More stories

  • in

    In U.N. Speech, Netanyahu Declares That Israel Is ‘Winning’

    The Israeli prime minister castigated Israel’s critics and the United Nations itself during his visit to New York for the U.N. General Assembly.When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel arrived in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly, he seemed to be entering a lion’s den.Speaker after speaker at the annual gathering of world leaders had portrayed Israel as a global villain. Police arrested dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who called Mr. Netanyahu a war criminal. His public rebuttal of a Biden administration plan to pause the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah raised tensions between the two governments.But Mr. Netanyahu bulldozed his way through his visit, castigating Israel’s critics and the United Nations itself, offering no diplomatic concessions, and ordering an airstrike in Beirut that may have killed Israel’s long hunted archnemesis, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.The strike landed even as Mr. Netanyahu delivered defiant remarks to a U.N. General Assembly hall — largely emptied after dozens of diplomats walked out in protest — in which he triumphantly declared of Israel’s multiple conflicts: “We are winning.”It is an assessment some U.S. officials say could reflect short-term truth while skirting past the risk of a larger conflict that could be devastating for all involved.Hours later, senior Israeli officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation, expressed remarkable confidence about their military and sabotage campaign against Hezbollah. Their blows against the group over the past two weeks and Mr. Nasrallah’s possible death could be a turning point, they said, in their ongoing struggle with Iran, which arms and funds Hezbollah, Hamas and other proxy forces in what the officials portrayed as a plan to destroy Israel.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    U.N. Body Demands Israel End Its ‘Unlawful Presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’

    The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a nonbinding resolution on Wednesday demanding that Israel end its “unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory” within a year, a significant but symbolic move that highlighted growing international condemnation of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people.The Assembly’s chamber in New York broke into applause after the resolution was approved by a vote of 124 to 14, with Israel and the United States in opposition and 43 other nations abstaining. The decision followed a landmark opinion issued in July by the International Court of Justice, the world’s highest court, which said that Israel’s occupation violated international law and should end “as rapidly as possible.”The resolution was the first to be put forth by Palestine, a U.N. nonmember observer state, since it was granted new diplomatic privileges by the Assembly in May. The Assembly granted those privileges after the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have recognized full membership for a Palestinian state in April.In addition to demanding that Israel withdraw all military forces and evacuate settlers from the occupied territory, the resolution urges nations to halt the transfer of weapons to Israel if there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be used there. It also urges nations to move toward halting the imports of “any products originating in the Israeli settlements.”The resolution was approved by a vote of 124 to 14, with Israel and the United States in opposition and 43 other nations abstaining.Bryan Smith/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAll resolutions adopted by the General Assembly are nonbinding, reflecting the political consensus of its 193 members. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority are both expected to address the Assembly next week, according to Reuters.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Germany Rebuffs Claim Its Arms Sales to Israel Abet Genocide in Gaza

    Germany argued against the accusation brought by Nicaragua at the International Court of Justice, but Germans are questioning their country’s unwavering support for Israel.Germany on Tuesday defended itself against accusations that its arms sales to Israel were abetting genocide in Gaza, arguing at the International Court of Justice that most of the equipment it has supplied since Oct. 7 was nonlethal and that it has also been one of the largest donors of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.The case at the U.N. court in The Hague pits Germany, whose support for Israel is considered an inviolable part of the country’s atonement for the Holocaust, against Nicaragua, which brought the allegations to the court and is a longstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause.Debate over Israel’s war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip has been muted in Germany, whose leadership calls support for Israel a “Staatsräson,” a national reason for existence, and where people have historically been reluctant to question that support publicly. But the mounting death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza have led some German officials to ask whether that unwavering backing has gone too far.Lawyers for Germany said Tuesday that the allegations brought by Nicaragua had “no basis in fact or law” and rested on an assessment of military conduct by Israel, which is not a party to the case. Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, an official at Germany’s Foreign Ministry and lead counsel in the case, told the 15-judge bench that Nicaragua had “rushed this case to court on the basis of the flimsiest evidence.”On Monday, Nicaragua argued that Germany was facilitating the commission of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza by providing Israel with military and financial aid, and it asked for emergency measures ordering the German government to halt its support. The court is expected to decide within weeks whether to order emergency measures.Some German news media said it was absurd that Germany should have to answer to accusations from Nicaragua, whose authoritarian president, Daniel Ortega, has jailed critics or forced them into exile, and has been accused in a United Nations report of crimes against humanity.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    A Sweeping Climate Deal, and a U.N. Gaza Cease-Fire Vote

