Russia

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Try This Game to Evaluate Levels of Disinformation in Times of War

      by

      Although during her three-decade-long career as a US Foreign Service officer Victoria Nuland has done many things, mostly in the shadows, she has had two moments that projected her into the headlines, both related to crucial events in Ukraine. It is worth noting that on both of those occasions, her superiors expected her to remain in the shadows. In other words, it is merely by chance that she has now become a household name in US foreign policy.

      Nuland has loyally served every administration, Democrat and Republican, since Bill Clinton, with a single exception. Donald Trump most likely refused to exploit her acquired competence on the grounds that she had been tainted by working for Barack Obama’s State Department under Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Or perhaps Trump felt she had become too embedded in the culture of the deep state he claimed to abhor.

      A Fictional Debate Between a Biden Administration Spokesman and a Journalist

      READ MORE

      Nuland’s closest direct collaboration with a luminary of American politics occurred between 2003 and 2005 when she held the position of principal deputy foreign policy advisor to Vice-President Dick Cheney. That enabled her to hone her skills as an aggressive agent of US power while playing an influential role in promoting the Iraq War. After that stint, she became George W. Bush’s ambassador to NATO. In January 2021, President-elect Joe Biden named her under secretary of state for political affairs, the fourth-ranking position in the State Department.

      According to Foreign Policy, who quotes Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, Nuland “has a high degree of self confidence and an absolute dedication to working for the administration she is working for, whatever administration that is.” In other words, she is a reliable tool of anyone’s policy decisions, however generous, cynical or perverse they may be. That is what she proved when sent to Kyiv in February 2014 to pilot the operations around the peaceful protests that were then taking place that the State Department judged could then, with the appropriate level of management, be turned into a revolution.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The hacked recording of a phone call between the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Nuland sealed the otherwise discreet diplomat’s place in history. In the recording, Nuland’s voice can be heard giving Pyatt orders about who the United States had selected to be Ukraine’s new prime minister. Countering Pyatt’s suggestion of the popular former boxer, Vitali Klitschko, Nuland selected Arseniy Yatsenyuk. After the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country and Yatsenyuk struggled to lead a new government, an anti-Russian billionaire, Petro Poroshenko, won the presidency in September 2014. He immediately appealed to the Obama administration for military assistance to counter Russia, but President Obama kept him at bay, reasoning that “Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States.”

      In other words, not only did the CIA work to overthrow the elected president, Yanukovych, but Nuland managed to manipulate Ukrainian politics from within and thus contribute to what was to evolve into a notoriously corrupt regime under Poroshenko. At the same time, her commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, chose to limit the US involvement in Ukraine by defining a prudent arm’s length relationship with the fiasco that was unfolding, even after Russia seized Crimea from the Ukrainians.

      Back in the News in 2022

      The events around the 2014 Maidan revolution provided the only occasion for the general public to become aware of Nuland’s name until last week when she appeared before the Senate where Florida Senator Marco Rubio questioned her about the current situation in Ukraine. That exchange should have been routine, but Rubio felt it was important to use Nuland’s testimony to refute accusations by Russia and China that the US was funding the development of chemical weapons in laboratories in Ukraine. 

      Nuland could have simply denied that any such laboratories existed and Rubio would have been satisfied. Instead, she uncomfortably explained not only that “biological research facilities” exist, but that the State Department is worried the Russians might effectively gain control of the labs, creating the risk of “research materials … falling into the hands of the Russian forces.” Some attentive observers deduced that the worry Nuland expressed concerned the possible revelation of illicit research funded and encouraged by the United States.

      The scandal that exploded after this exchange provoked two reactions. The first was a firm and over-the-top denial by the Biden administration. It was accompanied by a defensive counter-accusation claiming somewhat absurdly that the Russians were only making the accusation to cover up their own intention to use chemical weapons against Ukraine. The second more serious reaction was Rubio’s attempt to clarify the ambiguity of Nuland’s revelation by interrogating Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and CIA Director William Burns.

      Rubio counted on Haines not to make the same mistake as Nuland. Clearly, he expected her to give just enough perspective to dismiss any suspicions that the US may be involved in illegal military research. Claiming that “the best way to combat disinformation is transparency,” to make sure Haines would understand the type of response he hoped to hear to dispel the negative effect of Nuland’s testimony, Rubio spent three full paragraphs framing his question and insisting “it’s really important … to understand what exactly is in these labs.” Haines offered this astonishing response: “I think medical facilities — that I’ve been in as a child, done research in high school and college — all have equipment or pathogens or other things that you have to have restrictions around because you want to make sure that they’re being treated and handled appropriately. And I think that’s the kind of thing that Victoria Nuland was describing and thinking about in the context of that.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      Haines tells Rubio not what she knows but what she “thinks,” a verb she uses three times in two sentences. What she describes is nothing more than a subjective memory from her personal past and a vague generalization about medical security. It contains zero information of any kind. The next part of her answer, concerning nuclear power plants, is not only irrelevant but also a vague generalization about the possibility of “damage … or theft.” Her answer clarifies nothing. But Rubio is satisfied and concludes with three words: “All right, thanks.”  

      In his subsequent questioning of CIA Director Burns, Rubio takes four paragraphs to frame his question, again intended to clarify Nuland’s testimony. In the last two paragraphs, however, he veers away from the question of Nuland’s revelation and instead asks Burns about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategy concerning negotiations. Burns jumps on the opportunity to avoid answering the initial question about the Ukrainian biolabs. From Rubio’s point of view, the case is closed.

      Growing Curiosity Outside the Circles of Power

      Whereas most news outlets were happy to repeat the Biden administration’s adamant denials that any kind of biochemical research was taking place in Ukraine, various commentators, including Glenn Greenwald, picked up the issue and raised further questions. Greenwald took the time to remind his public of the troubling precedent of the anthrax attacks following 9/11 in 2001. Only months after killing five people did Americans learn that the anthrax originated in the Fort Detrick military lab in Maryland and not in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. (I have written elsewhere on Fair Observer about my own interrogations and investigation of that affair.)

