Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Faces New Challenges With Coalition on Ukraine Support

      by

      The domestic and international consensus has shown signs of fraying as midterm elections loom in the United States and Europeans face the prospect of a cold winter.WASHINGTON — The White House said on Wednesday that it sees no current prospects for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, even as President Biden faces new challenges keeping together the bipartisan, multinational coalition supporting the effort to drive out Russian invaders.The domestic and international consensus that Mr. Biden has struggled to build has shown signs of fraying in recent days with the approach of midterm elections and a cold European winter. But Mr. Biden’s advisers have concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia remains committed to force and that Ukrainian leaders are unwilling to give ground following recent battlefield victories.“Neither side is in a position to sit down and negotiate,” John F. Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the National Security Council, told reporters on Wednesday. “Putin is clearly continuing to prosecute this war in a brutal, violent way,” he said, while the Ukrainians given their momentum “are not in a position where they want to negotiate.”Mr. Kirby emphasized that the Americans will defer to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine while trying to strengthen his position in any negotiations that may eventually occur. “If and when it comes to the table,” Mr. Kirby said, Mr. Zelensky “gets to determine when that is; he gets to determine what success looks like, and he gets to determine what or what he is not willing to negotiate with the Russians.“But we’re just not there yet,” he said.The assessment came a day after a group of House Democratic progressives withdrew a letter to Mr. Biden calling for a revised strategy and broaching the possibility of direct talks with Russia to resolve the conflict. Although the 30 progressives backed off in the face of a backlash within their own party, the restiveness on the left served as a warning sign of fatigue after eight months of war financed in large part by American taxpayer dollars.The emerging erosion of support for the current strategy is more pronounced on the political right. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, positioned to be the new House speaker if Republicans win the House next month as expected, last week threatened to curb future aid to Ukraine, aligning himself with former President Donald J. Trump and the Fox News host Tucker Carlson.On the other side of the ocean, European allies facing the onset of cold weather with Moscow controlling the fuel spigot see the future course of the conflict with Russia in different ways. Some former Soviet-bloc countries in Eastern Europe want Russia firmly defeated and its troops driven out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, while countries like Germany, France and Italy believe such a full-scale victory is unrealistic and worry that Washington is not thinking clearly about how the war might end.Even between allies sharing similar views, tensions have risen over energy and defense strategy. President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany met in Paris on Wednesday to discuss their differences over a French-backed European Union cap on natural gas prices that Germany has resisted even as it subsidizes its citizens’ gas bills.Ratcheting up the pressure further, Mr. Putin on Wednesday for the first time personally claimed that Ukraine was preparing to set off a so-called dirty bomb, repeating unsubstantiated assertions made previously by lower-level Russian officials. American officials once again dismissed the contention, calling it a possible pretext for Russia to escalate its attack on Ukraine.As Russian forces conducted an annual military exercise testing nuclear-capable missiles, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on more than 20 Russian and Moldovan individuals and entities reportedly involved in a Russian scheme to interfere in Moldova’s political system.For Mr. Biden, who has built a broad coalition for his approach at home and abroad, the next few weeks could be pivotal. While the Ukrainian war effort still enjoys wide support in the United States, polling suggests some attrition, especially among Republicans.Twenty percent of Americans interviewed by the Pew Research Center last month said the United States is providing too much help to Ukraine, up from 12 percent in May and 7 percent in March. Thirty-two percent of Republicans said too much was being done for Ukraine, compared with 11 percent of Democrats. About 46 percent of Republicans said the United States was doing about the right amount or not enough, while 65 percent of Democrats agreed.