    The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about five minutes.Nearly 200 countries convened by the United Nations approved a plan to ramp up renewable energy and rapidly transition away from coal, oil and gas.Fadel Dawod/Getty ImagesOn Today’s Episode:In a First, Nations at Climate Summit Agree to Move Away From Fossil Fuels, by Brad PlumerU.N. General Assembly Votes for Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire, Countering U.S. Veto, by Farnaz FassihiCheating Fears Over Chatbots Were Overblown, New Research Suggests, by Natasha Singer‘Apollo 13’ and ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ Join National Film Registry, by Sarah BahrJessica Metzger and More

  • in

    Nikki Haley’s Pro-Israel Record Could Shape Her ’24 Bid

    In January 2017, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, received a phone call from Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and Donald Trump’s newly appointed ambassador to the United Nations.Ms. Haley wanted to apologize.A month earlier, the U.N. Security Council had passed a resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in the West Bank. The Obama administration, by abstaining from the vote, had allowed the measure to pass, a parting rebuke to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s increasingly right-wing prime minister.In her first phone call to a fellow ambassador, Ms. Haley wanted to be clear that things would be different.“She guaranteed that it would not happen as long as she was serving as ambassador,” Mr. Danon recalled recently, “that she would get our back and support us.”That promise would set the tone for much of Ms. Haley’s time at the U.N. Over her nearly two-year tenure, she transformed herself from a foreign policy novice to a blunt-talking stateswoman, making the defense of Israel her defining cause.Ms. Haley blocked a Palestinian envoy’s appointment and took credit for forcing the withdrawal of a report that described the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians as “apartheid.” She walked out of a Security Council meeting during a Palestinian official’s speech and criticized the U.N.’s Palestinian refugee aid program, which she has since said “uses American money to feed Palestinian hatred of the Jewish state.”She was an enthusiastic face of the Trump administration’s diplomatic largess toward Israel, and described herself as turning back the tide of “Israel-bashing” at the world body.Denizens of the U.N.’s New York headquarters began joking that Israel now had two ambassadors.American ambassadors have generally stood with Israel at the U.N., but observers of Ms. Haley’s time there saw something new in her often confrontational advocacy for the Trump administration’s no-questions support for Mr. Netanyahu’s government.Critics have noted the political convenience of her approach — which ingratiated her with Mr. Trump’s inner circle and cemented relationships with major Republican donors and evangelical leaders — as well as its made-for-television tenor.“I wear heels,” she told the audience at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in 2017. “It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them every single time.” A clip of the statement appeared in a video teasing her presidential campaign early this year.“There was always a clear distinction between her relatively pragmatic approach to most issues and an incredibly performative, purist approach to diplomacy regarding Israel,” said Richard Gowan, the U.N. director of the International Crisis Group.As Israel plunges into a new war in the Gaza Strip, after a stunning wave of attacks by Hamas fighters, this chapter of Ms. Haley’s career has taken on a sudden importance.Ms. Haley, one of the few candidates with a foreign policy record to run on, has cast herself as an unwavering Israel hawk whose views are grounded in experience. Last weekend, Ms. Haley urged Mr. Netanyahu to “finish” Hamas. During an appearance on “Meet the Press,” she recalled her 2017 visit to Hamas-dug tunnels near the Gaza border.When Mr. Trump criticized Mr. Netanyahu — who angered him by recognizing Joseph R. Biden’s victory in 2020 — Ms. Haley used the moment to reinforce her case against her former boss.“To go and criticize the head of a country who just saw massive bloodshed — no, that’s not what we need in a president,” she said at a news conference in Concord, N.H., on Friday.Ms. Haley, who declined to comment for this article, has seen a recent uptick in polling, although she continues to run far behind Mr. Trump. As a new conflict pushes world affairs to the foreground of the campaign, this may be her best chance to emerge as the leading Republican alternative to the former president.