Russia

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in World Politics

      Making Sense of India’s Newfound Love for Russian Oil

      by

      India’s love affair with Russia began a long time ago. India won its independence from the UK in 1947. Jawaharlal Nehru, its first prime minister, was a self-declared socialist who drew inspiration from the Soviet Union. In the decades after independence, India swerved increasingly to the left. As a result, New Delhi developed extremely close relations with Moscow.

      Only after 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, did New Delhi’s ties with Moscow weaken. In recent years, India has strengthened its relationship with the US. Both democracies find China a common threat. Furthermore, American investment has flowed into India while Indian students have flocked to the US. Indian politicians, movie stars and cricketers use American social media platforms such as Twitter and YouTube to campaign. Therefore, India’s neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused much heartburn in Washington.

      The recent visit of Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar and Defense Minister Rajnath Singh to the US did not go particularly well. The Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke about “monitoring some recent concerning developments in India, including a rise in human rights abuses by some government, police, and prison officials.” Blinken’s comment is less about human rights abuses and more about the US disapproval of India’s Ukraine policy and its purchase of Russian oil. So, why is New Delhi risking its relations with Washington and buying Russian oil?

      Embed from Getty Images

      Cheap Oil Option to Counter Inflation

      The Russian invasion of Ukraine has spiked global food, fertilizer and oil prices. The average monthly Brent crude oil price in December 2021 was $74.17. In March 2022, this had risen to $117.25. For an energy importer like India, this has spelled disaster. Inflation has shot up and the Reserve Bank of India has cut projected growth rates for the country. As a result, Russia’s offer of cut-price oil has become attractive to India.

      Given high prices, India is not alone in buying cheap Russian oil. Hungarian, Bulgarian and Greek refineries continue to buy Russian oil as do many others. The Indian press reports that  New Delhi “could be buying Russia’s flagship Urals grade at discounts of as much as $35 a barrel on prices before the war.” This is a very steep discount that offsets American and Western sanctions. With a per capita GDP that was only $1927.71 in 2020 and an unemployment crisis in the country, India cannot afford to forego the option of cheap oil.

      The option of buying Russian oil is also important for another reason. India sources its oil from many countries with Russia providing a tiny fraction of its energy needs. Iraq supplies 23% of India’s oil, Saudi Arabia 18% and the United Arab Emirates 11%. In 2022, exports from the US are likely to increase and meet 8% of India’s oil needs. Crucially though, India’s purchase of Russian oil gives it more leverage against other sellers. As Jaishankar rightly pointed out, India’s “total purchases for the month would be less than what Europe does in an afternoon.” Therefore, the US fixation with Indian oil purchases from Russia seems shortsighted and misguided.

      Embed from Getty Images

      A History of Romance, A Marriage of Geopolitical Realities

      As has been said by many foreign policy experts, India has shared a close strategic relationship with Russia for many decades. Once India chose socialism, the then Soviet Union traded preferentially with India. Moscow also provided and continues to provide the bulk of India’s defense needs. Even today, an estimated 70% of India’s defense equipment comes from Russia. Perhaps even more importantly, Moscow has shared nuclear, missile and space technology with New Delhi, enabling India to emerge as a major power.

      In 1971, the Soviet Union and India signed an important treaty. Later that year, Moscow backed New Delhi while Washington backed Islamabad. India was a democracy that reluctantly went to war to liberate Bangladesh. In the run up to the conflict, Pakistan’s military dictatorship was conducting genocide and using rape as a weapon of war against poor Bengalis in what was then known as East Pakistan. Russia has consistently backed India on Kashmir. In contrast, the US has regularly chided India for human rights abuses in Kashmir and taken a pro-Pakistan stance.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Even as ties with the US have improved, relations with Russia have remained important. In 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin flew to New Delhi to meet Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. After the visit, retired Indian diplomat Ashok Sajjanhar concluded that Putin’s brief India trip had “reinvigorated a time-tested partnership.” Both countries signed many agreements, paying considerable attention to trade and investment relations. Traditional areas like nuclear energy, space and defense also got attention. Here, in the words of Sajjanhar “the most important decision was to commence manufacture of more than 700,000 assault AK-203 rifles with transfer of technology under the ‘Make in India’ program.”

