their campaign into a culture war. “It will get you votes, but it will destroy the electorate in the process,” he said he told them, pointing out that a campaign against “woke” issues had not helped Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida dislodge Mr. Trump.Mr. Sunak has vacillated in recent months between a hard-edge and more centrist approach as his party has struggled to get traction with voters. It currently lags Labour by 20 percentage points in most polls. While general elections are frequently held in the spring, Mr. Sunak appears to be playing for time in the hope that his fortunes will improve. That has drawn criticism from Mr. Starmer, who accused him of “squatting” in 10 Downing Street.“I’ve got lots that I want to get on with,” Mr. Sunak told reporters Thursday. He could wait until next January to hold a vote, though analysts say that was unlikely, since campaigning over the Christmas holiday would likely alienate voters and discourage party activists from canvassing door to door.Counting votes in Bath, England, during the U.K.’s last general election in 2019.Ian Walton/ReutersWith summer out for the same reason, Mr. Sunak’s most likely options are October or November (Americans will vote on Nov. 5). There are arguments for choosing either month, including that party conferences are traditionally held in early October.In October 1964, the Conservative government, led by Alec Douglas-Home, narrowly lost to Labour, led by Harold Wilson. Like Mr. Douglas-Home, Mr. Sunak is presiding over a party in power for more than 13 years. The following month, President Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater, the hard-right Republican senator from Arizona, who had declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”Sixty years ago, the Atlantic was a greater divide than it is today, and the links between trans-Atlantic elections more tenuous than they are now. Mr. Trump, armed with a social media account and a penchant for lines even more provocative than Mr. Goldwater’s, could easily roil the British campaign, analysts said.And a Trump victory, they added, would pose a devilish challenge to either future British leader. While Mr. Trump treated Mr. Sunak’s predecessor, Boris Johnson, as an ideological twin, he fell out bitterly with Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, and there was little reason, they said, to hope for less drama in a second Trump term.The biggest pre-election danger — much more likely for Mr. Sunak than for Mr. Starmer, given their politics — is that Mr. Trump will make a formal endorsement, either while he is the Republican nominee or newly elected as president, said Timothy Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London.“Given how negatively most Brits feel toward Trump,” Professor Bale said, “such an endorsement is unlikely to play well for whichever of the two is unlucky enough to find favor with him.” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in UK Politics

      Former EU Commission president Jacques Delors dies at 98

      by

      For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emailsSign up to our free breaking news emailsJacques Delors, the former president of the European Commission, who pushed for the creation of the euro, has died at the age of 98, his daughter said on Wednesday.He was a leading figure on the French left and a major architect of a more unified and integrated European project – a role that put him at odds with the UK’s then prime minister Margaret Thatcher.Emmanuel Macron paid tribute to Mr Delors as a statesman who served as an “inexhaustible architect of our Europe” and a fighter for human justice.Michel Barnier, a European commissioner who oversaw Brexit, said Mr Delors was a “source of inspiration” in French and European politics, while former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt said: “A truly great European has left us.”Mr Delors was head of the Commission from 1985 to 1995, overseeing the Schengen border agreements, the launch of the Erasmus student exchange program, and the Economic and Monetary Union that ultimately led to the adoption of the euro.Jacques Delors was a leading figure on the French left The era was marked by forthright clashes of vision between federalists such as Mr Delors, who believed passionately in an “ever-closer union”, and Mrs Thatcher, who firmly resisted any shift of power to Brussels.So antagonistic did relations between London and Brussels become towards the end of Mrs Thatcher’s time in office, especially over the plans for monetary union, that The Sun famously ran a front-page headline reading: “Up Yours Delors”.He was once a finance minister under Francois Mitterrand and there was speculation he would run in the 1995 French presidential election but he declined. He founded a European think tank in 1996; Enrico Letta, president of the Institut Jacques Delors, said on Wednesday: “Modern Europe is today losing its founding father.”Peter Sutherland, a former commissioner from Ireland, once described Mr Delors as “extremely tense, like a coiled spring”. He said: “I liked Delors above all for his intellect. He had the most formidable brain I ever encountered.” Guy Verhofstadt, MEP and leader of the European Movement International organisation, said Mr Delors had been “the most inspirational president of the European Commission”, and his vision was needed “more than ever”.Mr Delors with then prime minister John Major and US president George HW Bush in 1992 Mr Delors was an outspoken force at the heart of the Brussels bureaucracy. He oversaw a period of rapid enlargement, with the 10-member European Community, as it was then called, growing to 12 with the accession in 1986 of Spain and Portugal, before adding Sweden, Austria and Finland in 1995.Mr Delors’ commitment to a united Germany led to a close bond with then German chancellor Helmut Kohl and helped to cement the Franco-German relationship that remains critical to the EU. He spoke often during Europe’s 2010-2013 debt crisis about his belief in the single currency, the euro, while acknowledging its faults as a project launched with strong political will but insufficient economic underpinning.Mr Delors was born in 1925 into a devoutly Catholic family; he earned a degree in economics from the Sorbonne and followed his father into a career at the Bank of France, his country’s central bank.A union member from a young age, he joined the Socialist Party in the 1970s. His death was confirmed to AFP by his daughter, Martine Aubry, the socialist mayor of Lille. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Qué le espera a la economía global en 2024?

