More stories

  • in

    America’s Toxic Gun Culture Is Invading Our Politics

    .g-seriestitle-wrapper {
    width: 600px;
    margin: 0px auto;
    max-width: 100%;
    font-family: nyt-imperial;
    font-size: 16px;
    color: #696969;
    font-weight: 100;
    font-style: italic;
    line-height: 23px;
    border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc;
    padding-bottom: 15px;
    }

    section#violentextremism-seriestext {
    margin: 0px auto 15px;
    }

    .g-seriestitle-wrapper a:link, .g-seriestitle-wrapper a:visited {
    color: inherit;
    text-decoration: underline;
    text-decoration-thickness: 1px;
    text-underline-offset: 2px;
    text-decoration-color: #bbb;
    }

    This editorial is the fifth in a series, “The Danger Within,” urging readers to understand the danger of extremist violence and possible solutions. Read more about the series in a note from Kathleen Kingsbury, the Times Opinion editor.

    A year ago, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky posted a Christmas photo on Twitter. In it, Mr. Massie, his wife and five children pose in front of their ornament-bedecked tree. Each person is wearing a big grin and holding an assault weapon. “Merry Christmas! ps. Santa, please bring ammo,” Mr. Massie wrote on Twitter.The photo was posted on Dec. 4, just four days after a mass shooting at a school in Oxford, Mich., that left four students dead and seven other people injured.The grotesque timing led many Democrats and several Republicans to criticize Mr. Massie for sharing the photo. Others lauded it and nearly 80,000 people liked his tweet. “That’s my kind of Christmas card!” wrote Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who then posted a photo of her four sons brandishing similar weapons.These weapons, lightweight and endlessly customizable, aren’t often used in the way their devotees imagine — to defend themselves and their families. (In a recent comprehensive survey, only 13 percent of all defensive use of guns involved any type of rifle.) Nevertheless, in the 18 years since the end of the federal assault weapons ban, the country has been flooded with an estimated 25 million AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles, making them one of the most popular in the United States. When used in mass shootings, the AR-15 makes those acts of violence far more deadly. It has become the gun of choice for mass killers, from Las Vegas to Uvalde, Sandy Hook to Buffalo.The AR-15 has also become a potent talisman for right-wing politicians and many of their voters. That’s a particularly disturbing trend at a time when violent political rhetoric and actual political violence in the United States are rising.Addressing violent right-wing extremism is a challenge on many fronts: This board has argued for stronger enforcement of state anti-militia laws, better tracking of extremists in law enforcement and the military, and stronger international cooperation to tackle it as a transnational issue. Most important, there is a civil war raging inside the Republican Party between those who support democracy and peaceful politics and those who support far-right extremism. That conflict has repercussions for all of us, and the fetishization of guns is a pervasive part of it.The prominence of guns in campaign ads is a good barometer of their political potency. Democrats have sometimes used guns in ads — in 2010, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, running for the Senate, shot a hole through a copy of the cap-and-trade climate bill with a single-shot hunting rifle. Since then, guns have all but disappeared from Democratic messaging. But in the most recent midterm elections, Republican politicians ran more than 100 ads featuring guns and more than a dozen that featured semiautomatic military-style rifles.In one of the most violent of those ads, Eric Greitens, a Republican candidate for Senate in Missouri and a former Navy SEAL, kicks in the door of a house and barges in with a group of men dressed in tactical gear and holding assault rifles. Mr. Greitens boasts that the group is hunting RINOs — a derogatory term for “Republicans in name only.” The ad continues, “Get a RINO hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn’t expire until we save our country.”Twitter flagged the ad, Facebook banned it for violating its terms of service, and Mr. Greitens lost his race for office. He may have been playacting in the ad, but many other heavily armed people with far-right political views are not. Openly carried assault rifles have become an all too common feature of political events around the country and are having a chilling effect on the exercise of political speech.This intimidating display of weaponry isn’t a bipartisan phenomenon: A recent New York Times analysis examined more than 700 demonstrations where people openly carrying guns showed up. At about 77 percent of the protests, those who were armed “represented right-wing views, such as opposition to L.G.B.T.Q. rights and abortion access, hostility to racial justice rallies and support for former President Donald J. Trump’s lie of winning the 2020 election.”As we’ve seen at libraries that host drag queen book readings, Juneteenth celebrations and Pride marches, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is fast running up against the First Amendment’s right to peaceably assemble. Securing that right, and addressing political violence in general, requires addressing the armed intimidation that has become commonplace in public places and the gun culture that makes it possible.A growing number of American civilians have an unhealthy obsession with “tactical culture” and rifles like the AR-15. It’s a fringe movement among the 81 million American gun owners, but it is one of several alarming trends that have coincided with the increase in political violence in this country, along with the spread of far-right extremist groups, an explosion of anti-government sentiment and the embrace of deranged conspiracy theories by many Republican politicians. Understanding how these currents feed one another is crucial to understanding and reversing political violence and right-wing extremism.The American gun industry has reaped an estimated $1 billion in sales over the past decade from AR-15-style guns, and it has done so by using and cultivating their status as near mythical emblems of power, hyper-patriotism and manhood. Earlier this year, an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform found that the gun industry explicitly markets its products by touting their military pedigree and making “covert references to violent white supremacists like the Boogaloo Boys.” These tactics “prey on young men’s insecurities by claiming their weapons will put them ‘at the top of the testosterone food chain.’”This marketing and those sales come at a significant cost to America’s social fabric.In his recent book “Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry That Radicalized America,” Ryan Busse, a former firearms company executive, described attending a Black Lives Matter rally with his son in Montana in 2020. At the rally, dozens of armed men, some of them wearing insignia from two paramilitary groups — the 3 Percenters and the Oath Keepers — appeared, carrying assault rifles. After one of the armed men assaulted his 12-year-old son, Mr. Busse had his epiphany.“For years prior to this protest, advertising executives in the gun industry had been encouraging the ‘tactical lifestyle,’” Mr. Busse wrote. The gun industry created a culture that “glorified weapons of war and encouraged followers to ‘own the libs.’”The formula is a simple one: More rage, more fear, more gun sales.A portion of those proceeds are then funneled back into politics through millions of dollars in direct contributions, lobbying and spending on outside groups, most often in support of Republicans.All told, gun rights groups spent a record $15.8 million on lobbying in 2021 and $2 million in the first quarter of 2022, the transparency group OpenSecrets reported. “From 1989 to 2022, gun rights groups contributed $50.5 million to federal candidates and party committees,” the group found. “Of that, 99 percent of direct contributions went to Republicans.” More