      Russia is also helping India indigenize its defense production of T-90 tanks and Su-30-MKI aircraft. Russia also supplies spares and helps upgrade MiG-29-K aircraft, Kamov-31, Mi-17 helicopters, MiG-29 aircraft and multiple rocket launcher BM-30 Smerch. Despite an ongoing war with Ukraine and severe sanctions, Russia is delivering the second regiment of S400 missile defense systems to India. 

      India is in a rough neighborhood with two nuclear-armed neighbors. Both Pakistan and China claim Indian territory. The specter of a two-front war is a real one for India. Therefore, good relations with Russia, its biggest defense equipment and technology supplier, are critically important. This is a key reason for New Delhi to take up Moscow’s offer of cheap oil.

      As an independent nation and a rising global power, India has to act in its strategic interest. At the moment, this is best served by buying cheap Russian oil.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 50 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Your Monday Evening Briefing

      by

      Daniel E. Slotnik and (Want to get this newsletter in your inbox? Here’s the sign-up.)Good evening. Here’s the latest at the end of Monday.Firefighters at the scene of a missile strike in Lviv, Ukraine, today. Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times1. Russia has begun its offensive in eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian officials said.“Now we can state that the Russian forces have started the battle for the Donbas that they have been getting ready for a long time,” President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a video address.Russia claimed today that it had hit some 300 Ukrainian targets, mostly in the east, in one of the broadest barrages of missile attacks in weeks. There was also a missile strike on the western city of Lviv, which had been relatively unscathed until now. Seven people there died. Russian forces are closing in on a complete capture of the city of Mariupol, which would be a major strategic prize in the fight.In Russia, the central bank chief warned that ripple effects from Western sanctions were only beginning to spread, despite President Vladimir Putin’s claim that Russia’s economy remains stable. Moscow’s mayor said 200,000 jobs were at risk in the Russian capital alone.Travelers may no longer need to wear masks in U.S. airportsAlyssa Pointer for The New York Times2. A federal judge struck down the mask requirement on planes and public transit in the U.S.The ruling came days after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention extended the federal transportation mask requirement through May 3. The judge in Florida said that the mandate “exceeds the C.D.C.’s statutory authority.”The judge’s decision apparently shuts down the requirement for people to wear masks on airplanes, in airports and while taking other public transportation. It was not immediately clear whether the Justice Department would appeal the judge’s order, which could keep the rule in place while the matter undergoes further litigation.In other Covid news, Philadelphia became the first major city in the U.S. to reinstate a mask rule in response to rising cases of the coronavirus. In China, several economic indicators show that Covid lockdowns could have a disastrous effect on the country’s economy.And in Shanghai, the authorities announced that some workers might have to live at their workplaces even after the city lifts its lockdown.Allies of former President Donald Trump are renewing a push to overturn the 2020 election.Veasey Conway for The New York Times3. Some Trump allies are pushing to “decertify” the 2020 vote in key states and overturn the election.More than a year after failing to cancel the 2020 election results, some of the same lawyers and associates are still insisting that former President Donald Trump won. In statehouses and courtrooms across the country, Trump allies are pressing for states to pass resolutions rescinding Electoral College votes for President Biden and to bring lawsuits that seek to prove baseless claims of large-scale voter fraud. The efforts, dismissed as preposterous by many legal experts, are nonetheless stoking Trump supporters’ grievances. Democrats and some Republicans have raised deep concerns about the effect of the decertification efforts, including the potential to incite violence of the sort that erupted on Jan. 6, 2021.Kenya’s Peres Jepchirchir won the 126th Boston Marathon’s women’s division.Winslow Townson/Associated Press4. Peres Jepchirchir and Evans Chebet won the Boston Marathon.Jepchirchir finished the 26.2-mile course in 2 hours 21 minutes 1 second, beating Ababel Yeshaneh in the women’s division by just four seconds in a sprint to the finish line.Evans Chebet won the men’s race with a time of 2 hours 6 minutes 51 seconds, his first victory at a major marathon. The Boston Marathon returned to its traditional slot on the springtime calendar after three years.In 2020, the race was canceled for the first time in its history. And last year, the race was pushed to October, when it competed for elite entrants with a cluster of other marathons. We have highlights from the race.Alex Jones addressed Trump supporters in 2020.