      Nuland’s testimony was seriously embarrassing. Rubio’s follow-up failed to put the scandal to bed. It was time for the White House to go into full denial mode. Predictably, presidential Press Secretary Jan Psaki stepped up with the intent to kill all debate by peremptorily tweeting: “This is preposterous. It’s the kind of disinformation operation we’ve seen repeatedly from the Russians over the years in Ukraine and in other countries, which have been debunked, and an example of the types of false pretexts we have been warning the Russians would invent.”

      We may be justified in asking whether, in times of armed conflict, anything is more preposterous — and indeed more dangerous — than seeking to kill debate on a serious topic that might permit a better understanding of the context of the war. The refusal of debate would be especially preposterous concerning a war in which one’s own nation is theoretically not involved. (In reality, the Ukraine War is a showdown between the United States and Russia.) But now that fighting on the ground is real, preposterous discourse of any kind from either side becomes dangerous as the perspective of using weapons of mass destruction, either chemical or nuclear, has clearly become part of the equation. Since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the prospect of nuclear war has never been so evident.

      In this case, unfounded speculation about evil intentions cannot be considered an appropriate response. After all, the Russian contention expressed at the United Nations that the Ukrainian “regime is urgently concealing traces of a military biological program that Kiev implemented with support of the US Department of Defense” was at least partially confirmed by Nuland in her response to Rubio. It was met at the UN by a simple denial: “Ukraine does not have a biological weapons program. There are no Ukrainian biological weapons laboratories supported by the United States — not near Russia’s border or anywhere.”

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

      The Russian accusation, citing purported facts, should require at least a consideration of those facts rather than a blanket denial or a counter-accusation. Nuland never walked back her statement. Haines mentioned only what she “thinks” and Burns was spared even answering the question.

      Psaki is nevertheless right to bring to the public’s attention the criterion of preposterousness. That is something worth focusing on in times of massive propaganda. Reading the news in all the legitimate press today, it should be clear that, as always, preposterousness becomes the dominant feature of public discourse in times of conflict. Psaki’s tweets themselves are wonderful examples of preposterous blathering.

      A Game for Spectators in Times of War

      It may be time to propose an instructive game for anyone interested in paring down the level of preposterousness in public discourse and even news reporting. Anyone can play the game, but it requires forgetting about the beliefs and reflexes our various authorities expect us to acquire.

      The game simply consists of ranking, on a scale of one to 10 in terms of the degree of apparent preposterousness, any official statement or authoritative-sounding opinion made about the conflict, whether pronounced by political authorities or the news media. In other words, it requires accepting as a default position that every simple assertion one sees or hears is as likely as not to be preposterous. 

      The first criterion is to weigh the amount of emotional force in the assertion in relation to informational content. If emotion is clearly present and dominant, three or more points should be added to the potential preposterousness score.

      The inclusion of some authentic context, real information, can, on the other hand, make the proposition potentially less preposterous, bringing the score proportionately back down. The score can be improved by the inclusion of serious context, including facts drawn from historical background, reducing the level of preposterousness. On the other hand, citing purported trends from the past, what are presented as reflexive patterns of behavior or supposed “playbooks” will add points, pushing the preposterousness level further upward. A simple denial or the categorizing an opposing comment as “disinformation” will add two or more points to the preposterousness.

      An important consideration is the identity of the source of the statement. If the author of the proposition is clearly associated with one or the other of the two opposing sides, five points will be added to the level of perceived preposterousness. Those points can only be reduced by the citation of facts. Neutral sources, unaffiliated with one side or the other, receive no preposterousness points but they may still say preposterous things. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      This neutral or non-neutral identity of the source can become complicated by other considerations, some of which may themselves prove preposterous. For example, anyone aware of the track record on controversial events of Glenn Greenwald, cited above, knows that he has no loyalty to either Vladimir Putin or Joe Biden. That fact can be easily proved. But because he is American and criticizes American leaders and pundits who demonize Russia, some preposterously believe he is favorable to Putin. This phenomenon of seeing nuance as opposition is a direct consequence of a longstanding trend in US culture that consists of believing that those who are not for us (i.e., those who do not automatically endorse all our actions) are against us.

      Another important rule of the game is that an identical counter-accusation, of the kind Psaki has made, should automatically add six points to the preposterousness index. In some cases, the counter-accusation may be true, so it cannot be assumed to be totally preposterous. If that can be established, some of the points can be canceled. The reason for adding so many points for an identical counter-accusation is simple. It is almost always an attempt not to clarify but to avoid addressing the evidence that exists. It goes beyond simple denial, which is worth only two or three points at best. A truthful counter-accusation should be accompanied by some form of concrete evidence other than vaguely reputational. If not, the six points should stand.

      Another rule is that citing sources for whom the suspicion of preposterously lying has become part of a standard mindset merits two supplementary points of preposterousness. This is a standard trick of lawyers in criminal cases who conduct research to impugn a witness who may have lied on another occasion. They want the jury to believe that lying on one occasion means lying on all occasions. Case dismissed.

      Two other significant factors of preposterousness that often go together are, first, the attempt to account for the psychology of the adversary by reducing to a particular (and generally ignoble) cause, and, secondly, predicting bad behavior to come. This last is often a clever gamble to the extent that the predictor may have some ability to provoke the predicted bad behavior. Depending on the odds, such predictions are worth two to four points. 

      Finally, repetition of stereotypes — often cited accusations or memes built up by past propaganda to provoke a predictable reflex in the public — may be worth from three to five points, depending on the status of the stereotype in the ambient culture.

      Those are the basic rules. Now, let’s look at a practical example to see how the game can be played. Jan Psaki provided another tweet that can serve that purpose: “Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.”

      Psaki has accomplished a lot in this tweet to achieve a high score in preposterousness. “False claims” and “propaganda” are gratuitous assertions that need to be supported by evidence, which she has no intention of providing. This indicates the presence of a strong emotion of indignation. Citing China is an example of discrediting anything a witness has to say as being unreliable. The suggestion of being “on the lookout” appeals to the reflex of fear. The “false flag” accusation repeats a meme that has occurred so often in recent weeks that it deserves being compared to the boy crying wolf.