  • in

    Donate This Holiday Season: The Rising Seas Institute Needs Your Help

    Bret Stephens: Gail, I hope you had a lovely and restful Thanksgiving weekend. At the risk of turning the meaning of the holiday on its head, I wanted to ask you what you don’t feel grateful for, at least politically speaking.Gail Collins: Well, before we go there, let me start by saying I am very grateful I didn’t have a dinner date at Mar-a-Lago. Which I guess goes without saying. But gee, Donald Trump broke bread with Kanye West and Nick Fuentes, who is both a Holocaust denier and a white supremacist? Good lord.Bret: What’s shocking is that people are shocked. Still, it’s pretty nauseating to me that the Republican Jewish Coalition — whose unofficial motto should be “Hit me baby, one more time” — could not bring itself to condemn the former president by name.For my part, I’m emphatically not grateful to live in a country where there was a mass shooting last week at a Walmart in Virginia, which was preceded by a mass shooting at a gay club in Colorado, which was preceded by a mass shooting at the University of Virginia, which occurred the same weekend that four students at the University of Idaho were stabbed to death, which came just a few days after four people were shot dead in a home in Maryland. And I’m just scratching the surface here.Gail: The Idaho tragedy expands the story beyond shootings, and I hope you’ve got thoughts on the nation’s overall pathology about violence.Bret: I know the research hasn’t proved this, but I suspect violent video games also have a lot to do with both socially isolating and numbing the minds of troubled teenage boys. If I ever get to be king of a small island, I’d probably ban them all — except, of course, Pac-Man and Donkey Kong.Gail: OK, am loving the idea of you as an anti-game crusader.But the bottom line in the vast majority of these terrible tragedies is guns. Easy access to firearms turns everyday psychopaths into mass murderers, and I can’t understand why the nation doesn’t rise up in outrage.People are talking about using red flag laws to report gun owners who might be dangerous, but I just don’t buy that as an answer. The stories we hear after these tragedies suggest most of them involve shooters whose families would never pursue such an effortful, seeking-outside-help approach.Bret: We’re in total accord. Any sane society would raise the legal age to buy guns to at least 21, even 25, limit magazine sizes, impose draconian penalties on illegal weapons traffic and possession and restore stop-question-frisk as a legitimate police tactic so long as it isn’t used in a racially discriminatory manner.Gail: Well, we’ve finally coasted to a disagreement there at the end. Try convincing law-abiding young Black men that if police are encouraged to stop and frisk, they won’t misuse the go-ahead.But please, let’s get back to guns.Bret: I’m reminded of Justice Robert Jackson’s line about how the Bill of Rights shouldn’t be turned into a suicide pact. We need to bring that idea back to life when it comes to the Second Amendment.Gail: President Biden just called for a ban on assault weapons, but it’s not gonna happen. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the leader on this issue, says he doesn’t have the votes now, and it sure isn’t going to pass once Kevin McCarthy takes over.Bret: Democrats and moderate Republicans need to get smarter about the gun debate. Calling for blanket bans just won’t work in this political climate. But I bet most Americans can be won over to the idea that if you can’t buy a beer, you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. Not that it will sway House Republicans this term, but I’m thinking longer term.Gail: We’ll see. But to digress, tell me who you’re rooting for on the political front now.Bret: You mean Congress? Well, let me start by rooting for Herschel Walker’s defeat in Georgia’s runoff election. And I say that as someone who isn’t exactly sympathetic to his opponent.Gail: Yeah, Walker’s accidental announcement on Fox that “this erection is about the people” was certainly a comment that launched a thousand memes.And, of course, a reminder of why he’s such a disaster as a candidate for a partial term, let alone a full one.Bret: If his entire campaign has made one thing clear, it is that we would all be better off if he were to lose both.As for the House, the most I can hope for is that they do as little harm as possible. Couldn’t the 118th Congress just take a very long nap?Gail: Well, they certainly have stuff to do. Like, um, keeping the government in operation. Which would require raising the debt limit.Could be tricky even with the current competent Democratic leadership. Are you onboard?Bret: Yes. I’m all for curbing government spending, but the debt limit is the dumbest way to achieve it. It’s like trying to keep an alcoholic sober by locking up his liquor stash in a glass box.Gail: We’re certainly in the holiday spirit. Love your analogy.Bret: I also think Congress can do some good if it pushes the administration to give Ukraine the kinds of arms it needs to defeat Russia and Taiwan the weapons it needs to deter China. That’s why I’m glad Mike Rogers of Alabama will be head of the Armed Services Committee, and Michael McCaul of Texas will be head of foreign affairs. They’re serious men.Gail: Well, as you know, I try not to talk about foreign affairs …Bret: On the other hand, having Ohio’s Jim Jordan as head of the Judiciary Committee is about as enticing as a pimple-popping video on YouTube: You’ll watch in horrified fascination and then you’ll want to throw up.Gail: Ha! Happy to just say: Your party.Bret: Not any longer.Speaking of Congress, Gail, any thoughts on Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York as House minority leader?Gail: First, I should say again how great it was that Nancy Pelosi was ready to let some new folks have a turn in charge.And Jeffries seems like a fine pick. Well past time for a Black member of the House to take the top job for the Democrats, and in Jeffries you have a congressman with a long track record of progressive leadership combined with the skill to go moderate when the need arises.You have any thoughts? And how would you compare him with McCarthy on the Republican side?Bret: Jeffries was impressive as one of the House managers last year in Trump’s second impeachment. And he’s pro-Israel, which is a relief given the anti-Israel drift of some of his more progressive colleagues. I would probably disagree with him on most issues, but he seems like a good choice. And as for any comparison with McCarthy: I generally prefer vertebrates to invertebrates.Gail: Hehehehe.Bret: Gail, can I switch to something a bit more positive? In the spirit of the season, our bosses have asked us to suggest some charities we think are especially worthy of support. Last year, I endorsed the Hunts Point Alliance for Children, which provides educational opportunities for kids in one of New York’s most impoverished neighborhoods; Compass to Care, which helps defray the transportation costs of families with children who have cancer; and Minds Matter, which does amazing work helping gifted kids from underprivileged homes prepare academically for college.I continue to admire all of these organizations. This year I’ll add another: the Rising Seas Institute, which organized the trip I took last summer to Greenland and helped reorient my thinking about climate change. Its leader, John Englander, is one of the most thoughtful and gracious people I’ve ever met — even if we still disagree about a thing or three.What about you? More