      by

      Con dos guerras persistentes y la incertidumbre de 50 elecciones nacionales, la inestabilidad financiera podría agravarse en todo el mundo.Los ataques al tráfico marítimo indispensable en los estrechos del mar Rojo por parte de una decidida banda de militantes en Yemen —una repercusión de la guerra entre Israel y Hamás en la franja de Gaza— le está inyectando otra dosis de inestabilidad a una economía mundial que está batallando con las tensiones geopolíticas en aumento.El riesgo de escalada del conflicto en Medio Oriente es la última de una serie de crisis impredecibles, como la pandemia del COVID-19 y la guerra en Ucrania, que han ocasionado profundas heridas a la economía mundial, la han desviado de su curso y le han dejado cicatrices.Por si fuera poco, hay más inestabilidad en el horizonte debido a la oleada de elecciones nacionales cuyas repercusiones podrían ser profundas y prolongadas. Más de dos mil millones de personas en unos 50 países —entre ellos India, Indonesia, México, Sudáfrica, Estados Unidos y los 27 países del Parlamento Europeo— acudirán a las urnas el año entrante. En total, los participantes en la olimpiada electoral de 2024 dan cuenta del 60 por ciento de la producción económica mundial.En las democracias sólidas, los comicios se están llevando a cabo en un momento en que va en aumento la desconfianza en el gobierno, los electores están muy divididos y hay una ansiedad profunda y constante por las perspectivas económicasUn barco cruza el canal de Suez en dirección al mar Rojo. Los ataques en el mar Rojo han hecho subir los fletes y los seguros.Mohamed Hossam/EPA, vía ShutterstockUna valla publicitaria anunciando las elecciones presidenciales en Rusia, que tendrán lugar en marzo.Dmitri Lovetsky/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Red Sea Shipping Halt Is Latest Risk to Global Economy