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times5. Alex Jones’s Infowars and two affiliated companies filed for bankruptcy.The Infowars filing, which was made yesterday, came after courts in two states ruled against Jones, a far-right broadcaster, in defamation lawsuits by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012.For years, Jones spread bogus theories that the shooting, which killed 20 elementary school students and six educators, was part of a government-led plot to deprive Americans of their guns and that the victims’ families were actors in the scheme. Two other companies connected to Jones, IWHealth and Prison Planet TV, also filed for bankruptcy protection. A homeless encampment along Glendale Boulevard in Los Angeles last month.Mark Abramson for The New York Times6. More than ever it has become deadly to be homeless in the U.S., especially for men in their 50s and 60s.There are many factors behind these lonely deaths: the aging of the unsheltered population; the wider availability of fentanyl, a fast-acting and dangerous opiate; the lack of treatment for chronic illnesses and the long-term health damage from years on the street. In many cities the number of homeless deaths doubled during the pandemic, and the problem is especially acute in California, where about one in four of the nation’s 500,000 homeless people live.“It’s like a wartime death toll in places where there is no war,” said Maria Raven, an emergency room doctor in San Francisco who co-wrote a study about homeless deaths.The four co-CEOs of the Lede Company at their New York City office.OK McCausland for The New York Times7. Meet the women of the Lede Company. They’re some of Hollywood’s top publicists (just don’t ask why).Their clients include Lady Gaga, Pharrell Williams, Emma Stone, Ariana Grande, Charlize Theron and the Obamas. And oh yes, an actor named Will Smith (about whom they have no comment). Discretion is their craft, making it tough for our reporter to get her subjects to open up.Marcy Engelman, Julia Roberts’s longtime publicist, did say of Amanda Silverman, one of Lede’s heads: “She knows how to play the game. She is very well liked, so she must take care of people.”Workers on the production line of the 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning.Sylvia Jarrus for The New York Times8. Ford’s new pickup truck could determine whether the automaker can survive in an industry dominated by Tesla.Driven by the dizzying success of Tesla, sales of electric vehicles appear to be on an unstoppable rise, and automakers are spending tens of billions of dollars to prepare to meet that demand.The question for Ford is whether Jim Farley, the company’s chief executive and a car guy from the Detroit area, can channel his inner Elon Musk. Farley, and Ford, are betting big on the F-150 Lightning, an electric version of the company’s signature pickup that could become one of the most important vehicles in the company’s 113-year history.The Gravity Diagnostics lab in Kentucky where an unwanted birthday party was thrown. Liz Dufour/The Enquirer via Imagn Content Services, LLC9. They wished him a “Happy Birthday!” he didn’t want. He sued and won $450,000.A Kentucky man, Kevin Berling, asked his manager at a medical lab to be sure no one threw him a birthday party. Berling has an anxiety disorder and knew the party would trigger it. But while the manager was away, Berling’s colleagues planned a celebration.After hearing of it, Berling spent the time in his car. Two supervisors confronted him about his “somber behavior.” After having a panic attack in the meeting, he was fired. A month later, he sued the company for disability discrimination.In other acts of workplace dissent, a Dollar General employee who loved her job but thought it needed improvements opened up on a TikTok series that went viral. She was fired.We say we like creative thinking and thinkers but our gut response isn’t always in sync.Illustration by Yoshi Sodeoka10. And finally, we look up to great artists, scientists and inventors. Or do we?The new science of implicit bias suggests we may talk a good game about admiring creativity but many of us are suspicious of it. Without realizing it, we may see creativity as disturbing.“People actually have strong associations between the concept of creativity and other negative associations like vomit and poison,” said Dr. Jack Goncalo, a business professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Goncalo has looked at what spurs or hinders creators in studies. One main conclusion? Often, people’s subconscious views of creativity reflect a fear of change or uncertainty; creativity disrupts, and we like stability.Have an original eveningHannah Yoon and Eve Edelheit compiled photos for this briefing. Your Evening Briefing is posted at 6 p.m. Eastern.Want to catch up on past briefings? You can browse them here.What did you like? What do you want to see here? Let us know at briefing@nytimes.com.Here are today’s Mini Crossword, Spelling Bee and Wordle. If you’re in the mood to play more, find all our games here. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Calls for US to issue visa bans for UK lawyers enabling Russian oligarchs