  • in

    Most Candidates Running on Crime Don’t Have Much Power to Solve It

    Your congressman doesn’t control the police budget. Your senator probably doesn’t know where the worst hot spots are.Politicians around the country have promised in the closing days of the midterm election to crack down on crime. Would-be governors will crack down on crime. Senators will crack down on crime. Members of Congress will do it, too. Obviously, their opponents won’t.The law-and-order messaging is often disconnected from the nuance of crime trends (in 2022, homicide is up in some places, but down in others like New York City; yes, Oklahoma has higher violent crime rates than California). But it’s also devoid of the reality that these offices generally have little power to bend crime trends on the ground tomorrow.Crime surges and falls for reasons that experts don’t fully understand, and it’s hard for even the most proven ideas to quickly reverse its direction. But the people with ready levers to pull are not sitting in the Senate. And your current sense of order in your community is definitely not controlled by your congressman.“You’re not going to fix the problems from there,” said Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and consultant with AH Datalytics in New Orleans (and a former Upshot contributor). “If you want to fix the problems, go run for mayor.”Your governor isn’t going to solve a spike in murder, he added. And it’s generally not the governor who’s been failing to solve it, either. As for Senate candidates who say they will make sure we keep criminals behind bars who don’t belong on our streets?“U.S. senators don’t determine state prison release policies,” said John MacDonald, a professor of criminology and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. “Who you elect to Senate is going to have zero impact on state prisons.”When voters choose candidates for higher office thinking of crime, they often misunderstand where and how criminal justice decisions get made, said Amy Lerman, a political scientist at Berkeley. The federal government controls a small fraction of the whole picture. In the U.S., there are 51 prison systems, and about 18,000 police departments.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Biden’s Speech: In a prime-time address, President Biden denounced Republicans who deny the legitimacy of elections, warning that the country’s democratic traditions are on the line.State Supreme Court Races: The traditionally overlooked contests have emerged this year as crucial battlefields in the struggle over the course of American democracy.Democrats’ Mounting Anxiety: Top Democratic officials are openly second-guessing their party’s pitch and tactics, saying Democrats have failed to unite around one central message.Social Security and Medicare: Republicans, eyeing a midterms victory, are floating changes to the safety net programs. Democrats have seized on the proposals to galvanize voters.If you see a police officer while walking or driving around your community, that officer is most likely a local one. And those local officers generally report to locally elected bosses like sheriffs, or people appointed by locally elected officials like mayors, said Thomas Ogorzalek, a visiting scholar at the Center for Urban Research at CUNY.Those are the people, in turn, who decide what share of the city budget the police get, how many officers they’ll hire, where those officers will focus, if they’ll wear body cameras, and whether they’ll work alongside violence interruption workers, social workers and mental health clinicians.This may seem counterintuitive to voters: Broad crime trends are often national in scale (that was the case when crime plummeted across the country starting in the 1990s, and when gun violence surged just about everywhere during the pandemic). But it doesn’t follow that the answers are primarily federal ones.“We have a national problem that isn’t solved at the national level,” said Phillip Atiba Goff, a Yale professor and co-founder of the Center for Policing Equity. “But our national narrative makes it harder to solve it at the local level — which is the only level where it’s going to get solved.”The federal government does play an important role. It funnels money to states and local governments, and often uses that money to incentivize local police to shift policies. Major components of the 1994 crime bill, for example, dedicated federal money to hire local police officers, fund victims’ services and construct state prisons.The federal government has also sent military-grade equipment to local police, although research suggests that has done little to reduce crime. In its other roles, the federal government offers technical assistance to local agencies and supports research on which policing strategies work.And it has a bully pulpit. President Biden signed an executive order in May directing federal law enforcement to restrict tactics like chokeholds and no-knock warrants. While the order has a limited reach, it could still nudge cultural changes among local departments. And individual senators and members of Congress can use their own megaphones to push policing priorities to local officials.As a whole, Congress could play a bigger role — but often chooses not to.“One of the reasons that we talk about the federal government having so little authority is not just because it can’t do a lot of things, but also because it won’t do certain things,” said Thomas Abt, a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, and chair of the Violent Crime Working Group. “The single biggest thing that the federal government could do to limit violent crime in particular would be to pass reasonable regulations that limit access to deadly firearms.”Relaxed gun laws at the federal and state level have allowed more guns on the street and made the problem of local violent crime worse, said Darrel Stephens, a retired chief of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, and former longtime head of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.With that solution off the table, the Council on Criminal Justice released earlier this year a report on tangible actions that could reduce violence now, all of them aimed at local officials. A central tactic involves identifying the small subset of residents and places that drive the bulk of violence, a pattern that occurs across cities. Officials can then target those areas with police resources, outreach workers, city programs and community partnerships.“The strongest evidence deals with focusing on concentrations,” Mr. Stephens said, including crime that victimizes a small concentration of people. “What you’re trying to do is to tailor your response to your understanding of what’s contributing to the problem.”That might mean changing traffic patterns on specific streets, or offering behavioral therapy programs to particular residents. That level of specificity isn’t something you would expect a senator or governor to know much about: this intersection, this family, this apartment with unsecured doors.Local officials, on the other hand, oversee many of the levers voters may not think of as part of crime policy — whether that’s street lighting, public schools, summer jobs programs, recreation departments or housing programs. And they wield the most influence over other kinds of disorder, like uncleared trash, graffiti and vacant properties, that may shape the sense of unease voters connect to their fears of crime.Those other tools are “extremely important,” said Art Acevedo, a former chief of police in Houston, Austin and Miami. He offered as an example pre-K education, citing the greater likelihood that students who eventually drop out of school will go to prison.Mr. Acevedo lamented national politicians who parachute into communities after mass shootings, offer prayers and no legislation, while local police and elected officials face those families and manage everyday violence.“When it comes to actually being closest to it, and actually focusing on good policy — rather than good politics — it’s those local officials,” he said.There is a parallel case that good crime policy at the state and federal level is inseparable from education investments, safety-net supports and housing programs that could help break up concentrated poverty and despair. Research, for example, suggests that people newly released from prison who are given federal health coverage through Medicaid are less likely to return to prison.But these interconnected benefits play out over years, not immediately in the midst of a crime surge. And this is not the conversation about crime that’s happening in 30-second campaign ads and on debate stages with an election around the corner. More