“This was always political capital that she was banking while she was at the U.N.,” Mr. Gowan said. “And it may pay off for her now.”A Keen Eye for Set Pieces“I wear heels,” Ms. Haley told an audience of staunch Israel supporters at the meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in 2017. “It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong we’re going to kick them every single time.”Pete Marovich/European Pressphoto AgencyIn interviews, close observers of Ms. Haley’s work — veterans of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, the Trump White House and State Department, United Nations officials, and foreign policy lobbyists and experts — described it in similar terms.They recalled a diplomat who quickly became a more pragmatic negotiator than her own accounts of her tenure, which tend to focus on her confrontations, suggested. They also remembered her as a politician: someone who understood the United Nations post as a stopover on a trajectory toward bigger things.Ms. Haley was not enamored with the minutiae of diplomacy. She requested that staff cut down background papers to a single page of talking points, written in “eighth-grade English.” In her first address to her new employees, the ambassador told them she wanted to create a humane and efficient office culture, insisting that nobody’s work should keep them at the office after 6 p.m. — a tall order for an institution where meetings often ran into the evening, and diplomatic crises at unusual hours were practically a daily event.Ms. Haley also had a keen eye for what one former mission staff member described as “set pieces”: the confrontations and dramatic gestures that would gain attention.The first such moment for Ms. Haley arrived only days into her tenure. In early February 2017, António Guterres, the U.N. secretary general, was preparing to name Salam Fayyad, the former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, as the U.N.’s special envoy to Libya. Mr. Fayyad was a well-regarded reformer who had been seen as a key Palestinian partner for both the United States and Israel. Mr. Guterres had received informal signoffs from the Security Council members. His office had prepared a news release.But half an hour before the deadline for objections, Ms. Haley informed him that she considered Mr. Fayyad unacceptable.“We thought that this must be a mistake,” said Jeffrey Feltman, an American diplomat who at the time was Mr. Guterres’s under secretary general for political affairs. The appointment had been vetted, and State Department officials had vouched for Mr. Fayyad, he said. The decision had been Ms. Haley’s, her staff has since said, though Mr. Trump approved it. In a statement at the time, she argued that appointing a Palestinian to a significant U.N. position would be tantamount to recognizing Palestinian statehood. “The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations,” she said.“Essentially, she punished Salam Fayyad for his nationality, at the same time she was criticizing the U.N. for punishing Israelis for their nationality,” Mr. Feltman said. “It seemed to me to be quite hypocritical.”Speaking before an audience of Israel supporters at the AIPAC conference the following month, Ms. Haley cast the move more provocatively, taking credit for having Mr. Fayyad “booted out” of the U.N. post, and portraying the decision as a response to a culture of “Israel-bashing” at the organization. She announced that unless things changed, “there are no freebies for the Palestinian Authority anymore.”The Trump Translator at the U.N.Ms. Haley made herself the public face at the U.N. of the administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.Al Drago for The New York TimesBefore arriving at the U.N., Ms. Haley had a scant record on Israel policy. She has described her support for the country as “a matter of faith” — raised Sikh, she later converted to Christianity — and compared her own cultural background as the child of Indian immigrants to that of Israelis’. “We’re aggressive, we’re stubborn and we don’t back down from a fight,” she said in 2017.Her main claim was that as the governor of South Carolina, she signed a bill in 2015 banning the state from doing business with companies that boycotted or divested from Israel.Such laws — South Carolina’s was the second, after Illinois — had that year become a focus of pro-Israel political donors, including Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate and backer of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who wielded enormous influence in the G.O.P. and in Israel before his death in 2021.Ms. Haley’s campaign said the she did not discuss the issue with Mr. Adelson at the time. In 2016, Mr. Adelson contributed $250,000 to Ms. Haley’s political action committee — a quarter of the contributions it received that year — and hosted her in his luxury box at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.Arriving at the United Nations six months later, Ms. Haley quickly became the face of Mr. Trump’s Middle East policy, which reflected the long-held aims of pro-Israel hard-liners as well as conservative evangelicals, who ascribe great theological importance to the rise of a modern Jewish state in the Holy Land.