      And finally, Psaki uses the idea of a “pattern,” with the intention of making the public believe there is no reason to explore the facts, since the discourse is a simple repetition of predictable behavior. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      Psaki has a reputation for making preposterous statements sound reasonable, unlike, for example, Donald Trump’s former spokesperson, Kelly-Anne Conway, who excelled in sounding preposterous. In all fairness to Psaki, the state of war she is commenting on admits of so much ambiguity and uncertainty, even concerning basic facts, that the preposterousness level of her tweet should not be considered to have attained the maximum of 10;  seven or eight may be a more fitting appraisal.

      Other Applications of the Game

      Those interested in this game might try applying it to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s latest stab at being preposterous on the same issue in this clip from Sky News. In videos like this, body language and speech cadences can add a significant element to the score, two factors that became evident to observers in the Nuland hearing. 

      Of course, the same game can be played with Russia’s or any other country’s official discourse. War is not only an assault on people, infrastructure and property. It is always an assault on dialogue, curiosity and truth itself. Commenting on the “1984” communication atmosphere that we are now subjected to, Matt Taibbi notes that a “healthy person should be able to be horrified by what’s happening in Russia and also see a warning about the degradation that ensues from using “pre-emptive” force, or from trying to control discontent by erasing expressions of it.” Preposterous statements are just one way of disqualifying and erasing discontent. They may also seek to stir up the kinds of emotions that could trigger a nuclear war.

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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Volodymyr Zelenskiy expected to urge jet transfer in address to US Congress

      by

      Volodymyr Zelenskiy expected to urge jet transfer in address to US CongressLeaders prepare to welcome Ukraine president before Wednesday speech amid divisions over question of planes

      Russia-Ukraine war – latest updates
      Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the president of Ukraine, will address Congress on Wednesday in what could prove his most powerful plea yet for the west to take a tougher line against Vladimir Putin.Kremlin memos urged Russian media to use Tucker Carlson clips – reportRead moreZelenskiy is expected to use the virtual address to urge members of the House of Representatives and Senate to intensify pressure on Joe Biden to allow the transfer of MiG-29 fighter jets from Poland.The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said in a joint letter to members: “The Congress, our country and the world are in awe of the people of Ukraine, who have shown extraordinary courage, resilience and determination in the face of Russia’s unprovoked, vicious and illegal war.”They added: “The Congress remains unwavering in our commitment to supporting Ukraine as they face Putin’s cruel and diabolical aggression, and to passing legislation to cripple and isolate the Russian economy as well as deliver humanitarian, security and economic assistance to Ukraine.“We look forward to the privilege of welcoming President Zelenskiy’s address to the House and Senate and to convey our support to the people of Ukraine as they bravely defend democracy.”Zelenskiy, who will speak at 9am Washington time on Wednesday, has been seeking to drum up support with video briefings of foreign audiences. Last week he received a standing ovation from the British parliament and echoed William Shakespeare (“The question for us now is: ‘To be or not to be’”) and Winston Churchill (“We will fight in the forests, in the fields, on the shores, in the streets”).On Tuesday, the TV actor and comedian turned resistance leader, who has proved adept at communications under siege, is scheduled to address the Canadian parliament in Ottawa. He is also due to speak to Israel’s parliament at some stage.On 5 March, dressed in a military-green T-shirt and seated beside a Ukrainian flag, Zelenskiy spoke to more than 280 members of the House and Senate in a video call. He is said to have made a “desperate plea” for aircraft to fight Russian invaders.Most members of Congress back the White House’s refusal to attempt to impose a “no-fly zone” that could entail US pilots firing on Russians and trigger a wider conflict.Chris Murphy, chairman of the Senate appropriations homeland security subcommittee, told the Hill: “This is the most dangerous moment since the Cuban missile crisis. We have never been this close to direct conflict with Russia.“We made the right decision to openly support the Ukrainians but we just should understand the unprecedented moment that we’re living in today where we’re openly funding war against a nuclear power.”But there is a growing split over Poland’s offer to send Soviet-style MiG-29 fighter jets, which Ukrainian pilots are capable of flying, to Ukraine via a US airbase in Germany.The White House and Pentagon have rejected the proposal, wary that an increasingly reckless Putin could perceive it as escalatory and saying it raised “serious concerns” for the entire Nato alliance. Republicans and some Democrats say Zelenskiy’s request should be met.Mitt Romney, a Republican senator from Utah, said last week: “He has asked us for aircraft – specifically MiGs. We need to get him those MiGs. It is a bipartisan message.”Rob Portman, a Republican senator from Ohio visiting the Ukraine-Poland border, told CNN: “What we’ve heard directly from the Ukrainians is they want them badly. They want the ability to have better control over the skies in order to give them a fighting chance. I don’t understand why we’re not doing it.”The Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar, from Minnesota, was also on the visit. She said she had spoken to Biden “about 10 days ago” about the fighters, adding: “I’d like to see the planes over there.”The Democratic-controlled Congress approved $13.6bn in humanitarian and security aid to Ukraine last Thursday, as part of a $1.5tn spending bill that funds US government operations through 30 September.The US and allies have imposed broad sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February. Biden has announced a US ban on Russian oil imports, seen as politically risky amid soaring gas prices.Last Friday the president took more steps to punish Russia economically, targeting trade and shutting down development funds while announcing a ban on imports of Russian seafood, vodka and diamonds. On Saturday he authorised $200m in additional military equipment for Ukraine.About 59% of Americans believe Biden has been making the right decisions when it comes to the situation in Ukraine, including more than one in three Republicans, according to Navigator Research. However, asked whether they approve of Biden’s handling of the issue, Americans are more polarised, with 49% disapproving and 43% approving.‘Cynical, craven’ Republicans out to bash Biden, not Putin, over gas pricesRead moreBiden’s predecessor as president, Donald Trump, again refused to condemn Putin at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday.“It happens to be a man that is just driven, he’s driven to put it together,” Trump said, while claiming the war would never have happened if he was still in the White House.On Monday a fourth round of talks between Ukraine and Russia were held via videoconference amid deadly air strikes in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv. At the weekend, Russian airstrikes killed 35 people at a military base near Yavoriv, outside Lviv – perilously close to the frontier with Poland, a Nato member.In a video address, Zelenskiy warned: “If you do not close our sky, it is only a matter of time before Russian missiles fall on your territory, on Nato territory, on the homes of Nato citizens.”He urged Nato to impose a no-fly zone – a request he is likely to repeat to Congress on Wednesday.TopicsVolodymyr ZelenskiyUkraineRussiaUS CongressJoe BidenHouse of RepresentativesUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Kremlin memos urged Russian media to use Tucker Carlson clips – report