  • in

    In Ukraine’s South, Fierce Fighting and Deadly Costs

    AT THE KHERSON FRONT, Ukraine — The commander banged on the door furiously.“I need help!” he shouted.When Tetiana Kozyr opened up, the commander rushed in, carrying a young soldier on his shoulders. She said the young man was sunburned, thin and gravely wounded.The Ukrainians were trying to recapture her village, the smallest dot on the most detailed military maps. Russian forces had just blown up three Ukrainian tanks. Flames leaped off the roofs of neighboring houses.The commander laid the young man gently down on Ms. Kozyr’s kitchen floor and then ripped open a bandage pack and thrust it against his chest and neck, which were badly bleeding. Ms. Kozyr hovered over them, feeling helpless and terrified in her own kitchen, watching the commander try to save the young man’s life.“He looked so scared,” said Ms. Kozyr, who lived on a small farm and recounted this scene, which was corroborated by others from her village. “I had to turn away.”Outside her house, several other Ukrainian soldiers lay face down in the grass.Ukraine’s southern offensive was the most highly anticipated military action of the summer. Forecast by Ukrainian officials for weeks, its goal was to push the Russians back from a strategic region along the coast, bolster the confidence of a battered citizenry and prove to allies that Ukraine could make good use of Western-supplied weapons.That push forward has continued, even as Ukraine has made a more dramatic surge this month in the northeast, routing Russian forces. Ukraine is regaining territory in the south, though slowly, and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is concerned enough about suffering an embarrassing setback that he has refused to let his commanders retreat from the city of Kherson, according to American officials.A Ukrainian tank this month in a village in southern Ukraine.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesIhor Kozub, the commander of a volunteer military unit near the southern city of Mykolaiv, said the Ukrainians were suffering “great losses” because “we don’t have ammunition.”Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesBut overall, the south remains a different story from the northeast. Interviews with dozens of commanders, ordinary soldiers, medics, village leaders and civilians who recently escaped the conflict zone portray a more difficult and costly campaign: The fighting is grinding, grueling and steep in casualties, perhaps the most heartbreaking battle in Ukraine right now.Russian forces are deeply dug in here, and this weekend, the Kremlin is trying to cement its gains by holding highly contentious referendums in occupied areas to annex them. Ukrainian officials say they have little choice but to attack.They are racing to recapture territory before the October rains turn the roads here into impassable sludge. And they need to keep showing to the world, especially before a nasty winter sets in and tests their allies’ resolve, that they can push the Russians out.The Ukrainian government does not usually disclose casualty figures, but the soldiers and commanders interviewed in the past week portrayed the battlefield losses as “high” and “massive.” They described large offensives in which columns of Ukrainian tanks and armored vehicles tried to cross open fields only to be pounded mercilessly by Russian artillery and blown up by Russian mines.One Ukrainian soldier, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to publicly discuss casualties, said that during a recent assault, “we lost 50 guys in two hours.” In another place, said the soldier, who works closely with different frontline units, “hundreds” of Ukrainian troops were killed or wounded while trying to take a single village, which is still in Russian hands.Across the occupied south — a wide crescent of fields, villages and cities along the Dnipro River and the Black Sea — the Russians have built formidable defenses: trenches zigzagging along irrigation canals; fortified bunkers; pillboxes; foxholes; even tank trenches carved out of the earth by bulldozers and covered with concrete slabs that enable the Russians to blast shells from positions that are very difficult for the Ukrainians to hit.Some people in southern villages have spent much of the past six months living in basement shelters like these.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesCountless homes have been damaged, including this one, where the remains of a rocket are still stuck in the fence.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesThe Russians are determined to keep this chunk of Ukraine because it guards the Crimean Peninsula that Russia annexed in 2014. It also serves as a nexus of vital waterways and energy facilities, like the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s biggest.Despite the high stakes, there is little face-to-face combat between the two sides, like there was in the early days of the war in the suburbs of Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital. Each Ukrainian soldier along the southern front carries an assault rifle, but few have fired their weapon.In the south, death comes at long range. It is indiscriminate and total. When the artillery shells hit, young men press themselves to the earth, hands cupped over their ears, mouths open to let the blast wave ripple through their bodies.“This is a different kind of war,” said Iryna Vereshchagina, a volunteer doctor working near the front lines. “We’re attacking the Russians but there’s a big payment for this.”She said that of the hundreds of battlefield casualties she has treated, she has not seen a single gunshot wound.“So many people are getting blown up,” she said.She looked down at her boots.“Sometimes,” she said, “there are just pieces of people left.”Russian shelling has destroyed much of the landscape in southern Ukraine, gouging countless craters in the earth.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesIryna Vereshchagina, left, a volunteer doctor working near the front lines, with her colleagues in southern Ukraine.