“Unfortunately, what we’re seeing I think is Russian far-right propaganda talking points filtering into the U.S. political environment, and knowingly or unknowingly we see U.S. politicians basically using talking points that will do nothing but bring a big smile to Putin’s face,” said Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership and a former Pentagon official under President Barack Obama..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.White House officials said privately that they had nothing to do with the swift retreat of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that proposed negotiations with Russia, but were reassured by the quick reversal. The increasing Republican skepticism, however, means that a midterm election victory by the opposition would raise questions about future aid packages.Even before Mr. McCarthy’s statement promising to resist a “blank check” for Ukraine, 57 Republicans in the House and 11 in the Senate voted against $40 billion in assistance in May and more of the party’s candidates on the campaign trail have expressed resistance to more money for Ukraine.But other Republicans have been steadfast backers of Ukraine, most notably Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party’s leader in the upper chamber who pointedly rebuffed Mr. McCarthy’s no-blank-check comment.“We have enjoyed and continue to enjoy terrific bipartisan support for our approach to Ukraine and the kinds of security assistance that we’re providing, and we’re going to need that support going forward,” Mr. Kirby said. “The president’s not worried about that.”Biden allies said Democrats had proved to be self-correcting when it came to the progressives’ letter but urged the president to explain his strategy to the public and the stakes involved.“This is a difficult and dangerous situation that requires staying power and to some extent sacrifice on the part of the United States,” said Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey and a staunch supporter of Ukraine aid. “It’s always important for the president to be making the case to Congress and to the American people that this is in the national interest and the right thing to do.”Still, as the war grinds on, in Europe it feels more and more like an American venture. American contributions of war matériel and money exceed those of all the other allies put together, and American strategy choices are dominant, aided by the brutality of the Russian war, the bravery of the Ukrainian government and military and Mr. Putin’s clear disinterest in negotiations, let alone a Russian withdrawal.In these European countries, there is quiet worry that Ukraine will do so well as to drive Mr. Putin into a desperate gamble of escalation — a worry not unknown in Washington, too. For the Germans and the French, a settlement along the lines that existed before the Feb. 24 invasion would seem quite sufficient — a defeat for Mr. Putin but not a rout. The fear is that too big a loss of face for Russia would push Mr. Putin into using nuclear weapons in some fashion, or a “dirty bomb” conventional explosive with radioactive material that could be blamed on the Ukrainians in order to justify a significant escalation.That is a major reason that Germany and France seem to be carefully calibrating the sophistication of the weapons they send to Ukraine, as Mr. Biden does too. Europe has pretty much run out of Soviet-era weapons to send to Ukraine, and its own stocks, intended for its own defense, are also low, a function of the post-Cold War “peace benefit” that caused military spending to plummet all over the continent, a trend only slowly being reversed in earnest.There is a significant disparity between the flood of arms supplied by the United States, Britain, and Poland and what the rest of Europe is providing, which has raised the persistent question of whether some countries are slow-walking supplies to bring about a shorter war and quicker negotiations.Taken as a whole, the West is providing Ukraine “just enough” weaponry “to survive, not enough to regain territory,” said Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst. “The idea seems to be that Russia should not win, but also not lose.“What countries send and how slowly they send it tells us a lot about the war aims of Western countries,” he added. “And it becomes even more important now because Ukraine is more dependent on Western arms.”For all of that, Eric S. Edelman, a counselor at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington and a former under secretary of defense under President George W. Bush, said the Europeans have stuck together more firmly than many had expected.“Public support remains quite strong,” Mr. Edelman said. “And although there will definitely be negative economic effects — particularly in Germany — the Euros have taken a lot of steps to buffer themselves” by storing energy and diversifying supplies. “Putin,” he said, “may find that he has made a bad bet.”Still, he added, “notwithstanding this generally bullish assessment, one should never underestimate the challenges of coalition maintenance and alliance management.”Peter Baker More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Putin Is Onto Us