      by

      Kremlin memos urged Russian media to use Tucker Carlson clips – reportRussian government document instructed outlets to show Fox News host ‘as much as possible’, Mother Jones says The Fox News primetime host Tucker Carlson has been widely accused of echoing Russian propaganda about the invasion of Ukraine. According to a report on Sunday, earlier this month the Putin regime in Moscow sent out an instruction to friendly media outlets: use more clips of Carlson.‘Cynical, craven’ Republicans out to bash Biden, not Putin, over gas pricesRead moreMother Jones, a progressive magazine, said it had obtained memos produced by the Russian Department of Information and Telecommunications Support.One document, it said, was entitled “For Media and Commentators (recommendations for coverage of events as of 03.03)”, or 3 March. The magazine published pictures of the memo, which it said it was given by “a contributor to a national Russian media outlet who asked not to be identified”.It said the memo included an instruction: “It is essential to use as much as possible fragments of broadcasts of the popular Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who sharply criticises the actions of the United States [and] Nato, their negative role in unleashing the conflict in Ukraine, [and] the defiantly provocative behavior from the leadership of the eastern countries and Nato towards the Russian Federation and towards President Putin, personally.”The document, Mother Jones said, summed up Carlson’s position on the Ukraine war as “Russia is only protecting its interests and security” and included a quote: “And how would the US behave if such a situation developed in neighbouring Mexico or Canada?”Carlson and Fox News did not comment to Mother Jones. Fox News did not respond to a Guardian request for comment.On air last Wednesday, 9 March, Carlson said testimony by Victoria Nuland, a US undersecretary of state, about Ukrainian “biological research facilities” had shown Russian claims of US involvement were “totally and completely true”.Fact checkers said they were not.“Russian state TV featured Carlson’s take the next day,” the Washington Post said, adding that the Russian claim about US participation in biological laboratories in Ukraine was “straight out of the old Soviet playbook. But that doesn’t mean prominent commentators like Carlson should be so quick to fall for it”.Citing another Russian “recommendations for coverage” memo, dated 10 March, Mother Jones said the text advised Russian hosts to relay the message that “activities of military biological laboratories with American participation on the territory of Ukraine carried global threats to Russia and Europe”.On Sunday Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told NBC Russian claims about biological warfare facilities in Ukraine could indicate Russian willingness to use such weapons.“When Russia starts accusing other countries of potentially doing something, it’s a good tell that they may be on the cusp of doing it themselves,” he said.The Fox News journalist fact-checking channel’s pundits on air over UkraineRead moreMother Jones said no other western journalist was named in the memos it obtained, which it said also included advice on how to cite Carlson about how “Biden’s sanctions policy” was actually an economic “punishment for the American middle class”. That memo, the magazine said, also cited the New York Post, like Fox News owned by Rupert Murdoch.On Sunday afternoon, Julia Davis, an analyst of Russian media, tweeted a still from “Russia’s state TV” showing “none other than Tucker Carlson” on a screen above a discussion panel.“They always follow the Kremlin’s directives,” Davis wrote, “namely to use Tuckyo Rose clips as often as possible.”“Tokyo Rose” was a nickname given by Americans to several women who broadcast Japanese propaganda during the second world war.TopicsFox NewsUS television industryVladimir PutinRussiaUkraineUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden adviser to meet top China diplomat in Rome over Russia relationship

      by

      Biden adviser to meet top China diplomat in Rome over Russia relationshipAmid reports that Russia has requested military help in Ukraine, Jake Sullivan says Washington is watching Beijing closely Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan, who is due to meet China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, in Rome on Monday, warned on Sunday that Beijing will “absolutely” face consequences if it helps Moscow evade sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine.US film-maker Brent Renaud killed by Russian forces in UkraineRead moreThe White House national security council declined to comment, however, on reports that Russia has asked China for military equipment since its invasion of Ukraine on 24 February.The Financial Times, Washington Post and New York Times reported the request on Sunday, citing US officials.Russia and China have tightened cooperation as they have come under western pressure over human rights and other issues. Beijing has not condemned Russia’s attack on Ukraine and does not call it an invasion but has urged a negotiated solution.The Washington Post said the unidentified US officials did not state the kind of weaponry that Russia requested or how China responded.Earlier, Sullivan told CNN the US believed China was aware Russia was planning action in Ukraine before the invasion took place, though Beijing may not have understood the full extent of what was planned.Now, Sullivan said, Washington was watching closely to see to what extent Beijing provided economic or material support to Russia, and would impose consequences if it did.“We are communicating directly, privately to Beijing, that there will absolutely be consequences for large-scale sanctions evasion efforts or support to Russia to backfill them,” Sullivan said. “We will not allow that to go forward and allow there to be a lifeline to Russia from these economic sanctions from any country, anywhere in the world.”A senior US administration official said the war in Ukraine would be a “significant topic” during Sullivan’s meeting with Yang, which is part of a broader effort by Washington and Beijing to maintain communication and manage competition between the world’s two largest economies.“This meeting is taking place in the context of Russia’s unjustified and brutal war against Ukraine, and as China has aligned itself with Russia to advance their own vision of the world order, and so I expect … the two of them will discuss the impact of Russia’s war against Ukraine on regional and global security,” the source said.No specific outcomes were expected from the Rome meeting, the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.The US on Saturday said it would rush up to $200m of additional weapons to Ukrainian forces as they try to defend against Russian shelling in the largest conflict in Europe since the second world war.The Russian assault has trapped thousands of civilians in besieged cities and sent 2.5 million Ukrainians fleeing to neighboring countries.The US and its allies have imposed unprecedented sanctions and banned Russian energy imports, while providing billions of dollars of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.Individually and together they have appealed to China, Gulf nations and others that have failed to condemn the invasion to join in isolating Russia.Beijing has refused to call Russia’s actions an invasion, although President Xi Jinping last week did call for “maximum restraint” after a virtual meeting with the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and French president, Emmanuel Macron.Xi also expressed concern about the impact of sanctions on global finance, energy supplies, transportation and supply chains, amid growing signs that western sanctions are limiting China’s ability to buy Russian oil.Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of the state-backed Chinese Global Times newspaper, said on Twitter: “If Sullivan thinks he can persuade China to participate in sanctions against Russia, he will be disappointed.“The International Monetary Fund last week said the crisis could see China miss its 5.5% growth target this year, and its chief said she had spoken with China’s top central banker and expected mounting pressure on Russia to end the war.While in Rome, Sullivan will also meet with Luigi Mattiolo, diplomatic adviser to the Italian prime minister, Mario Draghi, to continue coordinating the strong global response to Vladimir Putin’s “war of choice”, the source said.The US and the Group of Seven advanced economies on Friday ratcheted up pressure on Russia by calling for revoking its “most favored nation” trade status, which would allow them to jack up tariffs on Russian goods.Trade made up about 46% of Russia’s economy in 2020, much of that with China, its biggest export destination.TopicsBiden administrationRussiaUkraineEuropeUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden adviser rejects Republican call to ‘close skies’ over Ukraine