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesPart of the reason Ukraine is facing stiff resistance in the south is because of its highly effective information campaign about the counteroffensive. The signals it sent were so convincing that the Russians hastily redeployed tanks, artillery and thousands of troops, including some of their better trained units, from the northeast to the south.That left the Kharkiv region wide open for the taking, which is what happened two and a half weeks ago. But it also left the south defended by tens of thousands of well-equipped Russian soldiers. And going on the attack is always more perilous than defending an entrenched position, especially when the enemy knows the other side is coming.All of this has unsettled some Ukrainian soldiers fighting along the front line.“The problem is that we are advancing with no artillery preparation, without suppressing their firing positions,” said Ihor Kozub, the commander of a volunteer military unit near the southern city of Mykolaiv.He said the Ukrainian army was suffering “great losses” because “we don’t have ammunition,” and he begged for the United States to send more.“All these heroic attacks are made with so much blood,” he said. “It’s terrible.”A military spokeswoman defended the Ukrainian strategy.“The enemy’s superiority in artillery does not decide the outcome,” said Nataliia Humeniuk, the head of the communications division for Ukraine’s southern command. “History knows cases of unique battles where the quality of combat was decisive. Not the number of weapons.”She did not provide information about the number of casualties, but Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, recently said that Ukraine was losing 50 soldiers a day.At a shelter in Mykolaiv, a southern Ukrainian city, people who recently fled besieged villages gathered for lunch.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesCivilians lined up for fresh water in Mykolaiv.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesThe battle for the south is a lot different from Ukraine’s lightning offensive in the northeast, where the Russians troops were clearly not prepared. The Ukrainians have recaptured only a few hundred square miles in the south, less than 10 times what they recaptured in the northeast in a few days.But Ukrainian commanders in the south always knew it was going to be a grinding battle. The strategy has been to pinch off Russian supply lines by cutting roads and destroying bridges, slowly strangling the Russians’ ability to bring in food, fuel and ammunition.One American soldier serving with a Ukrainian unit in Mykolaiv said it was no small feat to take villages from the Russians when the Russians knew they were coming for months.“It might look like a slog,” he said, insisting on anonymity for security reasons. “But for us, it’s progress.”Weeks before the counteroffensive began, Ukrainian troops, including a sniper known as Pirate, started eyeing targets.Pirate is his code name — he did not want to divulge his real name. He is 29 years old with shining blue eyes, meaty shoulders and a skull-and-crossbones patch stuck on his chest plate. For three days, he said, he lay on his stomach squinting through a scope at a squad of Russian soldiers. They were digging fortifications in a village near Kherson. Pirate and another sniper hid in a tree line almost a mile away.At last, Pirate said, they identified the officer in charge, who was wearing a white T-shirt. Pirate and his partner calibrated their sights, gauged the wind — a soft, side wind — and counted: one, two, three. Then they squeezed their triggers.Their two bullets flew across the open fields, outracing the speed of sound. Before he even heard the crack of the rifles, the Russian officer crumpled to the ground.Ukrainian volunteer soldiers patrol in southern Ukraine. In a few weeks, the October rains will drench this area and turn the roads into impassable sludge.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesUkrainian soldiers in the trenches this month. Commanders say they always knew it would be a grinding battle in the south.Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times“I try not to think about who he was,” Pirate said.He spoke from a demolished building near the front lines that has been turned into a base. This is the picture of many southern towns. They have been utterly destroyed: the schools, the homes with blown-out roofs, the power poles lying in the muddy roads, the pine trees split apart, their branches hanging down like broken arms.Even the earth itself has been gouged by missiles and rockets, leaving moonlike craters everywhere, some with steel fins still sticking out. The smell of dried sunflowers lingers in the air. So many sunflower farms, a major industry, lie burned and deserted.Ms. Kozyr, who had watched the wounded soldier lying on her kitchen floor, said her village had been destroyed, too. It used to be a hamlet of a few hundred people who tended small farms and raised livestock. Now no one is left. The Russians captured it in March and the Ukrainians fought hard to liberate it at the end of August, when they officially announced the beginning of the offensive. She fled a few days later and now lives in a displaced persons shelter in the city of Zaporizhzhia.She said that when the commander first arrived with the wounded soldier, she panicked.“I was yelling at him: ‘Why did you bring him here? The Russians will kill us all!’” she said.But the commander just stepped through the doorway, desperate to find shelter. The village was on fire, in the middle of two armies blasting each other.She shrunk back as her husband and the commander pressed bandages to the young man’s wounds. Shrapnel had sliced through his back and lungs. Her kitchen floor was soon covered in blood.That night, she and her husband slept in their cellar. The commander curled up next to the wounded soldier on the kitchen floor.When Ms. Kozyr stepped outside the next morning, to check on her calf and pigs, she passed by the kitchen and peered through the window.The soldier’s hands were curled, his body stiff. He was dead.She started crying at the memory of it, pulling a small rag out of her pocket and wiping her eyes. But she did not question the counteroffensive.“It needed to be done,” she said. And then she repeated herself, a little more softly. “It needed to be done.”Smoke and debris after what was likely an airstrike near a Ukrainian military position on Tuesday. The Russians have much more ammunition than the Ukrainians and pound their forces every day. Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesOleksandra Mykolyshyn More