      by

      Next year could see increasing volatility as persistent military conflicts and economic uncertainty influence voting in national elections across the globe.The attacks on crucial shipping traffic in the Red Sea straits by a determined band of militants in Yemen — a spillover from the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza — is injecting a new dose of instability into a world economy already struggling with mounting geopolitical tensions.The risk of escalating conflict in the Middle East is the latest in a string of unpredictable crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, that have landed like swipes of a bear claw on the global economy, smacking it off course and leaving scars.As if that weren’t enough, more volatility lies ahead in the form of a wave of national elections whose repercussions could be deep and long. More than two billion people in roughly 50 countries, including India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, the United States and the 27 nations of the European Parliament, will head to the polls. Altogether, participants in 2024’s elections olympiad account for 60 percent of the world’s economic output.In robust democracies, elections are taking place as mistrust in government is rising, electorates are bitterly divided and there is a profound and abiding anxiety over economic prospects.A ship crossing the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea. Attacks on the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates.Mohamed Hossam/EPA, via ShutterstockA billboard promoting presidential elections in Russia, which will take place in March.Dmitri Lovetsky/Associated PressEven in countries where elections are neither free nor fair, leaders are sensitive to the economy’s health. President Vladimir V. Putin’s decision this fall to require exporters to convert foreign currency into rubles was probably done with an eye on propping up the ruble and tamping down prices in the run-up to Russia’s presidential elections in March.The winners will determine crucial policy decisions affecting factory subsidies, tax breaks, technology transfers, the development of artificial intelligence, regulatory controls, trade barriers, investments, debt relief and the energy transition.A rash of electoral victories that carry angry populists into power could push governments toward tighter control of trade, foreign investment and immigration. Such policies, said Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge, could tip the global economy into “a very different world than the one that we have been used to.”In many places, skepticism about globalization has been fueled by stagnant incomes, declining standards of living and growing inequality. Nonetheless, Ms. Coyle said, “a world of shrinking trade is a world of shrinking income.”And that raises the possibility of a “vicious cycle,” because the election of right-wing nationalists is likely to further weaken global growth and bruise economic fortunes, she warned.A campaign rally for former President Donald J. Trump in New Hampshire in December.Doug Mills/The New York TimesA line of migrants on their way to a Border Patrol processing center at the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigration will be a hot topic in upcoming elections.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesMany economists have compared recent economic events to those of the 1970s, but the decade that Ms. Coyle said came to mind was the 1930s, when political upheavals and financial imbalances “played out into populism and declining trade and then extreme politics.”The biggest election next year is in India. Currently the world’s fastest-growing economy, it is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s manufacturing hub. Taiwan’s presidential election in January has the potential to ratchet up tensions between the United States and China. In Mexico, the vote will affect the government’s approach to energy and foreign investment. And a new president in Indonesia could shift policies on critical minerals like nickel.The U.S. presidential election, of course, will be the most significant by far for the world economy. The approaching contest is already affecting decision-making. Last week, Washington and Brussels agreed to suspend tariffs on European steel and aluminum and on American whiskey and motorcycles until after the election.The deal enables President Biden to appear to take a tough stance on trade deals as he battles for votes. Former President Donald J. Trump, the likely Republican candidate, has championed protectionist trade policies and proposed slapping a 10 percent tariff on all goods coming into the United States — a combative move that would inevitably lead other countries to retaliate.Mr. Trump, who has echoed authoritarian leaders, has also indicated that he would step back from America’s partnership with Europe, withdraw support for Ukraine and pursue a more confrontational stance toward China.Workers on a car assembly line in Hefei, China. Beijing has provided enormous incentives for electric vehicles.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesA shipyard in India, which is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s largest manufacturing hub.Atul Loke for The New York Times“The outcome of the elections could lead to far-reaching shifts in domestic and foreign policy issues, including on climate change, regulations and global alliances,” the consulting firm EY-Parthenon concluded in a recent report.Next year’s global economic outlook so far is mixed. Growth in most corners of the world remains slow, and dozens of developing countries are in danger of defaulting on their sovereign debts. On the positive side of the ledger, the rapid fall in inflation is nudging central bankers to reduce interest rates or at least halt their rise. Reduced borrowing costs are generally a spur to investment and home buying.As the world continues to fracture into uneasy alliances and rival blocs, security concerns are likely to loom even larger in economic decisions than they have so far.China, India and Turkey stepped up to buy Russian oil, gas and coal after Europe sharply reduced its purchases in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, tensions between China and the United States spurred Washington to respond to years of strong-handed industrial support from Beijing by providing enormous incentives for electric vehicles, semiconductors and other items deemed essential for national security.A protest in Yemen on Friday against the operation to safeguard trade and protect ships in the Red Sea.Osamah Yahya/EPA, via ShutterstockThe drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea by Iranian-backed Houthi militia are a further sign of increasing fragmentation.In the last couple of months, there has been a rise in smaller players like Yemen, Hamas, Azerbaijan and Venezuela that are seeking to change the status quo, said Courtney Rickert McCaffrey, a geopolitical analyst at EY-Parthenon and an author of the recent report.“Even if these conflicts are smaller, they can still affect global supply chains in unexpected ways,” she said. “Geopolitical power is becoming more dispersed,” and that increases volatility.The Houthi assaults on vessels from around the world in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait — the aptly named Gate of Grief — on the southern end of the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates and oil prices while diverting marine traffic to a much longer and costlier route around Africa.Last week, the United States said it would expand a military coalition to ensure the safety of ships passing through this commercial pathway, through which 12 percent of global trade passes. It is the biggest rerouting of worldwide trade since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.Claus Vistesen, chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said the impact of the attacks had so far been limited. “From an economic perspective, we’re not seeing huge increase in oil and gas prices,” Mr. Vistesen said, although he acknowledged that the Red Sea assaults were the “most obvious near-term flashpoint.”Uncertainty does have a dampening effect on the economy, though. Businesses tend to adopt a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to investment, expansions and hiring.“Continuing volatility in geopolitical and geoeconomic relations between major economies is the biggest concern for chief risk officers in both the public and private sectors,” a midyear survey by the World Economic Forum found.With persistent military conflicts, increasing bouts of extreme weather and a slew of major elections ahead, it’s likely that 2024 will bring more of the same. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Binder of classified material on Russia reportedly went missing in final Trump days