      by

      Calls for US to issue visa bans for UK lawyers enabling Russian oligarchsAnti-corruption campaigner Bill Browder says ‘whole class of British lawyers’ making money out of lawsuits against journalists, dissidents and whistleblowers The anti-corruption campaigner Bill Browder is calling on the US to issue visa bans against British lawyers who he has accused of “enabling” Russian oligarchs.The US-born financier, an outspoken and longtime critic of Russian president Vladimir Putin, has said that installing such a ban would strike at the heart of what he described as a persistent problem of oligarchs using the UK legal system against journalists and whistleblowers, tying them up in expensive lawsuits.Browder suggested sanctions could ultimately be targeted at any legal and financial experts who it could be shown have helped oligarchs hide their assets, but said his initial proposed blacklist was focused on British lawyers involved in libel cases.Russia warns US of repercussions if it sends more arms to Ukraine – reportsRead moreBrowder described “this whole class of British lawyers” instructed by Russians and those with links to Russia to bring “lawsuits against journalists, dissidents and whistleblowers, myself included, and they make money”.“There’s this industry,” Browder said. “It will be pretty hard to legislate away the idea that a plaintiff can hire a lawyer to sue for libel, because how do you define what’s good and what’s bad? But if you identify a lawyer who has been doing this on a regular basis – going after people – the United States does not have to give them a visa to come to this country.”The activist has proven to have influence on Capitol Hill. In a recent statement, US senator Ben Cardin called Browder a “hero” to “many” in the Senate, for his work in passage of the Magnitsky Act, an Obama-era bipartisan bill named after Browder’s former tax lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in police custody in Russia in 2009.The act was designed to allow the US to punish officials linked to Magnitsky’s death, but also authorises the US to sanction human rights offenders and ban them from entering the country.Browder said he was seeking the support of senators and members of Congress to write a letter to the US Department of State with a list of names of specific lawyers, whose visas he felt ought to be taken away. He did not name the lawyers who might appear on the list.Browder also argued that targeting oligarch-enablers such as lawyers and accountants would be an effective way of finding their money, at least half of which he said ultimately finds its way to Putin’s coffers, as part of the Kremlin’s pact with the oligarchs.“There’s going to be a whole lot of smart law enforcement work looking at sanctions evasion now. These people have been running circles around us in the past,” Browder said. “They have set up the most robust asset protection mechanisms with trustees, holding companies, nominees and proxies offshore.”Finding the oligarchs’ money, he said, would be an “almost impossible task”. He said he would like to add an amendment to sanctions law to hold lawyers, accountants, bankers and other financial advisers liable – including possible prison time – if they are found to have created structures to evade sanctions.“Very quickly the whole system would become very transparent,” he said.Browder’s remarks follow his recent testimony before the Helsinki Commission, an independent body that consists of nine members of the US House, nine senators, and one member of the US state, defence and commerce departments. The commission is meant to help formulate policy in connection to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the hearing was focused on western “enablers” of Putin’s regime.Among Browder’s recommendations in his testimony was for the US to create a list of law firms, PR firms and investigative firms involved in “enabling dictatorships and oligarchs to persecute journalists” and prohibiting the US government from doing business with those firms; canceling the visas of “foreign enablers”, enforcing rules in which lawyers and public relations firms are meant to disclose their work for foreign governments; and creating new laws to protect journalists from so-called SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suits that are meant to intimidate the press.TopicsUS newsUS politicsVladimir PutinRussiaUkrainenewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      In French Election, Le Pen and Macron Court Voters With Emotion