“There’s been a historic tension between Zionism and a belief that the United States had an obligation to be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians,” said Ralph Reed, the chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “Under Trump, we moved on, and now the G.O.P. tilts unapologetically pro-Israel.”Ms. Haley leaned into her role at the U.N. as the public defender of the administration’s pullout from the Iran nuclear deal, its support for expanding West Bank settlements and its decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.After the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the embassy move, Ms. Haley hosted a reception at the U.S. Mission, refusing to invite the 21 countries — including longtime American allies like Britain, France, Germany and Japan — who voted for the measure.“The United States will remember this day,” she warned.Some who watched her work up close detected less absolutism in her views, and her diplomacy, than she presented at the General Assembly and in interviews.Nickolay Mladenov, the U.N.’s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process at the time, recalled traveling in Israel to the Gaza border with Ms. Haley. “I think that trip really opened her eyes to the fact that there are two competing narratives, two competing realities in this situation,” he said. “Whatever the public speeches she made,” he added, “when we sat down to talk, she would say, ‘OK, what can we do about this?’”Palestinian supporters, however, saw a rhetorical escalation, even by the standards of a resolutely pro-Israel Republican Party.“You look at some of her statements and actions, it was comically over the top — not just willingness to support Israel, but a willingness to hurt Palestinians,” said Yousef Munayyer, who directs the Palestine/Israel Program at the Arab Center Washington D.C.Her public performances served her well in the often vicious internal politics of the administration. Amid a divide between foreign policy traditionalists — the long-résuméd appointees often cast as the “adults in the room” — and the coterie of Trump confidants who largely drove his Middle East policy, Ms. Haley aligned herself with the latter group.Her Israel advocacy gave her common cause with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who had been tasked with the Middle East policy portfolio. When Mr. Kushner and others began drafting the White House’s Middle East peace plan, Ms. Haley was one of only a handful of policymakers allowed to see it and offer comments, said Jason Greenblatt, Mr. Trump’s special envoy for Middle East peace.“I thought she was one of my most important allies,” he said.Spending Political CapitalMs. Haley’s tenure was watched closely by influential evangelicals. David Brody, an anchor at the Christian Broadcasting Network, said “God is using Nikki Haley for such a time as this,” in his coverage of Ms. Haley’s 2017 visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem.Gali Tibbon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMs. Haley’s work also won accolades from evangelicals and Jewish Republican donors, key constituencies for any aspiring Republican president. Her U.N. tenure was covered closely by the Christian Broadcasting Network, the evangelical-oriented media company.“Clearly God is using Nikki Haley for such a time as this,” the network’s anchor, David Brody, said in a June 2017 segment, over footage of Ms. Haley praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.In 2018, Christians United for Israel, the influential Christian Zionist organization led by the televangelist John C. Hagee, presented Ms. Haley with the organization’s Defender of Israel award. As she neared the end of her speech, someone in the crowd yelled: “Haley 2024!”But early polling has shown that Mr. Haley is struggling to peel away evangelical voters from Mr. Trump. Although Mr. Hagee offered a prayer at her campaign launch event, he has not endorsed her.“Most evangelicals certainly appreciate Nikki Haley’s pro-Israel stance,” said Robert Jeffress, the influential pastor of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch. “But evangelicals also realize that her pro-Israel policy while she was U.N. ambassador was a reflection of Donald Trump’s pro-Israel position.”Among prominent Jewish Republican donors, she has more vocal allies. Toward the end of Ms. Haley’s time at the U.N., Fred Zeidman, a Texas businessman, made her a promise. “I told her if she ever wanted to run for president of the United States, I was going to be with her from Day 1,” recalled Mr. Zeidman, who served as Jewish outreach director for the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush.In March, Mr. Zeidman and two like-minded donors, Phil Rosen and Cheryl Halpern, wrote to the members of the Republican Jewish Coalition urging them to back Haley, citing her U.N. record.But a majority of the group’s benefactors have not yet contributed to any candidate. “They don’t see any reason to actively give when you’ve got nine people out there,” Mr. Zeidman said.Mr. Zeidman and other Haley supporters hope that Republicans seeking an alternative to Mr. Trump will coalesce behind her candidacy. But despite Ms. Haley’s recent signs of momentum, the gulf between her and Mr. Trump remains daunting.“If she would’ve run in Israel,” Mr. Danon, the former Israeli ambassador, said, “I’m sure it would’ve been much easier for her.”