      by

      A 10in-thick binder containing nearly 3,000 pages of highly classified material related to the investigation of Russian election interference as well as links between Moscow and Donald Trump went missing in the final days of his presidency, CNN and the New York Times reported.CNN said the disappearance raised alarms in the American intelligence community because “some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed”.The Times said national security officials were “vexed” by the disappearance of the “Crossfire Hurricane binder”, which was “the name given to the investigation by the FBI”.The issue was so concerning, the Times added, the Senate intelligence committee was briefed.Now the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump faces 91 criminal charges arising from his conduct since entering politics in 2015. Forty charges, brought by the special counsel Jack Smith, concern the retention of classified information after leaving office.In August 2022, FBI agents searched Trump’s Florida home. They did not find material related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the Times said.The investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election won by Trump ended in April 2019. At that time, a report by the special counsel Robert Mueller laid out evidence of Russian interference and links between Trump and Moscow and occasions on which Trump may have tried to obstruct justice.But Mueller did not establish collusion between Trump and Russia. Aided by his second attorney general, William Barr, Trump claimed exoneration.On Friday, reports about the missing binder – which the Times said ran to 2,700 pages – brought the Russia investigation back to the headlines.According to the Times, the binder contained “a hodgepodge of materials related to the origins and early stages of the Russia investigation that were collected by Trump administration officials”.That “hodgepodge”, the paper said, “included copies of botched FBI applications for national security surveillance warrants to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser as well as text messages between two FBI officials … expressing animus toward Mr Trump”.The paper said the “substance” of the material was not particularly sensitive and was posted online, with redactions, by the FBI. Official concerns centered on what the binder could reveal about sources and methods, the Times said, while noting that the online version runs to 585 pages – more than 2,000 fewer than the missing binder.“Among other murky details,” the paper said, “it is not known how many copies were made at the White House or how the government knows one set is missing.”CNN said “multiple copies” of the binder were created in the last hours of the Trump administration, “with plans to distribute them … to Republicans in Congress and rightwing journalists”.Trumped ordered declassification but that has not happened in full. Reportedly “deeply focused” on the binder, Trump offered to let the author of a book about him have a look inside.“I would let you look at them if you wanted,” Trump said in April 2021, according to the Times. “It’s a treasure trove … it would be a sort of cool book for you to look at.”Maggie Haberman, one of the reporters on Friday’s piece, wrote a book about Trump which was published last year.Trump indicated that his last White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, had the binder. A lawyer for Meadows told the Times his client “never took any copy of that binder home at any time”.Presented with the CNN report, one former Trump national security aide simply said, in a message viewed by the Guardian: “Holy cow.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Zelenskiy struggles to get US Republicans to back $61bn Ukraine military aid package