      by

      Biden adviser rejects Republican call to ‘close skies’ over UkraineRob Portman of Ohio urges US and Nato as US intelligence community says creating no-fly zone risks escalation of conflict

      Russia-Ukraine war: latest news
      A senior Republican senator on Sunday urged the US and Nato to “close the skies” over Ukraine, hours after a logistics hub and training base for foreign fighters 11 miles from the Polish border was struck by Russian forces, killing 35.Russia missile strike on Ukraine base close to Polish border kills 35, governor saysRead more“The message coming loud and clear is close the skies,” said Rob Portman, a senator from Ohio on a visit to Poland. “Because the skies are where the bombs are coming, whether it’s the missile attacks or the airplane attacks or with artillery.”The US intelligence community has assessed that any attempt to create a no-fly zone would risk escalation. The US has also turned down a Polish offer to supply jets to Ukraine via an American airbase in Germany.Asked if supplying Ukraine with Russian-made MiG-29s could trigger a third world war, Portman told CNN’s State of the Union he “didn’t know why that would be true”.“The Russians have complained about everything,” he said. “Vladimir Putin has said that the sanctions are an act of war.”Russia, Portman said, “complained when we provided Stingers directly from the US government, which can knock down an airplane and have been successful in doing that at lower altitudes. We have given [Ukraine] helicopters.“… What we have heard directly from the Ukrainians is they want [the jets] badly. They want the ability to have better control over the skies in order to give them a fighting chance. So I don’t understand why we’re not doing it.”Portman welcomed an indication from Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, that anti-aircraft systems could be provided. Sullivan repeated Joe Biden’s opposition to the transfer of “offensive” weapons while underlining commitment to supplying “defensive” arms, telling CBS’s Face the Nation the US and allies “believe in our capacity to continue to flow substantial amounts of military assistance, weapons and supplies to the front in Ukraine.“We have been successful in doing so thus far and we believe we have a system in place that will allow us to continue to do so, notwithstanding Russian threats.”Russia claimed the strike on the Yavoriv base was against foreign fighters and weapons. The Pentagon spokesman, John Kirby, told ABC’s This Week no Americans were at the facility.US film-maker Brent Renaud killed by Russian forces in UkraineRead moreBut Kirby reiterated that the US and allies would “continue to flow and to move and to reposition forces and capabilities along Nato’s eastern flank to make sure that we can defend every inch of Nato territory if we need to.“We’ve made it very clear to Russia that Nato territory will be defended not just by the United States, but by our allies.”Of calls to supply jets or announce a no-fly zone, Kirby said: “We can all understand the kind of escalatory measure that might be perceived as.”The US deputy secretary of state, Wendy Sherman, said Russia showed signs of “willingness to have real, serious negotiations”, despite four sets of talks having failed.Sherman told Fox News Sunday the US had been working to “put enormous pressure on Vladimir Putin to try to change his calculus, to end this war, to get a ceasefire in the first instance, to get humanitarian corridors, and to end this invasion”.“That pressure is beginning to have some effect,” Sherman said, though she added: “It appears that Vladimir Putin is intent on destroying Ukraine.”On Saturday, the White House approved an additional $200m of military assistance.“We are determined and the Ukrainians are determined to ensure that anti-tank, anti-armor, anti-air capabilities, ammunition and other forms of assistance actually do make it to the front to blunt the Russian advance,” Sullivan told NBC’s Meet the Press. “We’re coordinating the efforts of our allies and partners to do the same thing.”Last week, Biden warned of a “severe price” if Russia used chemical or biological weapons. Sullivan said Russian claims about supposed Ukrainian bio-weapons labs signaled that Moscow could be preparing to do so.“When Russia starts accusing other countries of potentially doing something, it’s a good tell that they may be on the cusp of doing it themselves,” he said.“What we’re here to do is to deny them the capacity to have a false flag operation to blame this on the Ukrainians or on us, to take away their pretext and to make the world understand that if chemical weapons are used in Ukraine, it is the Russians who will have used them. And the response will, as the president said, be severe.”Sullivan will meet China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, in Rome next week. Sullivan said the US would respond to any attempts to work around western sanctions on Russia.Ukraine mourns its fallen as Zelenskiy says 1,300 soldiers killedRead more“We have made it clear to not just Beijing but every country in the world that if they think that they can basically bail Russia out, they can give Russia a workaround to the sanctions that we’ve imposed, they should have another thing coming because we will ensure that neither China, nor anyone else, can compensate Russia for these losses,” Sullivan told NBC.He declined to lay out what steps the US might take, saying: “We will communicate that privately to China, as we have already done and will continue to do.”Later, in response to reports Moscow had asked Beijing for military equipment, the Chinese embassy in the US said China’s top priority was to prevent the situation in Ukraine from getting out of control.The economic consequences of the war in Ukraine have yet to register heavily in US polls. On CNN, Portman deployed a Republican attack line, blaming Biden for not expanding domestic drilling for oil. Biden has countered that US oil companies have not exploited existing permits.A CBS poll found that 77% of Americans across the political spectrum are willing to pay more for gas as a result of sanctions to punish Russia. According to the poll, 69% said economic pain now might be a wise hedge against bigger problems later.Americans largely believe Russia has designs on invading other countries.TopicsBiden administrationRepublicansUS politicsUS foreign policyRussiaUkraineEuropenewsReuse this content More