      by

      PARIS — The future of democracy in Europe is being decided simultaneously on the battlefields of Ukraine and in the ballot boxes of France.From afar, France’s presidential elections this month might look like merely a repeat of our last elections in 2017, with the centrist leader Emmanuel Macron once again facing Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Rally party. But there are major differences that are revealing about France and about Western pluralism, having to do with the return of war in Europe; the uncertainty created by the two candidates running so closely in Sunday’s first-round election; and the widespread disaffection for both candidates.Indeed, the April 24 runoff election may be France’s most consequential turning point in the past 40 years. It could usher in an entirely new political and social era, in which illiberal democracy, personified in Ms. Le Pen, could gain the upper hand in one of the founding members of the European Union. And regardless of the winner, the country faces a deep paralysis because it’s unclear whether either candidate will gain a majority in legislative elections later this spring. That means neither Ms. Le Pen’s nativist hopes will be met nor will Mr. Macron’s efforts to further liberalize the French economy materialize, a result that could further alienate citizens from politics.Where the 2017 election was about the hope of reforming France and remaining a liberal democracy, 2022 is a tight contest between two emotions: anger against Mr. Macron, who is perceived as a technocrat out of touch with the people, and fear of Ms. Le Pen, who is still seen by many as a dangerous far-right candidate. In both cases most voters will vote against, rather than for, a candidate. The question of the day remains: Do you hate Mr. Macron more than you fear Ms. Le Pen, or vice versa?What is yet to be seen is whether Ms. Le Pen will fully capitalize on voters’ anger toward Mr. Macron for his perceived aloofness and closeness to the richest segment of French society, as well as for the contours of his policy. His emphasis on pushing back the retirement age from 62 to 65, even if he has started to retreat on that promise, speaking of 64 as a reasonable compromise, has rankled voters.In her effort to pick up centrist votes, Ms. Le Pen appeared at times almost moderate, particularly compared with her more radical rival Éric Zemmour. In the run-up to Sunday’s first-round election, Ms. Le Pen benefited from Mr. Zemmour’s penchant for furiously railing about defending French identity and the need to create a ministry charged with expelling foreigners. Meanwhile, she was appearing on social media, speaking of her love for her cats.That worked for Ms. Le Pen in round one. But to gain enough votes to become president of France, she will most likely have to rally the extreme edges of her party, in part by returning to espousing hard-line views. It may not be that difficult. Behind her reassuring rhetoric, her more extreme policies remain intact. She has promised to ban the hijab in all public places, a nod toward her longstanding public antipathy to Islam; she has long spoken of curbing immigration and has said she will prioritize the native-born French for welfare benefits over immigrants.To be sure, by appealing to the extreme right, Ms. Le Pen also runs the risk of failing to win over middle-of-the-road French voters who are more likely to vote for Mr. Macron or abstain rather than vote for her.The dilemma of Mr. Macron is just the reverse. He needs the support of the far left, which now largely means supporters of Jean-Luc Mélenchon — who came in a very close third in round one — to win. It will be difficult for Mr. Macron to do so without diluting his economic program, which might lose him significant votes on the right.Complicating matters further, the coming runoff election may prove to be the closest since the victory of our longest-serving president, the socialist François Mitterrand, over the conservative Valery Giscard d’Estaing in 1981. It would be tempting to see the elections of 2022 as a distorted mirror of that fateful year. But 1981 was the triumph of hope bringing the socialists to power, which was, until then, an unheard-of possibility. Should Ms. Le Pen succeed, it would be a victory of anger.Such an outcome is not impossible. The voices of the extreme-right and extreme-left candidates together now add up to more than 50 percent of the vote. Those strengthening extremes signal that one in two French people no longer believes in classical liberal democracy as this country once knew it or in the future of the European project in which France has played an integral part.After all, Ms. Le Pen has long expressed her disdain for the European Union, once suggested leaving the common currency and still hopes France might all but abandon NATO.Then there’s the backdrop of the war in Ukraine. Initially the prospect of war worked in favor of the incumbent president. Mr. Macron’s early efforts at diplomacy and meeting with Vladimir Putin gave him an early advantage with voters. Then he found himself facing the economic consequences of the conflict, including the steep rise in the cost of living across France, the very subject chosen by Ms. Le Pen as her core campaign topic.Yet it is unclear whether the reality of the war so close to France will discredit Ms. Le Pen (who, despite having denounced the invasion, had close ties with Russia in the past and whose party received loans from a Russian bank). In the end, as they say, all politics is local. The French will not be voting for Ukraine, and a majority of them may not care that much about the future of Europe, either.For Mr. Macron, however, his fortunes are bound up with Europe’s, and his challenge is energizing the electorate to care enough about both him and the continent. In the coming days, he is likely to try to convince more French voters that a victory for Ms. Le Pen is a victory for Mr. Putin and that Ukraine and democracy will only suffer if she takes up residence in the Élysée Palace. Whether he can do so will be a test of France’s deep polarization. The haves — those with more wealth and education — skew disproportionately toward Mr. Macron, while the have-nots lean toward Ms. Le Pen. But even this doesn’t give the full picture: Beyond anger, we are also seeing a profound disillusionment with politics. More than 26 percent of voters abstained in the first round of elections, the lowest turnout for a presidential election since 2002.In 2017, after the triumph of Brexit in Britain and the election of Donald Trump in America, the election of Mr. Macron appeared as an oasis of hope in a desert of Anglo-Saxon despair. Now, in 2022, the West is right to remain concerned about the political future of France.With two weeks left to go, the election of a far-right leader in France remains possible but not probable. But let us be clear. What is at stake on April 24 is nothing less than the future of democracy in France and in Europe.Dominique Moïsi is a senior adviser at the Institut Montaigne, a Paris-based think tank.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden vows to tackle ‘grave threat’ of untraceable ‘ghost guns’ – as it happened