      by

      As the Russian Army continues to falter in Ukraine, the world is worrying that Vladimir Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon. Maybe — but for now, I think Putin is assembling a different weapon. It’s an oil and gas bomb that he’s fusing right before our eyes and with our inadvertent help — and he could easily detonate it this winter.If he does, it could send prices of home heating oil and gasoline into the stratosphere. The political fallout, Putin surely hopes, will divide the Western alliance and prompt many countries — including ours, where both MAGA Republicans and progressives are expressing concerns about the spiraling cost of the Ukraine conflict — to seek a dirty deal with the man in the Kremlin, pronto.In short: Putin is now fighting a ground war to break through Ukraine’s lines and a two-front energy war to break Ukraine’s will and that of its allies. He’s trying to smash Ukraine’s electricity system to ensure a long, cold winter there while putting himself in position (in ways that I’ll explain) to drive up energy costs for all of Ukraine’s allies. And because we — America and the West — do not have an energy strategy in place to dampen the impact of Putin’s energy bomb, this is a frightening prospect.When it comes to energy, we want five things at once that are incompatible — and Putin is onto us:1. We want to decarbonize our economy as fast as we can to mitigate the very real dangers of climate change.2. We want the cheapest possible gasoline and heating oil prices so we can drive our cars as fast and as much as we want — and never have to put on a sweater indoors or do anything to conserve energy.3. We want to tell the petrodictators in Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take a hike.4. We want to be able to treat U.S. oil and gas companies as pariahs and dinosaurs that should pump us out of this current oil crisis and then go off in the woods and die and let solar and wind take over.5. Oh, and we don’t want any new oil and gas pipelines or wind and solar transmission lines to spoil our backyards.I understand why people want all five — now. I want all five! But they involve trade-offs, which too few of us want to acknowledge or debate. In an energy war like the one we’re in now, you need to be clear about your goals and priorities. As a country, and as a Western alliance, we have no ladder of priorities on energy, just competing aspirations and magical thinking that we can have it all.If we persist in that, we are going to be in for a world of hurt if Putin drops the energy bomb that I think he’s assembling for Christmas. Here’s what I think is his strategy: It starts with getting the United States to draw down its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is a huge stock of crude oil stored in giant caverns that we can draw on in an emergency to offset any cutoff in our domestic production or imports. Last Wednesday, President Biden announced the release of 15 million more barrels from the reserve in December, completing a plan he laid out earlier to release a total of 180 million barrels in an effort to keep gasoline prices at the pump as low as possible — in advance of the midterm elections. (He didn’t say the last part. He didn’t need to.)According to a report in The Washington Post, the reserve contained “405.1 million barrels as of Oct. 14. That’s about 57 percent of its maximum authorized storage capacity of 714 million barrels.”I sympathize with the president. People were really hurting from $5- and $6-a-gallon gasoline. But using the reserve — which was designed to cushion us in the face of a sudden shut-off in domestic or global production — to shave a dime or a quarter off a gallon of gasoline before elections is a dicey business, even if the president has a plan for refilling it in the coming months.Putin wants America to use up as much of its Strategic Petroleum Reserve cushion now — just like the way the Germans gave up on nuclear energy and he got them addicted to Russia’s cheap natural gas. Then, when Russian gas was cut off because of the Ukraine war, German homes and factories had to frantically cut back and scramble for more expensive alternatives.Next, Putin is watching the European Union gear up for a ban on seaborne imports of crude oil from Russia, starting Dec. 5. This embargo — along with Germany and Poland’s move to stop pipeline imports — should cover roughly 90 percent of the European Union’s current oil imports from Russia.As a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., noted, “Crucially, the sanctions also ban E.U. companies from providing shipping insurance, brokering services or financing for oil exports from Russia to third countries.”The U.S. Treasury and European Union believe that without that insurance, the number of customers for Russian oil will shrink dramatically, so they are telling the Russians that they can get the insurance for their oil tankers from the few Western insurance companies that dominate the industry only if they lower the price of their crude oil exports to a level set by the Europeans and the United States.My sources in the oil industry tell me they seriously doubt this Western price fixing will work. Russia’s OPEC Plus partner Saudi Arabia is certainly not interested in seeing such a buyers’ price-fixing precedent set. Moreover, international oil trading is full of shady characters — does the name Marc Rich ring a bell? — who thrive on market distortions. Oil tankers carry transponders that track their locations. But tankers engaged in shady activities will turn their transponders off and reappear days after they’ve made a ship-to-ship transfer or will transfer their cargo into storage tanks somewhere in Asia for re-export, in effect laundering their Russian oil. Oil in just one very large tanker can be worth roughly $250 million, so the incentives are enormous.Now add one more dodgy player to the mix: China. It has all kinds of long-term, fixed-price contracts to import liquefied natural gas from the Middle East at roughly $100 a barrel of oil equivalent. But because President Xi Jinping’s crazy approach to containing Covid — in recent months some 300 million citizens have been under full or partial lockdown — China’s economy has slowed considerably, as has its gas consumption. As a result, an oil industry source tells me, China has been taking some of the L.N.G. sold to it on those fixed-price contracts for domestic use and reselling it to Europe and other gas-starved countries for $300 a barrel of oil equivalent.Now that Xi has locked in his third term as general secretary of the Communist Party, many expect that he will ease up on his lockdowns. If China goes back to anything near its normal gas consumption and stops re-exporting its excess, the global gas market will become even more scarily tight.Last, as I noted, Putin is trying to destroy Ukraine’s ability to generate electricity. Today more than one million Ukrainians are without power, and as one Ukrainian lawmaker tweeted last week, “Total darkness and cold are coming.”So add all of this up and then suppose, come December, Putin announces he is halting all Russian oil and gas exports for 30 or 60 days to countries supporting Ukraine, rather than submit to the European Union’s fixing of his oil price. He could afford that for a short while. That would be Putin’s energy bomb and Christmas present to the West. In this tight market, oil could go to $200 a barrel, with a commensurate rise in the price of natural gas. We’re talking $10 to $12 a gallon at the pump in the United States.The beauty for Putin of an energy bomb is that unlike setting off a nuclear bomb — which would unite the whole world against him — setting off an oil price bomb would divide the West from Ukraine.Obviously, I am just guessing that this is what Putin is up to, and if the world goes into recession, it could take energy prices down with it. But we would be wise to have a real counterstrategy in place, especially because, while some in Europe have managed to stock up on natural gas for this winter, rebuilding those stocks for 2023 without Russian gas and with China returning to normal could be very costly.If Biden wants America to be the arsenal of democracy to protect us and our democratic allies — and not leave us begging Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela or Iran to produce more oil and gas — we need a robust energy arsenal as much as a military one. Because we are in an energy war! Biden needs to make a major speech, making clear that for the foreseeable future, we need more of every kind of energy we have. American oil and gas investors need to know that as long as they produce in the cleanest way possible, invest in carbon capture and ensure that any new pipelines they build will be compatible with transporting hydrogen — probably the best clean fuel coming down the road in the next decade — they have a welcome place in America’s energy future, alongside the solar, wind, hydro and other clean energy producers that Biden has heroically boosted through his climate legislation.I know. This is not ideal. This is not where I hoped we would be in 2022. But this is where we are, and anything else really is magical thinking — and the one person who will not be fooled by it is Vladimir Putin.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