    #youth-jobs-shadow {
    display: none;
    }

    @media only screen and (min-width:1024px){

    #fullBleedHeaderContent h1{
    text-shadow: 1px 0px 8px #000;
    }

    #fullBleedHeaderContent header p.e1wiw3jv0{
    text-shadow: 1px 0px 8px #000;
    }

    } More

  • in

    Putin Raises Stakes in the War, With Direct Challenge to the West

    The Russian leader announced a call-up of troops and hinted at using nuclear weapons, accusing the West of trying to “destroy our country” and vowing that Russia would defend itself.President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia accelerated his war effort in Ukraine on Wednesday, announcing a call-up of roughly 300,000 reservists to the military, while also directly challenging the West over its support for Ukraine with a veiled threat of using nuclear weapons.In a rare address to the nation, Mr. Putin said he was prepared to declare four Ukrainian regions to be part of Russia as early as next week, even though some of that territory is still controlled by Ukrainian forces. And he framed the war he launched seven months ago in existential terms for Russia, insisting that the nation was merely defending itself against a mortal threat to its “sovereignty” and that the West was seeking to “weaken, divide and ultimately destroy our country.”“If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people,” he said. “This is not a bluff.”Taken together, Mr. Putin’s speech laid out the Kremlin’s strategy of continuing to raise the stakes in the war, despite the humiliating setbacks Russia’s military has suffered on the battlefield and a potential public backlash in Russia. Protests against the mobilization and arrests were reported in dozens of cities.The address also suggested that even as Mr. Putin was mobilizing more troops, his broader aim was to startle the United States and its European allies into dropping their support for Ukraine or compelling President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiate a peace deal that is acceptable to Moscow.A photograph released by Russian state media on Tuesday shows President Vladimir V. Putin speaking at a meeting on Wednesday.Gavriil Grigorov/Sputnik“You get the feeling now that he might do anything, and this is his strategic potential,” Gleb O. Pavlovsky, a Moscow political analyst and a former adviser to Mr. Putin, said in a phone interview. “He is using this strategic potential because he has no other.”Russian occupation authorities in four Ukrainian regions declared on Tuesday that they would stage referendums on annexation by Russia, laying the groundwork for Mr. Putin’s escalation. In his speech on Wednesday, he said he would support the results, likely redefining the territory as part of Russia, while justifying the mobilization as a matter of self-defense.But if Mr. Putin’s aim was to change the terms of the war so profoundly as to shake Ukraine and its allies, there was no immediate evidence that it was working.In Kyiv, Mr. Zelensky told a German newspaper in response to Mr. Putin’s speech that the Russian president wanted to “drown Ukraine in blood” and that he would only negotiate “if they leave our territories.” Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, said in an interview with The New York Times that the situation was “dangerous,” but that Russia’s status as a nuclear power would not “change what we are doing.”At the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Wednesday, President Biden insisted that “we will stand in solidarity to Russia’s aggression,” and said Mr. Putin was making “irresponsible nuclear threats.’’ He added later, “This war is about extinguishing Ukraine’s right to exist as a state.”In Russia, the announcement of a major call-up thrust the Kremlin into uncharted political terrain. Until now, the government has sought to assure regular Russians that they could go on living their lives, referring to the war as only a “special military operation” and insisting that no one would be forced to fight in Ukraine against his will.But this month’s stunning counteroffensive by Ukrainian forces, in which Kyiv retook more than one thousand square miles of territory, appeared to change that calculus. Mr. Putin suddenly appeared on the back foot, under fire from even some of his supporters on national television who claimed that he was not waging war decisively enough. And the fact that Russia lacked sufficient combat personnel in Ukraine to make gains or even to hold territory — as Western analysts and officials have asserted for months — became unmistakable.The city of Bakhmut, in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, is on the front line in the war with Russia. Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesIn response, Mr. Putin declared for the first time on Wednesday that Russian civilians could be pressed into service in Ukraine. Apparently keen to avoid a public backlash, the Russian leader insisted that the new draft was only a “partial mobilization” and that only men with military experience would receive orders to report for duty.Mr. Putin said that Russia’s goals in Ukraine had not changed and that the move was “necessary and urgent” because the West had “crossed all lines” by providing sophisticated weapons to Ukraine.In subsequent remarks, Russia’s defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, put the number of potential new call-ups at 300,000 people. He said that university students would not be subject to the draft, and that young conscripts serving the one year of military service that is required in Russia would not be sent to the front lines.But the official order declaring the call-ups was far more vague, leaving open the possibility that the government could later broaden the draft.In Russia, news of the call-up spurred protests across the country; more than 1,200 from 38 cities were detained, according to OVD-Info, a human rights watchdog that monitors police activity. In Moscow, hundreds of protesters gathered on the Old Arbat, a pedestrian street in the city center, screaming “Send Putin to the trenches!” and “Let our children live!”Some Russians rushed to purchase plane tickets out of the country, and the Telegram messaging app was filled with messages about the border situation and possible ways to get out of the country.Vasiliy Horkaviy, center, and his father Alexey Horkaviy, left, in an evacuation vehicle taking them from Kupiansk, Ukraine, on Wednesday.Nicole Tung for The New York TimesThe responses underscored the risks being taken by Mr. Putin as he pushed to escalate a war that has caused heavy Russian casualties and is increasingly violating his unspoken deal with the public: that Russians stay out of politics and the Kremlin lets them live their lives. Mr. Putin has successfully clamped down on dissent since starting the war, with new censorship laws and a spate of arrests, but analysts said that the main reason he long avoided declaring a draft was his fear of public backlash.“This is crossing a red line,” Mr. Pavlovsky, the former Putin adviser, said, referring to Wednesday’s mobilization order. “It will violate, in a sense, the contract with the Putin majority.”Military analysts said the draft would not have immediate consequences on the battlefield because it would take weeks, if not months, for Russia to mobilize, train and equip additional combat-ready troops. Still, the move could begin to address Russia’s manpower shortages, in part because it would prohibit existing contract soldiers from quitting, said Michael Kofman, director of Russia studies at the CNA defense research institute in Arlington, Va.Mr. Putin this week has also sought to retake the initiative by setting the stage for claiming sovereignty over more territory in Ukraine. Russian occupation authorities in Ukraine said they would hold five-day, snap “referendums” starting Friday on joining Russia, a likely prelude to annexation.“Russia can’t give up on people living close by to be torn apart by executioners and fail to respond to their desire to determine their own fate,” Mr. Putin said, referring to Ukrainians in occupied territory, even as reports continue to emerge of torture and killings by Russian occupying forces.Pro-Kremlin analysts and officials have said that after annexation, Moscow could claim that any further Ukrainian military action on those territories was an attack on Russia itself, providing Mr. Putin with a justification for retaliation. He did not explicitly threaten a nuclear response, but warned that he was ready to use all of the weapons in Russia’s arsenal to protect what the Kremlin considered Russian territory.“An attack on the people and territories will be an attack on Russia,” a senior Russian lawmaker, Konstantin I. Kosachev, posted on social media, warning the West to “stop playing military games with a nuclear state.”Western officials have condemned the planned referendums as “sham’’ votes, and Ukrainian officials have described them as a red line after which negotiation with Russia would be impossible.But there remained some signals that Mr. Putin was open to a negotiated exit from the war.Hours after his speech, officials in Kyiv announced that Russia had released 215 Ukrainians in a prisoner of war exchange, including the top two commanders of the Azov Battalion and more than 100 other troops who were involved in the last-ditch defense of Mariupol before it fell to the Russians in May — fighters who are regarded in Ukraine as national heroes. Saudi Arabia made its own announcement about an exchange that secured the release of 10 prisoners held by Russia, including U.S. and British citizens.Andrei Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, a research organization close to the Russian government, said in a phone interview that he did not expect Mr. Putin to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine as long as NATO did not directly attack Russia. Doing so would offer no significant battlefield advantage over conventional weapons, he said, while “the political risks associated with this are very high.”Mr. Kortunov said that Mr. Putin’s goal was now pressuring the West, rather than Ukraine, to agree to some kind of peace deal.“This means that there is no hope for political dialogue with Kyiv,” Mr. Kortunov said of Mr. Putin’s apparent plans for annexing more of Ukraine. “If there is any dialogue, it will be with the West, not with Kyiv.”Ukrainian military vehicles in Bakhmut on Wednesday.Tyler Hicks/The New York Times More