  • in

    Liz Cheney Paid the Price of ‘True Patriotism’

    More from our inbox:Aid the AfghansMr. President, Please Wear a Bike HelmetGuns in PhiladelphiaThat’s No Theory; It’s a LieRepresentative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, facing an uncertain political future, has been widely seen as weighing a 2024 presidential campaign.Kim Raff for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Cheney, a Vocal Critic of Trump, Loses to a Candidate He Backed” (front page, Aug. 17):On Tuesday, Americans witnessed the price an individual often pays for exhibiting true patriotism.Sadly, the vast majority of Republicans continue to embrace the former president’s “Big Lie” about a stolen election, ignore his attempted coup and promote baseless conspiracy theories.Standing apart from their Republican colleagues, 10 G.O.P. members of the House, recognizing the serious threats that Donald Trump and his MAGA allies posed to our republic, voted to impeach the former president — two of them subsequently volunteering for and serving nobly on the Jan. 6 select committee.Each knew their actions could — and for eight did — end any realistic hopes for re-election, among them Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.Patriotism is not about waving the flag or chanting “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” Rather, it requires an unwavering commitment to the truth, the Constitution and protecting our fragile democracy.For her courage in defense of the Constitution, knowing she was likely sacrificing her political career, Representative Liz Cheney, together with Representative Kinzinger and, for his actions on Jan. 6, former Vice President Mike Pence, should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for demonstrating the true meaning and often cost of patriotism.Dick NewbertLanghorne, Pa.To the Editor:Liz Cheney lost a fair election, but she was hardly defeated. As she said to her supporters, “We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.”Her righteous opposition to Donald Trump and her defense of the Constitution and the rule of law stand in stark contrast to her critics in the Republican Party whose names belong in the ash heap of history. If, if, the Republican Party survives Donald Trump, it will be because of the leadership of Liz Cheney and a few other brave men and women.Liz Cheney is truly a “Profile in Courage.”Mary Ann LynchCape Elizabeth, MaineTo the Editor:The new Trump-aligned Republican Party has not just left its old house of small government, low taxes and cutting regulations behind. It has locked the door and burned it to the ground. It has left behind a party of conservatism and issues-oriented ideas and replaced it with a party coalescing around one very deeply flawed man.Liz Cheney has been a lonely independent voice in a party that values servitude to Donald Trump. She has watched fellow Republicans like the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and her replacement in leadership, Elise Stefanik, turn their backs on her as they sought the boss’s approval while leaving their consciences behind. She has proved herself to be a historic leader in the process.This is a turning point for our democracy. We have defeated slavery, a horrendous depression and McCarthyism and passed historic civil rights legislation, and we are at another inflection point. It will take leadership from Liz Cheney and others to really make America great again.Elliott MillerBala Cynwyd, Pa.To the Editor:I’m confused. Voters in Wyoming rejected Liz Cheney because they know that elections can be, and have been, rigged and she didn’t espouse that belief. So please help me understand why they are so convinced that this election was valid and that they just ousted Ms. Cheney? Asking for a friend.Barbara RosenFullerton, Calif.Aid the AfghansA Taliban guard looking on as Afghans receive food in Kabul. The country has been afflicted by a hunger crisis in the year since the Taliban’s takeover.Victor J. Blue for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Won’t Release $3.5 Billion in Afghan Aid” (news article, Aug. 16):The U.S. government’s delay has dire humanitarian consequences for the Afghan people. Assistance, a functioning banking sector and a more stable economy are essential to deliver services, bolster infrastructure and create livelihood opportunities for Afghan citizens, yet foreign reserves remain frozen, the central bank is still not functional and development assistance largely remains withdrawn.Afghanistan faces an unprecedented crisis, with 90 percent of its population facing food insecurity and more than half its population dependent on humanitarian aid. While ensuring that funds are not used to harbor terrorists is essential, so is taking urgent action to address the drivers of the crisis.If fundamental economic issues are not addressed by all sides, millions of Afghans will continue to suffer, and we will be in a relentless cycle of humanitarian response to meet people’s basic needs. The Afghan people need and deserve more.Bernice G. RomeroFresno, Calif.The writer is executive director, Norwegian Refugee Council USA.Mr. President, Please Wear a Bike HelmetPresident Biden on Kiawah Island on Sunday. Mr. Biden has deep ties to South Carolina.