      by

      Volodymyr Zelenskiy has struggled to persuade US Republicans to support a $61bn military aid package for Ukraine on a trip to Washington DC, with objectors insisting on White House concessions on border security as a condition for a deal.The Ukrainian president addressed members of the Senate in a closed 90-minute meeting on Tuesday morning, but afterwards key Republicans repeated that they wanted to see a crackdown on immigration between the US and Mexico in return for supporting the package.Speaking afterwards, Lindsey Graham, a senator for South Carolina, told reporters that he had told Zelenskiy that the problem was “nothing to do with you”. He added: “I said: ‘You’ve done everything anybody could ask of you. This is not your problem here.’”The senior Republican went on to accuse the White House of having failed to tackle the southern border issue and called for “the commander in chief” – Joe Biden – to become personally involved in the negotiations.Senate Republicans last week blocked an emergency aid package primarily for Ukraine and Israel after conservatives complained at the exclusion of immigration policy changes they had demanded as part of the package.Zelenskiy sought to reassure senators concerned about whether US military aid would be wasted because of corruption, Mike Rounds, a Republican, told CNN, and that Ukraine needed more air defence systems to support its counteroffensives.Senior Democrats, meanwhile, expressed frustration with the lack of progress. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader, said “The one person happiest right now about the gridlock in Congress is Vladimir Putin. He is delighting in the fact that Donald Trump’s border policies are sabotaging military aid to Ukraine.”The Ukrainian president then moved on to a meeting with Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat House minority leader, and after that with the recently elected Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who has been relatively sceptical about further financial support for Ukraine.After their meeting, Johnson complained that the White House was asking Congress to approve the spending of billions of dollars “with no appropriate oversight, without a clear strategy to win”.Johnson added that “our first condition on any national security supplemental spending package is about our own national security first” but he also insisted that the US did stand with Zelenskiy “against Putin’s brutal invasion”.Zelenskiy posted a picture on X, formerly Twitter, of him addressing senators, saying he had had “a friendly and candid conversation”. He emphasised the importance of US military aid in his country’s fight against Russia.Moscow said it was watching developments closely. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson, said that “tens of billions of dollars” already provided by Washington had failed to turn the tide of war and more money would make little difference. Zelenskiy’s authority was being undermined by the failures, he added.Congress is due to break for the year on Friday and there appeared little prospect of a breakthrough that would allow a funding package to be passed before then – meaning that negotiations will have to pick up in the new year at a time when the amounts available to Ukraine are running short.Last week, Shalanda Young, the White House’s director of the office of management and budget, said that the Pentagon had used up 97% of the $62.3bn Ukraine allocations previously authorised by Congress, while the state department has none of its $4.7bn remaining.Zelenskiy is due to hold a private meeting with Biden and a joint press conference in the afternoon. The White House has previously signalled it is willing to make concessions on the Mexico border issue as it tries to get the funding package through.Adrienne Watson, spokesperson for the White House national security council, said Russia believes that “a military deadlock through the winter will drain western support for Ukraine”, ultimately handing Moscow the advantage.Newly declassified US intelligence concluded that the war had cost Russia 315,000 dead and injured troops, amounting to nearly 90% of the personnel it had before the war, started in February 2022.In Ukraine, the country’s biggest mobile phone network, Kyivstar, was badly hit on Tuesday by what appeared to be the largest cyber-attack of the war with Russia so far. Phone signals, the internet and some of Kyiv region’s air alert system were knocked out, in an attack that the company’s chief executive was “a result of” the war with Russia.Ukrainian sources indicated that the attack was not financially motivated, but destructive in nature, and it was unclear who precisely was responsible. The country’s SBU intelligence service said it was investigating whether the attack had been directed by one of Russia’s intelligence agencies. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

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

      by

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

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US ‘out of money’ to help Ukraine: six key things to know about aid budget standoff