    • 238 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US and allies set to revoke normal trade relations with Russia over Ukraine war, says Biden – follow live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      2.15pm EST

      14:15

      Texas court deals fresh blow to abortion rights

      1.54pm EST

      13:54

      Interim summary

      12.59pm EST

      12:59

      Biden to House Democrats: November midterms are the ‘most important in modern history’

      11.07am EST

      11:07

      Biden: Russia would pay a ‘severe price’ for use of chemical weapons

      10.37am EST

      10:37

      Biden: US and allies to deny ‘most favored nation’ status to Russia

      10.02am EST

      10:02

      Pelosi: US will seek to end normal trade relations with Russia

      9.31am EST

      09:31

      Harris: US commitment to Nato’s article 5 ‘ironclad’

      Live feed

      Show

      Show key events only

      From

      10.37am EST

      10:37

      Biden: US and allies to deny ‘most favored nation’ status to Russia

      Joe Biden has announced that the US was moving to revoke Russia’s “most favored nation status” in coordination with allies.
      Revoking Russia’s permanent normal trade relations will “make it harder for Russia to business with the United States”. He said the US was “taking the first steps” to ban imports of Russian vodka, seafood and diamonds.
      Biden thanked Pelosi for pushing the US to take this action, and for holding off on a measure in Congress until he “could line up all of our key allies.”
      “Putin is the aggressor and Putin must pay a price,” he said.
      He also detailed other economic sanctions the US has taken to destabilize the Russian economy and squeeze Putin and those around him.
      Biden said the US and its allies were targeting an expanded list of Russian oligarchs,and ramping up efforts to capture their “ ill-begotten gains.”
      “They support Putin. They steal from the Russian people and they seek to hide their money in our countries,” Biden said, emphasizing one of the most popular aspects of the west’s crackdown on Russia. “They’re part of that kleptocracy that exists in Moscow and they must share in the pain of these sanctions.”
      In addition to seizing their “superyachts” and vacation homes, Biden said the US was also banning the export of luxury luxury goods to Russia, calling it the latest, but “not the last step we’re going to take.”

      Updated
      at 10.59am EST

      4.52pm EST

      16:52

      State department spokesman Ned Price denounced Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, for downplaying the strike on a maternity hospital during a security council meeting convened by Moscow earlier today.
      “This was a brutal strike against a maternity hospital that killed innocent Ukrainians,” he said.

      The Recount
      (@therecount)
      State Deptartment spokesperson Ned Price calls out Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya for peddling misinformation at the Security Council:“This was a brutal strike against a maternity hospital that killed innocent Ukrainians.” pic.twitter.com/W38FHUNxNV

      March 11, 2022

      4.43pm EST

      16:43

      The Senate confirmed George Tsunis to be the US ambassador to Greece on Friday.

      Senate Press Gallery
      (@SenatePress)
      The #Senate confirmed by voice vote: Executive Calendar #782 George J. Tsunis to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Greece.

      March 11, 2022

      Earlier this year, The Guardian’s David Smith wrote about Biden’s nomination of Tsunis, a hotel developer and Democratic donor with no diplomatic experience. Tsunis was previously nominated by Obama to be the ambassador to Norway. It did not go well, per Smith’s report.

      On that occasion Tsunis was Barack Obama’s nominee for ambassador to Norway. Bumbling and ill-prepared, he admitted that he had never been to Norway and referred to the country as having a president when, as a constitutional monarchy, it does not.

      4.18pm EST

      16:18

      Martin Pengelly

      At an Oval Office meeting with the then Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, in 2017, Donald Trump asked his national security adviser if US troops were in Donbas, territory claimed by Russian-backed separatists, which Vladimir Putin last month used as pretext for a full and bloody invasion. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      The Presence of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

      by

      President Vladimir Putin has claimed that he ordered the Russian invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” its government. Western officials, such as former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, have called this pure propaganda, insisting, “There are no Nazis in Ukraine.”

      In the context of the Russian invasion, the post-2014 Ukrainian government’s problematic relationship with extreme right-wing parties and neo-Nazi groups has become an incendiary element on both sides of the propaganda war, with Russia exaggerating it as a pretext for war and the West trying to sweep it under the rug. 

      Is Bosnia-Herzegovina Next on Russia’s Radar?

      READ MORE

      The reality behind the propaganda is that the West and its Ukrainian allies have opportunistically exploited and empowered the extreme right in Ukraine, first to pull off a coup amidst anti-government protests in 2014 and then by redirecting it to fight separatists in eastern Ukraine. And far from “denazifying” Ukraine, the Russian invasion is likely to further empower Ukrainian and international neo-Nazis, as the conflict attracts fighters from around the world and provides them with weapons, military training and the combat experience that many of them are hungry for.

      The Extreme Right in Ukraine

      Ukraine’s extreme right-wing Svoboda party and its founders, Oleh Tyahnybok and Andriy Parubiy, played leading roles in the US-backed coup in February 2014. During an infamously leaked phone conversation before the Ukrainian government’s ouster, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt mentioned Tyahnybok as one of the leaders they were working with, even as they tried to exclude him from an official position in the new government. 

      At that time, previously peaceful protests in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, gave way to pitched battles with police and armed marches to try to break through barricades and reach parliament. Members of Svoboda and the newly-formed Right Sector militia, led by Dmytro Yarosh, battled officers, spearheaded marches and raided a police armory for weapons. By mid-February 2014, these men with guns were the de facto leaders of the Maidan protests.