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “No Fuss for Biden, Just Sun and Peace” (Kiawah Island Memo, Aug. 17):As a survivor of a bike crash in which a bicycle helmet most likely saved my life, I was stunned to see a photograph of the president of the United States, of all people, riding on a beach, wearing a baseball cap instead of protective headgear.Where was the Secret Service to intervene and insist on a bike helmet for President Biden? Based on the photographic evidence, it seems that the president’s own security detail was without a helmet, too.Protecting presidential documents is a national security issue, for sure; protecting a president’s noggin surely should be one, too.Tom GoodmanNew YorkGuns in PhiladelphiaTeens hold up signs against violence while standing near the Octavius V. Catto Memorial at City Hall as they participate in a “Die In” to draw attention to gun violence on April 14, 2022, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “As Shootings Soar, Philadelphia Deals With Being Flooded With Guns” (news article, Aug. 12):Firearm violence is now the leading cause of death in the U.S. for children and adolescents 1 to 19. As a pediatrician in Philadelphia, I regularly screen caregivers for firearm ownership and counsel on safe storage practices to reduce firearm injuries. The adolescents referred to in the article remind us of the importance of screening our teenage patients for the presence of — or easy access to — firearms in homes, schools and communities.It has recently been shown that exposure to neighborhood firearm violence in Philadelphia is associated with an increase in children’s acute mental health symptoms leading to emergency department visits.While there is no simple solution to halting the influx of weapons in our city, screening teenagers at well-child medical visits — ahead of acute crises related to violence — can assist with connecting those at risk with community-based supports. Debates on tackling the firearm violence epidemic ought to center on evidence-based strategies to build trust with vulnerable populations, not actions that stigmatize like stop-and-frisk.Deniz CataltepePhiladelphiaThe writer is a member of the board of directors of SAFE: Scrubs Addressing the Firearm Epidemic.That’s No Theory; It’s a Lie USA Today Network, via ReutersTo the Editor:Why are we still using the term “conspiracy theory”?In science, a theory is a proposed explanation supported by confirmed facts and contradicted by no confirmed fact. In laymen’s informal talk, “theory” is often used as a synonym for “educated guess.”But the nonsense promoted by people such as Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene fits neither definition.Can we please call their attempts to inflame the gullible what they really are: conspiracy lies and conspiracy fantasies?Mike MeeEndicott, N.Y. More

  • in

    Beto O’Rourke broke a Texas fund-raising record with a $27.6 million haul, his campaign said.

    Beto O’Rourke set a new Texas fund-raising record for state office with a $27.6 million haul over four months in the governor’s race, his campaign announced on Friday, saying that it had outpaced Gov. Greg Abbott, the Republican incumbent, in the tightening contest.But the campaign of Mr. Abbott, who still holds a cash-on-hand advantage over Mr. O’Rourke, reported that he had raised nearly $25 million during the same period ending in June.Mr. O’Rourke’s campaign received over a half-million donations at the same time that he was staunchly critical of gun control laws in Texas after a mass shooting in May at an elementary school in Uvalde, and after the state imposed restrictions on abortions last month.Both issues have boosted the national profile of Mr. O’Rourke, a Democrat and former congressman who ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2018 and later for president.Mr. O’Rourke received widespread attention in May when he interrupted a news conference held by Mr. Abbott in Uvalde after an 18-year-old gunman armed with an AR-15-style rifle killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school. Mr. O’Rourke, who supports banning assault weapons, accused Mr. Abbott of “doing nothing” to prevent gun violence before Mr. Abbott’s allies told Mr. O’Rourke to “shut up” and said that he was an “embarrassment.”Two recent polls — one conducted by the University of Houston and one by the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas in Austin — had Mr. O’Rourke within five and within six percentage points of Mr. Abbott.“We’re receiving support from people in every part of Texas,” Mr. O’Rourke said in a statement and pointed to “keeping our kids safe” and “protecting a woman’s freedom to make her own decisions about her own body, health care and future” as significant concerns.Gardner Pate, who is Mr. Abbott’s campaign chairman, said in a statement that Mr. Abbott’s re-election effort was well positioned, with nearly $46 million in cash on hand as of the end of June and having raised nearly $68 million since last June.“Our campaign has also pre-purchased more than $20 million in advertising for the fall, and begun funding an extensive block-walking program to get voters to the polls this November,” Mr. Pate said.Mr. O’Rourke’s campaign did not disclose how much cash on hand it had through June, but a February filing showed that he had nearly $6.8 million.Official campaign finance reports for Mr. O’Rourke and Mr. Abbott, due on Friday to the Texas Ethics Commission, have not yet been posted. It was not immediately clear who held the previous Texas fund-raising record for state office. More