  • in

    Your Tuesday Briefing: Britain Buries Queen Elizabeth II

    Plus a preview of the U.N. General Assembly and growing nuclear fears in Ukraine.The queen’s coffin was moved from the gun carriage to a hearse before traveling on to Windsor.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesBritain buried Queen Elizabeth IIQueen Elizabeth II was buried in St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, next to her husband, Prince Philip. It concluded the period of official mourning — a time of unifying grief and disorienting change.The state funeral began with a majestic service at Westminster Abbey. International dignitaries and about 200 people who had performed public services joined members of the royal family.The queen’s coffin then moved through London in a procession as tens of thousands of people watched. “They don’t make them like her anymore,” one woman said. “She was a one-off.”The funeral closed with a more intimate service and private internment. Before the final hymn, the crown jeweler removed the imperial state crown, the orb and the scepter from the queen’s coffin and placed them on the altar. The lord chamberlain broke his wand of office and placed it onto the coffin, a symbol of the end of his service, to be buried with the sovereign.Photos: See images from her life and a visual dictionary of the symbols of her reign.Reflection: The queen’s coronation and funeral have become the bookends of a generation, Alan Cowell, a contributor based in London, writes in an essay on her life.Yoon Suk Yeol, president of South Korea, is trying to raise his profile by pursuing a new foreign policy agenda.Woohae Cho for The New York TimesU.N. General Assembly beginsThe 77th session of the U.N. General Assembly, the largest annual gathering of world leaders, began yesterday in New York City. Here’s what to expect.The meeting will be the first in-person General Assembly in three years, after the pandemic restricted movements. But the mood is likely to be a somber one. Leaders will address the war in Ukraine, mounting food and energy crises and concerns over climate disruptions, such as the floods in Pakistan.Tensions are expected to be high between Russia, the U.S. and European countries over Ukraine — and between China and the U.S. over Taiwan and trade. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, the leaders of Russia and China, are not expected to attend.The State of the WarA Critical Moment: After success in the northeast battlefields, Ukraine is pressing President Biden for more powerful weapons. But Mr. Biden wants to avoid provoking Russia at a moment U.S. officials fear President Vladimir V. Putin could escalate the war.Ukraine’s Counteroffensive: As Ukrainian troops try to inch forward in the east and south without losing control of territory, they face Russian forces that have been bolstered by inmates-turned-fighters and Iranian drones.In Izium: Following Russia’s retreat, Ukrainian investigators have begun documenting the toll of Russian occupation on the northeastern city. They have already found several burial sites, including one that could hold the remains of more than 400 people.An Inferno in Mykolaiv: The southern Ukrainian city has been a target of near-incessant shelling since the war began. Firefighters are risking their lives to save as much of it as possible.“The General Assembly is meeting at a time of great peril,” António Guterres, the U.N. secretary-general, said last week.Analysis: “This is the first General Assembly of a fundamentally divided world,” said Richard Gowan, the U.N. director at International Crisis Group, a research group based in Brussels. “We have spent six months with everyone battering each other. The gloves are off.”South Korea: Yoon Suk Yeol, the new president of South Korea, is expected to address the General Assembly today. Last week, he told our Seoul bureau chief that it had become necessary — even inevitable — for South Korea to expand its security cooperation with Washington and Tokyo as North Korea intensified its nuclear threat.Other details: Narendra Modi, India’s leader, and Abiy Ahmed, the leader of Ethiopia, will also skip the meeting. The U.S. and Europe will most likely try to pressure Iran over the nuclear deal. And developing nations and the West will very likely spar over development aid.Recent setbacks haven’t deterred Russia from advancing on the eastern city of Bakhmut and claiming all of the Donbas Region.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesNuclear concerns rise in UkraineRussian missiles struck a second nuclear site in Ukraine yesterday, narrowly avoiding a possible calamity in the Mykolaiv region.Moscow damaged a hydroelectric station less than 900 feet (about 274 meters) from reactors at Ukraine’s second-biggest nuclear plant. (The occupied Zaporizhzhia site is the largest.) Despite the close call, there was no damage to essential safety equipment at the plant, which remained fully operational, Ukraine’s national nuclear energy company said.The explosion still caused extensive damage, forced the shutdown of one of the plant’s hydraulic units and led to partial power outages in the area. It also highlighted the threat to Ukraine’s critical infrastructure.