      We will never know what kind of political transition peaceful protests alone would have led to in Ukraine or how different the new government would have been if a peaceful process had been allowed to take its course, without interference by the US or violent right-wing extremists. But it was Yarosh who took to the stage in the Maidan and rejected the February 21 agreement negotiated by European foreign ministers, under which then-President Viktor Yanukovich and opposition political leaders agreed to hold new elections later that year. Instead, Yarosh and the Right Sector refused to disarm and led the climactic march on parliament that overthrew the government.

      Ukrainian Leaders

      Since 1991, Ukrainian elections had swung back and forth between leaders like Yanukovych, who is from Donetsk and had close ties with Russia, and Western-backed leaders like Viktor Yushchenko, who was elected in 2005 after the Orange Revolution that followed a disputed election. Ukraine’s endemic corruption tainted every government, and public disillusionment with whichever leader and party won power led to a see-saw between Western and Russian-aligned factions.

      In 2014, Nuland and the US State Department got their favorite, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, installed as prime minister of the new government. He lasted two years, until he, too, lost his job due to endless corruption scandals. Petro Poroshenko, the new president, lasted a bit longer, until 2019, even after his personal tax evasion schemes were exposed in the 2016 Panama Papers and 2017 Paradise Papers.

      When Yatsenyuk became prime minister, he rewarded Svoboda’s role in the coup with three cabinet positions, including Oleksander Sych as deputy prime minister, and governorships of three of Ukraine’s 25 provinces. Andriy Parubiy — who founded the fascist Social National Party that went on to become Svoboda — was appointed chairman of parliament, a post he held for the next five years. Tyahnybok ran for president in 2014, but he only got 1.2% of the votes and was not reelected to parliament.

      Ukrainian voters turned their backs on the extreme right in the 2014 elections, reducing Svoboda’s 10.4% share of the national vote in 2012 to 4.7%. Svoboda lost support in areas where it held control of local governments but had failed to live up to its promises, and its support was split now that it was no longer the only party running on explicitly anti-Russian slogans and rhetoric.

      Azov Battalion

      After Yanukovich was toppled, the Right Sector helped to consolidate the new order by attacking and breaking up anti-coup protests, in what Yarosh described to Newsweek as a war to “cleanse the country” of pro-Russian protesters. This campaign climaxed on May 2, 2014, with the massacre of 42 protesters in a fiery inferno, after they took shelter from Right Sector attackers in the Trades Unions House in Odessa.

      After protests evolved into declarations of independence in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Donbas in the east, the extreme right in Ukraine shifted gear to full-scale armed combat. The Ukrainian military had little enthusiasm for fighting its own people, so the government formed new National Guard units to do so. The Right Sector formed a unit, and neo-Nazis also dominated the Azov Battalion, which was founded by Andriy Biletsky, an avowed white supremacist who claimed that Ukraine’s national purpose was to rid the country of Jews and other inferior races. It was the Azov Battalion, which was incorporated into the National Guard in 2014, that led the new government’s assault on the self-declared republics in eastern Ukraine and retook the city of Mariupol from separatist forces. 

      The Minsk II agreement in 2015 ended the worst fighting and set up a buffer zone around the breakaway republics of Donbas, but a low-intensity civil war continued. An estimated 14,000 people have been killed since 2014.

      US Representative Ro Khanna and progressive members of Congress tried for several years to end military aid to the Azov Battalion. In September 2017, the House amended the Defense Appropriations Act to ban military aid to the militia, but it is not clear how effective it ban has been. Since the Azov Battalion is fully integrated into the Ukrainian armed forces, it would take targeted efforts by US forces in Ukraine to ensure it does not receive the same weapons and support as other units. Today, in the midst of a war and a huge influx of US military aid, that would seem to be almost impossible.

      In 2019, the Soufan Center, which tracks terrorist and extremist groups around the world, warned, “The Azov Battalion is emerging as a critical node in the transnational right-wing violent extremist network… [Its] aggressive approach to networking serves one of the Azov Battalion’s overarching objectives, to transform areas under its control in Ukraine into the primary hub for transnational white supremacy.” The center described how the Azov Battalion’s “aggressive networking” reaches around the world to recruit fighters and spread its white supremacist ideology. Foreign fighters who train and fight with the Azov Battalion then return to their own countries to apply what they have learned and recruit others. 

      Violent foreign extremists with links to Azov include Brenton Tarrant, who massacred 51 worshippers at a mosque in Christchurch in New Zealand in 2019, and several members of the US Rise Above Movement who were prosecuted for attacking counter-protesters at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017. Other Azov veterans have returned to Australia, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the UK and other countries, according to the Soufan Center.   

      Despite Svoboda’s declining success in national elections, neo-Nazi and extreme nationalist groups linked to the Azov Battalion have maintained power on the street in Ukraine and in local politics in the nationalist heartland around Lviv, a city in the west of the country. After President Volodymyr Zelensky’s election in 2019, the extreme right allegedly threatened him with removal from office, or even death, if he negotiated with separatist leaders from Donbas and followed through on the Minsk Protocol. Zelensky ran for election as a peace candidate, but under threat from the right, he refused to even talk to Donbas representatives, whom he dismissed as terrorists.

      During Donald Trump’s presidency, the United States reversed Barack Obama’s ban on weapons sales to Ukraine. Zelensky’s aggressive rhetoric raised new fears in Donbas and Russia that he was building up Ukraine’s forces for a new offensive to retake Donetsk and Luhansk from separatists.  

      Neoliberalism in Ukraine

      The civil war in eastern Ukraine, combined with the government’s neoliberal economic policies, created fertile ground for the extreme right. The new government imposed more of the same neoliberal “shock therapy” that was imposed throughout Eastern Europe in the 1990s. In 2015, Ukraine received a $40-billion IMF bailout. Part of the deal, Tony Wood explains in an article for the N+1 website, would include privatizing state-owned enterprises, reducing public sector employment by 20%, cutting health-care benefits and cutting investment in public education.