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Russia’s Unsupported ‘Dirty Bomb’ Claims Spread Through Right-Wing U.S. Media

      by

      After Russia claimed that Ukraine would use a “dirty bomb” — a conventional explosive that can spread radioactive material — on its own territory, Western countries reacted with skepticism, noting that Russia often accused others of doing what Moscow was considering doing itself. Russia provided no evidence to support its claim.But on right-wing media and in many right-wing communities online, Russia’s claim was portrayed as believable, and as a dire warning that could serve to escalate Russia’s war on Ukraine for Ukraine’s benefit, or even trigger a new world war.Alex Jones, the American conspiracy theorist who often spreads lies on his Infowars platform, during his online show on Monday suggested that Ukraine would detonate a dirty bomb within its borders and then blame Russia as “a pretext to bring NATO fully into the conflict” and start World War III. “My analysis is, about 90 percent at this point, that there’s going to be full-on public war with Russia, and at least a tactical nuclear war in Europe,” he added.The Gateway Pundit, another right-wing American news site, repeated Russia’s claims in an article on Sunday and asked: “Would this surprise anyone?”And on YouTube, Gonzalo Lira, an American commentator who lives in Ukraine, said that “all the evidence” pointed to a “deliberate provocation that is being staged by the Americans.” The video received more than 59,000 views and circulated through right-wing social media.America’s far right has repeatedly sided with Russia in the conflict, echoing President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia’s baseless claims that the war was about routing corruption in Ukraine or ending neo-Nazism.As the conflict has continued, online communities have interpreted developments through their own conspiratorial lens, picking up Russian narratives that Ukraine would bomb its own citizens to curry international sympathy.Those discussions continued this week regarding claims about the possible use of a dirty bomb in the conflict.In one video — circulated widely on the messaging app Telegram and seen more than 36,000 times on the video-streaming service Brighteon — a streamer suggested that a “cabal” of Democrats and leftists was plotting to use the dirty bomb to set off a nuclear war, which would prevent Republicans from winning the midterm elections.“The cabal is so desperate, obviously, that they can’t allow that to happen,” the host said. “And even if it does happen, they’ll probably try to push for war before the next Congress gets in.” More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Election Deniers Running for Office