      by

      Key events

      Show

      5.11pm EDT

      17:11

      Closing summary

      3.06pm EDT

      15:06

      Biden announces ghost gun restrictions, seeks to end ‘terrible fellowship of loss’

      2.41pm EDT

      14:41

      Biden: Ghost guns pose ‘especially grave threat’

      1.45pm EDT

      13:45

      Modi call ‘constructive’, White House says, but no agreement over Russian oil

      11.56am EDT

      11:56

      Biden and Modi pledge collaboration over Ukraine

      10.25am EDT

      10:25

      Biden to announce restrictions on ‘ghost guns’

      Live feed

      Show

      Show key events only

      From

      3.06pm EDT

      15:06

      Biden announces ghost gun restrictions, seeks to end ‘terrible fellowship of loss’

      Joe Biden said it was “basic common sense” to want untraceable, so-called ghost guns off the street, during a White House address to announce new firearms restrictions.
      In an event at the Rose Garden attended by numerous survivors and families of victims of gun violence, the president said he was clamping down on the kit-form guns to try to prevent others joining the “terrible fellowship of loss.”
      He also took a swipe at Republicans in Congress, and the gun rights lobby, including the national rifle association (NRA), that have opposed his efforts to enact reform.
      “The gun lobby tried to tie up the regulations and paperwork for a long, long time. The NRA called this rule I’m about to announce extreme,” Biden said. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US officials warn Putin may cite Ukraine war to interfere in American politics

      by

      US officials warn Putin may cite Ukraine war to interfere in American politicsIntelligence believes Russia’s president may see US backing of Ukraine as direct affront, giving him further incentive to meddle