      Coupled with Ukraine’s endemic corruption, these policies led to the profitable looting of state assets by the corrupt ruling class and to falling living standards and austerity measures for everybody else. The post-2014 government upheld Poland as its model, but the reality was closer to Boris Yeltsin’s Russia in the 1990s. Ukraine’s GDP plummeted between 2012 and 2016, making it the poorest country in Europe.

      As elsewhere, the failures of neoliberalism have fueled the rise of right-wing extremism and racism. Now, the war with Russia promises to provide thousands of alienated young men from around the world with military training and combat experience, which they can then take home to terrorize their own countries.

      The Soufan Center has compared the Azov Battalion’s international networking strategy to that of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group. US and NATO support for the Azov Battalion poses similar risks as their support for al-Qaeda-linked groups in Syria 10 years ago. Those chickens quickly came home to roost, of course.

      Right now, Ukrainians are united in their resistance to Russia’s invasion. But we should not be surprised when the Western alliance with extreme right-wing proxy forces in Ukraine, including the infusion of billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons, results in similarly violent and destructive blowback.

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

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump thought US troops were in Ukraine in 2017, ex-ambassador says in book

      by

      Trump thought US troops were in Ukraine in 2017, ex-ambassador says in bookMarie Yovanovitch, who was fired by Trump in 2019, reveals details of then president’s Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian counterpart At an Oval Office meeting with the then Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, in 2017, Donald Trump asked his national security adviser if US troops were in Donbas, territory claimed by Russian-backed separatists, which Vladimir Putin last month used as pretext for a full and bloody invasion.Describing the meeting in a new book, the then US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, writes: “An affirmative answer to that question would have meant that the United States was in a shooting war with Russia.”Likelihood of criminal charges against Trump rising, experts sayRead moreYovanovitch adds: “I pondered whether it was better to interpret Trump’s question as suggesting that the commander-in-chief thought it possible that US troops were fighting Russia-led forces, or instead as an indicator that the president wasn’t clear which country was on the other side of the war against Ukraine.“Either way, it was disconcerting that he did not seem to know where we had our troops – his troops – deployed. I could only imagine what the Ukrainians were thinking.”Trump fired Yovanovitch in 2019, amid attempts to withhold military aid to Ukraine in return for political dirt on Joe Biden and other rivals, an affair which fueled Trump’s first impeachment.Yovanovitch describes the Trump-Poroshenko meeting in Lessons from the Edge: A Memoir, which will be published on Tuesday. The Guardian obtained a copy.The book comes three weeks into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which followed years of proxy warfare in the east of the country.Yovanovitch also writes that Trump told Poroshenko Ukraine “was a corrupt country, which he knew because a Ukrainian friend at Mar-a-Lago had told him”.Trump, she says, also said: “Crimea was Russian, as the locals spoke Russian”.Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, a move never recognized by the international community. Yovanovitch writes that Trump’s words were “surprising enough to hear from one head of state to another” but Trump topped them by asking his national security adviser, HR McMaster, whether US troops were in Donbas.“Everyone kept a poker face on,” she writes.Echoing descriptions of Trump’s favored working techniques by multiple close aides, Yovanovitch says Poroshenko deployed “visual aids, which Trump really liked” as he “ably pushed back” and made his case for support.Poroshenko requested the inclusion of Javelin anti-tank missiles in a package of security aid. Trump seemed open to the idea, Yovanovitch writes. In 2019, however, news broke of his attempt to withhold military aid and secure dirt on Biden.Yovanovitch’s book comes as Poroshenko’s successor, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, leads his country’s fight against Russian invaders, his forces using US-supplied Javelins and other weapons sent by allies.The Poroshenko meeting was brief and forms a small part of a book which tells Yovanovitch’s story of machinations involving Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, which led to her firing and Trump’s impeachment.But her description of the meeting echoes others by sources including John Bolton, McMaster’s successor as national security adviser, which have shown Trump risking embarrassment and mishap when one-on-one with world leaders.Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, recently revealed that Trump risked disaster in an early meeting with his counterpart Reuven Rivlin, when he praised the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and criticized Benjamin Netanyahu, then the Israeli prime minister, for being unwilling to seek peace.Trump’s comments “knocked everyone off their chairs”, Friedman wrote.Participants in the meeting with Poroshenko appear to have stayed seated.Yovanovitch writes that she sensed “Trump had come into the meeting viewing Ukraine as a ‘loser’ country, smaller and weaker than Russia”, only to be “a little surprised by Poroshenko”, who was “as physically imposing as Trump” and who was also “a billionaire businessman”.After the meeting, Trump said Ukraine was “a place that everybody’s been reading about”. Poroshenko told reporters he was “satisfied with the results of the negotiations”, and said the two leaders discussed military and technical cooperation.Yovanovitch “hoped that Poroshenko had created the kind of favorable impression that would make Trump rethink his views of Ukraine and its importance to our strategic interests”.However, she adds, “Trump’s obsequiousness toward Putin was a frequent and continuing cause for concern”.In 2018, Trump staged an infamous summit with Putin in Helsinki at which the two men spoke in private for close to two hours. Trump’s “toadying up” to Putin at the press conference which followed, Yovanovitch writes, made her lose her appetite.“When the Ukrainian media called,” she writes, “… we took the opportunity to reinforce the point that US policy was to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression”.Five years on from Trump’s meeting with Poroshenko, with Ukraine in a fight for its existence, Trump seems not entirely to have shed his suspicion that US troops could be in the country – a step the Biden administration has made clear will not be taken, given the potentially huge cost of confrontation with Russia.Last month, Trump appeared to misunderstand a Fox News host, to the extent of believing Americans troops had landed in Ukraine.“You shouldn’t be saying that, because you and everybody else shouldn’t know about it,” the former president said, seemingly mistaking reports of Russian troop movements for US ones. “They should do that secretly, not be doing that through the great Laura Ingraham.”“No, those are the Russians,” Ingraham corrected him.“Oh, I thought you said that we were sending people in,” Trump said. “That’ll be next.”TopicsBooksPolitics booksUS politicsDonald TrumpUkraineCrimeaRussianewsReuse this content More