      by

      More from our inbox:The Trump Subpoena Is a MistakeAbduction of Ukrainian Children: An ‘Insidious’ Russian PlaybookBerlusconi’s Affection for Putin‘Stop Eating Animals’ The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “2020 Election Skeptics Crowd the Republican Ticket Nationwide” (front page, Oct. 15):It is inevitable that many Republican election deniers running for office in November will be elected, especially in red states and districts, but I am just as worried about the election deniers who will lose.Will they accept their losses or, like Donald Trump, refuse to concede and charge that their election was rigged? Even worse, and again emulating Mr. Trump, will they incite their supporters to storm the offices where votes are being tabulated and/or where elections are being certified? This could be especially problematic in districts and states that take a long time to count absentee and mail-in ballots.Democracy requires that losers accept their losses. Unfortunately, 2020 election deniers care more about winning at any price than they do about democracy. I envision violence breaking out at county election boards and state offices from Maine to California. I just hope that local police departments are better prepared than the Capitol Police were on Jan. 6.Richard KaveshNyack, N.Y.The writer is a former mayor of Nyack.To the Editor:The number of election skeptics running should not come as a surprise to anyone. When we allow partisan politicians to gerrymander their states into electorally “safe” districts, the real voting occurs in the primaries. Extremists tend to win in the primaries, so this system almost guarantees that extremists, from both ends of the political spectrum, will be elected.When we send extremists of the left and the right to Washington, no one should be surprised that the process of compromise, so essential for good government, is impossible for them.Until the Supreme Court bars partisans from the electoral mapping process, America will remain stuck in a political quagmire of its own making. In recent times partisans have been barred from this process in countries such as Canada, Britain and Australia. Why can’t we take the same step in America?James TysonTrenton, N.J.To the Editor:In the midst of Covid, America significantly relaxed its voting formalities for 2020, with unrequested mail-in ballots; unsupervised, 24-hour drop boxes; and no-excuse-needed absentee voting. When the G.O.P. suggests that lax voting procedures harmed electoral integrity, they are charged with threatening American democracy. Yet when the G.O.P. attempts to restore pre-Covid voting formalities, the Democrats histrionically scream that American democracy is being threatened by Jim Crow voter suppression.The Times not only fails to challenge this specious Democratic assertion, but also joins the charge.Mike KueberSan AntonioTo the Editor:It seems that there has been one essential question left unasked in this challenging time period for our republic. I would suggest directing it to each and every election-denying Republican who was “elected” on that very same 2020 ballot:If the 2020 election was ripe with fraud, as you claim, and Donald Trump was cheated at the polls, then please explain how your election to office on the very same ballot managed to avoid being tainted as well.I expect the silence to be deafening.Adam StolerBronxTo the Editor:I object to The Times’s use of the term “skeptics” to describe Republican candidates who claim that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. Please leave “skeptic” to its proper uses. No one would say a politician who claimed that 2 + 2 = 13 million is a “math skeptic.” There are plenty of suitable words in the dictionary, including “liar” and “loon.”William Avery HudsonNew YorkThe Trump Subpoena Is a MistakeFormer President Donald J. Trump’s legal team could also invoke executive privilege in an attempt to ward off the subpoena.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Is Subpoenaed, Setting Up Likely Fight Over His Role on Jan. 6” (front page, Oct. 22):The decision by the House Jan. 6 committee to subpoena former President Donald Trump to testify is a mistake.Even if he agrees to appear before the committee, Mr. Trump’s behavior is predictable. Based on his inability to accept defeat, and his view of disagreement as something personal that warrants lashing out at the other party, we can expect him to approach the committee as an enemy, deserving nothing but contempt.Based on his past and continuing behavior, we can expect him to be nasty, offensive and obnoxious. Attempting to belittle the committee members individually and as a group, he would make a mockery of the proceedings. Nothing of substance would be accomplished, except to place his personality on public display, which continues to delight his supporters.So the committee should avoid the futile effort and potential embarrassment, and refrain from trying to have Mr. Trump appear before it.Ken LefkowitzMedford, N.J.Abduction of Ukrainian Children: An ‘Insidious’ Russian PlaybookA broken window at a hospital in March in Mariupol, Ukraine. Russian officials have made clear that their goal is to replace any childhood attachment to home with a love for Russia.Evgeniy Maloletka/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Taken by Russia, Children Become the Spoils of War” (front page, Oct. 23):The abduction of Ukrainian children into Russian families is more than “a propaganda campaign presenting Russia as a charitable savior.” It follows an insidious playbook used by Soviet leaders after their 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.Thousands of Afghan children were abducted to the Soviet Union to be given a Communist education, so that a new generation of Afghans would be trained to lead a Soviet-sponsored Afghanistan. In 1989, however, Soviet troops were forced from Afghanistan, unable to prevail against Afghans fiercely defending their homeland.Vladimir Putin may very well be repeating past practices, hoping to brainwash Ukrainian children into a love for Russia, and thus preparing them to lead a Russian-dominated Ukraine.But he should learn other lessons from the past instead: that people defending their country are not easily defeated, and that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan upended the Soviet leadership and, ultimately, the Soviet Union itself.Jeri LaberNew YorkThe writer is a founder of Human Rights Watch and the former director of its Europe and Central Asia division.Berlusconi’s Affection for Putin Vladimir Rodionov/SputnikTo the Editor:Re “Berlusconi, Caught on Tape Gushing Over Putin, Heightens Concerns” (news article, Oct. 21):Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s talk of “sweet” letters and affection for Vladimir Putin, the barbaric Russian president, is as troubling as the right-wing political party that has ascended to power in Italy, a party in which Mr. Berlusconi has a patriarchal, deeply influential role.But Mr. Berlusconi’s defense of Mr. Putin’s savage invasion of Ukraine is even more sickening and chilling. Woe to Europe and the world if we see any significant scaling back or ultimately an abandonment of financial and military support for Ukraine.Mr. Putin may send Mr. Berlusconi bottles of fine vodka, but the Russian leader’s main exports to the real world are terror, autocracy and death.Cody LyonBrooklyn‘Stop Eating Animals’Lily and Lizzie after being rescued.Direct Action EverywhereTo the Editor:Re “I Took 2 Piglets That Weren’t Mine, and a Jury Said That Was OK,” by Wayne Hsiung (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 21):Mr. Hsiung’s powerful essay reveals the horror of animals being raised for meat. Meat production creates catastrophic global warming and tortures sentient beings. Stop eating animals.Ann BradleyLos Angeles More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Your Monday Briefing: Xi Jinping Consolidates Power