  • in

    ‘Our Little Town’: A Fourth of July Parade Turned Deadly

    More from our inbox:Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Tough TaskElection Workers’ DignityA section of downtown Highland Park, Ill., where six people were killed and dozens injured at a parade remained sealed off as a crime scene on Tuesday. Mary Mathis for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Gunfire Tears Into a Parade Near Chicago” (front page, July 5):Well, America, it has happened in our little town. You know our town, right? It’s the one people are sending thoughts and prayers to. It’s the town where people say, “We never thought this could happen here.” It’s the safe town with wonderful cops and a sense of community.It’s the suburban town where everyone takes their kids in red wagons or on tricycles with streamers to watch the Fourth of July parade. It’s the town where people are shot randomly by someone with a rifle.We are now in mourning. It’s now the town where pundits, who have never been here, will rattle swords and shriek to score points using dead people as chits. My town? It’s your town. It will happen again. Does this sound like freedom to you?Kevin TibblesHighland Park, Ill.The writer is a former NBC newsman.To the Editor:This Independence Day we hung at half-staff two of the six American flags that normally line our driveway every year. We did this to honor those six lives sacrificed in Highland Park.Their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was usurped by the intentional misrepresentation of the Second Amendment by a minority of Americans. May all those who profess to be pro-life search their souls to examine their stance on gun legislation and what being pro-life actually means.Marcella WoodworthVenice, Fla.To the Editor:As Profs. Joseph Blocher and Darrell A.H. Miller point out in “Is a Musket Similar to an AR-15?” (Opinion guest essay, July 2), the Supreme Court’s recent politicized ruling only creates confusion.Good.Civilized states that protect their citizens with strong anti-gun regulations should simply ignore the court and reinforce those regulations. This will cause court case after court case, which could go on for years, maybe decades. For all that time their citizens will be protected from the gun crazies. And with luck by then there will be a more sensible Supreme Court.Let’s not overlook the fact that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a willful misreading. The amendment has two parts. The first talks about the need for strong state militias — a concern at the time of the amendment’s adoption — and the second part, which depends on the first, talks about the right of individuals to own and bear arms. If the founders had not meant the second part to depend on the first, they would not have needed to include the first at all.Michael SpielmanWellfleet, Mass.To the Editor:Must each of us lose a loved one before the gun lobby is stopped?Robert DavidsonNew YorkTo the Editor:Re “I’m a New York City Liberal, and I Want a Gun,” by Laura E. Adkins (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 30):Ms. Adkins makes the case that she needs a handgun to protect herself from a former partner who has been harassing her. However, there are less lethal options for protecting oneself, such as stun guns, home security systems or taking self-defense classes.Ms. Adkins states, “And as soon as I am able to legally buy and carry it without too much hassle, I look forward to sleeping soundly.” I hope she never has to shoot and kill someone. If she does, she may never sleep soundly again.Paul R. BrownSilver Spring, Md.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Tough TaskJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in on Thursday.U.S. Supreme Court Via ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Jackson Takes Oath, Becoming First Black Woman on Supreme Court” (news article, July 1):How sad that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is taking her place on the Supreme Court just as it has reached such a low point. She certainly deserves much better.It will no doubt be very difficult for her to serve on a court with the majority quite willing to undo, with such problematic reasoning, so much that she has spent her life supporting.Not only do they not seem to care about precedents, rights and the pain and even deaths their rulings will cause, but they also seem unconcerned about consistency in their justifications and about the embarrassment of citing as an expert on rights, in the Dobbs decision, someone who believed in witches and maintained that they should be tried and executed.Perhaps they have power and simply don’t worry about what people, nationally and internationally, think of them. But I do, and I find their actions shameful and disgusting.Linda BellDecatur, Ga.The writer is emerita professor of philosophy and director of the Women’s Studies Institute, Georgia State University.Election Workers’ DignityColorado’s secretary of state, Jena Griswold, speaking before the 2020 election about the state’s efforts to protect the voting process.David Zalubowski/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Violent Threats Continue Against Election Workers Despite Federal Efforts” (news article, June 30):Election workers are a backbone of our democracy. From county to county, they are our neighbors, ensuring that the voices of this country are heard. But as detailed in your article, local and state election officials increasingly work under threats of violence and endure harassment and abuse. The apparent goal, even well before the fall midterms, is to get them to throw in the towel on their jobs or bow to pressure in other ways.None of this is good for our democracy. It’s also harmful to the dignity of these workers, who provide a civic function for little or no compensation. These are now unsafe jobs.Task forces, like the federal Election Threats Task Force, are salutary, but their work needs to be highly visible and transparent to ensure that reporting mechanisms are known, deterrence is advanced and consequences are demonstrated.State and local governments need to work in tandem with such efforts and better support these civic-minded champions more broadly. Local media need to prioritize reporting these stories. And neighbors need to treat neighbors in ways that honor the dignity — the inherent value and worth — of each other.Jeffrey SiminoffSan FranciscoThe writer is senior vice president, workplace dignity, at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. More