      Ukraine crisis – live coverage
      Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in American politics, US intelligence officials have assessed. Understanding Vladimir Putin, the man who fooled the world Read moreIntelligence agencies have not found any evidence Putin has authorized measures like the ones Russia is believed to have undertaken in the 2016 and 2020 elections in support of Donald Trump, according to several people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity. But given Putin’s antipathy toward the west and his repeated denunciations of Ukraine, officials believe he may see the US backing of Ukraine’s resistance as a direct affront, giving him further incentive to target another US election, the people said. It is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use. The assessment comes with the US electoral system under pressure. The US public remains sharply divided over the last election and the insurrection that followed at the US Capitol, when supporters of Trump tried to stop the certification of his loss to Joe Biden. Trump has repeatedly assailed intelligence officials and claimed investigations of Russian influence on his campaigns to be political vendettas. Tensions between Washington and Moscow have reached levels not seen since the end of the cold war. The White House has increased military support for Ukraine, which has mounted a robust resistance against Russian forces accused of committing war crimes, and helped impose global sanctions that have crippled Russia’s economy. There is no sign the war will end soon, which some experts say could delay Moscow from pursuing retaliation while its resources are mired in Ukraine. But “it’s almost certain that a depleted Russian military after Ukraine is going to again double down on hybrid tactics to wreak havoc against us and other allied countries”, said David Salvo, deputy director of the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy. In Ukraine and in past campaigns, Russia has been accused of trying to spread disinformation, amplifying pro-Kremlin voices and using cyberattacks to disrupt governments. Top US intelligence officials are still working on plans for a new center authorized by Congress focusing on foreign influence campaigns by Russia, China and other adversaries. Avril Haines, the US director of national intelligence, recently appointed a career CIA officer, Jeffrey Wichman, to the position of election threats executive several months after the departure of the previous executive, Shelby Pierson. “Our Election Threats Executive continues to lead the intelligence community’s efforts against foreign threats to US elections,“ said Nicole de Haay, a spokesperson for Haines. “We’re also continuing to work to deliver on the legislative requirement to create a center to integrate intelligence on foreign malign influence.” De Haay declined to comment on what intelligence officials think of Putin’s intentions. Russia’s embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. Foreign adversaries have long looked to interfere in US politics. The US has accused Putin of ordering influence operations to try to help Trump in 2020. A bipartisan Senate investigation of the 2016 election confirmed intelligence findings that Russia used cyber-espionage and information efforts to boost Trump and disparage his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s near-two-year investigation found no conclusive evidence the Trump campaign conspired with Russia, but Mueller declined to pass judgment on whether Trump obstructed justice. Trump continues to falsely insist the election he lost to Biden was stolen, with Republicans following his lead and opposing election security measures. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies continuously investigate foreign influence efforts. The US justice department last month charged five men with acting on behalf of China to harass Chinese dissidents in the US and derail a little-known congressional candidate. Experts say the proposed Foreign Malign Influence Center would bring much-needed direction to efforts across government studying adversaries. Congress provided partial funding for the center in the budget passed last month. The center has been delayed over questions within the intelligence director’s office and on Capitol Hill about its structure and size and whether it would unnecessarily duplicate efforts that already exist. Congress last month required the director’s office to complete within six months a report on the “future structure, responsibilities, and organizational placement” of the center. Mike Turner of Ohio, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, said the committee was closely watching “the malign activities of our adversaries” and the proposed center could be one way to help. “As Russia continues to use disinformation campaigns in Ukraine, we are reminded to be strategic in our response to countering their tactics,” Turner said. “It is no secret that our adversaries use disinformation to undermine the national security interests of the US, so we must take into account all viable options to protect our democracy.”TopicsUS politicsRussiaVladimir PutinEuropenewsReuse this content More