“A few hundred meters and we would have woken up in a completely different reality,” a Ukrainian official said. Here are live updates.Details: Before the war, 15 working reactors at four nuclear power plants produced more than half of Ukraine’s electricity, the second-highest share among European nations after France.Other updates:Senior officials from China and Russia announced joint military exercises and enhanced defense cooperation. It signals a strengthening partnership, despite Xi Jinping’s apparent misgivings about the war in Ukraine.Ukraine is facing a severe glass shortage that will make it hard to fix shattered windows before winter.European manufacturing are furloughing workers and shutting down lines because of “crippling” energy bills.THE LATEST NEWSAsiaAn undated photo of the American engineer, Mark Frerichs.Charlene Cakora, via Associated PressIn a prisoner swap with the U.S., the Taliban freed an American engineer in exchange for a tribal leader convicted of drug trafficking.The deaths of 27 people on a quarantine bus in China renewed an anguished debate over “zero Covid.” Even in Tibet, where people live under repressive controls from the Chinese government, there are grumblings against lockdowns.Army helicopters in Myanmar shot at a school, Reuters reports, killing at least six children.Typhoon Nanmadol has killed at least two people in Japan, the BBC reports.World NewsMore than 1,000 residents were rescued across Puerto Rico.Ricardo Arduengo/ReutersHurricane Fiona dumped heavy rain on the Dominican Republic after knocking out Puerto Rico’s fragile power grid. It is expected to strengthen into a major hurricane. Here is a map of its path and live updates.Donald Trump is involved in six separate investigations. And the trial of one of his advisers, Thomas Barrack, who is accused of working secretly for the U.A.E., may shed light on foreign influence campaigns.The economy remains the top concern for U.S. voters, a New York Times/Siena poll found.A Morning ReadHundreds of thousands gathered in Washington, a day after Donald Trump took office.Ruth Fremson/The New York TimesIn 2017, as American feminists came together to protest Donald Trump’s election, Russia’s disinformation machine worked to derail the Women’s March, a Times investigation found.Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian American activist whose hijab marked her as an observant Muslim, became a central target. ARTS AND IDEAS“The Phantom of the Opera” will close a month after celebrating its 35th anniversary.Matthew MurphyThe end of “Phantom”“The Phantom of the Opera” is the longest-running show in Broadway history. Based on Gaston Leroux’s 1911 novel, this symbol of musical theater will drop its famous chandelier for the last time in February after 35 years, becoming the latest show to fall victim to the drop-off in audiences since the pandemic hit.The show, about a mask-wearing opera lover who haunts the Paris Opera House and becomes obsessed with a young soprano, is characterized by over-the-top spectacle and melodrama. A Times review in 1988 acknowledged, “It may be possible to have a terrible time at ‘The Phantom of the Opera,’ but you’ll have to work at it.”Speaking about the decision to end the show’s run, the producer Cameron Mackintosh, said: “I’m both sad and celebrating. It’s an extraordinary achievement, one of the greatest successes of all time. What is there not to celebrate about that?”By the numbers: On Broadway, the show has been seen by 19.8 million people and has grossed $1.3 billion since opening. —Natasha Frost, a Briefings writer.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Monica Pierini.Garam masala punches up this pantry pasta.What to Watch“The Lost City of Melbourne,” a new documentary with a growing cultural cachet, explores the city’s fraught architectural history.What to Read“The Rupture Tense,” already on the poetry longlist for the National Book Award, was partly inspired by a hidden photo archive of China’s Cultural Revolution.Now Time to PlayPlay today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Fan publication (four letters).Here are today’s Wordle and today’s Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. The executive editor of The Times, Joseph Kahn, wrote about why we’re focusing on the challenges facing democracy in the U.S. and around the world.The latest episode of “The Daily” is on the U.K after the Queen.Natasha Frost wrote today’s Arts and Ideas. You can reach Amelia and the team at briefing@nytimes.com. More