      by

      The White House issued an urgent warning to Congress on Monday, predicting that Ukraine will soon lose ground in its war against Russia without another infusion of financial aid from the US.“I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Shalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in her letter to congressional leaders.“There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money – and nearly out of time.”In October, the White House asked Congress to approve a $106bn supplemental funding bill that would provide assistance to Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Indo-Pacific while also strengthening border security. However, bipartisan negotiations over that bill have now stalled.Although previous funding packages for Ukraine have won widespread bipartisan support in Congress, the issue has become increasingly contentious in the Republican-controlled House.Given hard-right Republicans’ entrenched opposition to additional Ukraine aid, the new House speaker, Republican Mike Johnson, must walk a fine line in his negotiations with the Senate.Here’s everything you need to know about the path forward for Ukraine aid:How much additional aid has the White House requested?The supplemental funding request that the White House outlined in October included roughly $60bn in additional aid for Ukraine. Although Congress has already appropriated more than $111bn to bolster Ukraine’s war efforts, Young warned in her letter to congressional leaders that resources are quickly running out.According to Young, the defense department has already used 97% of the $62.3bn it received, while the state department has none of its $4.7bn remaining. Noting the global stakes of the war in Ukraine, Young stressed that Congress must act immediately to prevent disaster.“This isn’t a next year problem. The time to help a democratic Ukraine fight against Russian aggression is right now,” Young said. “It is time for Congress to act.”Where do negotiations over the bill stand now?Bipartisan negotiations to craft a supplemental aid package that can pass both chambers of Congress appeared to stall over the weekend. House Republicans have pushed to include harsher immigration policies in the bill, particularly on the issues of asylum and parole applications, but those proposals are a non-starter for many Democrats.One of the lead Democratic negotiators in the talks, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, told Politico on Monday that hard-right Republicans wanted to “essentially close the border” in exchange for supporting more Ukraine funding.“Right now, it seems pretty clear that we’re making pretty big compromises and concessions and Republicans aren’t willing to meet us anywhere close to the middle,” Murphy said.Why do hard-right Republicans oppose additional aid?As more members of the Republican party have embraced Donald Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy, more rightwing lawmakers have grown suspicious of providing funding to Ukraine.They have argued the US should not be sending so much money to Ukraine when those funds could be better used to address border security, even though US assistance to Ukraine represents less than 1% of the nation’s GDP.But many prominent Republicans, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, continue to support funding for Ukraine, and that division has caused a growing rift in the party.The issue drew increased attention in October, when the hard-right congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida accused the then speaker Kevin McCarthy of cutting a “a secret side deal” with Joe Biden to provide additional funding to Ukraine. McCarthy rejected that characterization, but Gaetz’s charge underscored how the speaker’s support for Ukraine had become a wedge issue between him and the hard-right flank of his caucus.McCarthy was then removed as speaker, after Gaetz and seven other House Republicans joined Democrats in supporting a motion to vacate the chair.How has the new House speaker navigated the negotiations?Although Johnson initially expressed support for Ukraine following the Russian invasion in February 2022, his stance has since shifted. The group Republicans for Ukraine gave Johnson a grade of “F” on its congressional scorecard, noting that he has repeatedly voted against measures aimed at strengthening US support for Ukraine.Last week, Johnson said he was “confident and optimistic” that Congress would approve aid for both Israel and Ukraine, but he has suggested the two priorities should not be linked in one bill. Responding to Young’s letter on Monday, Johnson reiterated his demand that any aid for Ukraine must be tied to stiffer border policies.“The Biden administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference’s legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers,” Johnson said on X, formerly Twitter.“House Republicans have resolved that any national security supplemental package must begin with our own border. We believe both issues can be agreed upon if Senate Democrats and the White House will negotiate reasonably.”Can Congress still pass another aid package before the end of the year?That remains highly unclear, as the two parties currently appear far apart in their negotiations. But one of the lead Republican negotiators, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, voiced confidence on Monday that lawmakers would ultimately reach a consensus.“We continue to work to find a solution that will protect our national security, stop the human trafficking, and prevent the cartels from exploiting the obvious loopholes in our law,” Lankford said on X. “That is the goal [and] we will continue to work until we get it right.”What are the potential consequences if a deal fails?In her letter, Young predicted that the loss of US financial support would “kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories”.Such a scenario could cause the war to spill over into a broader regional conflict involving America’s other European allies, Young warned, and that perilous situation may endanger US troops abroad.“I must stress that helping Ukraine defend itself and secure its future as a sovereign, democratic, independent, and prosperous nation advances our national security interests,” Young said. “The path that Congress chooses will reverberate for many years to come.” More