      by

      Plus Britain prepares for a new leader and Russia forcibly resettles Ukraine’s children.Xi Jinping is poised to push his vision of a swaggering, nationalist China even further, with himself at the center.Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesXi Jinping tightens his gripTo no one’s surprise, Xi Jinping has formally secured a third term as head of China’s Communist Party.He thoroughly shook up the party’s top tiers, elevating loyalists and forcing out moderates. In so doing, Xi consolidated his power and created a new ruling elite primed to elevate his agenda of bolstering national security and turning China into a technological great power. And in a moment packed with symbolism, Hu Jintao, who presided over one of China’s more open and prosperous periods, was ushered out of an important political meeting.Xi chose six men with longstanding ties to him for the Politburo Standing Committee, the top echelon of the party. Wang Huning, his chief theoretician, remains on the body, a sign that hard-line policies and the role of ideology will persist. Xi also appointed to the Politburo, the party’s second tier, a number of domestic security officials and military commanders, as well as several people with backgrounds in science and engineering.As Xi tightens his control, Beijing is likely to remain defiant in the face of international criticism of its authoritarian policies. Notably, at the party congress this week, Xi did not mention two long-repeated maxims about peace and strategic opportunity. The omissions revealed Xi’s anxieties about an increasingly volatile world, and warned of a looming conflict with the U.S. for global dominance.Analysis: To supporters, Xi’s centralized control and continuity are strengths. But some argue that ousting critics could leave Xi’s government vulnerable to failures like its mismanagement during the early days of Covid-19.Standing Committee: New appointees include Ding Xuexiang, Xi’s right-hand man, and Li Qiang, who worked under Xi when they were local officials in Zhejiang Province. Li oversaw a contentious Covid lockdown in Shanghai and is now in line to become China’s new premier.Other updates:For the first time in decades, no women will be on the Politburo.Hu Chunhua, once seen as a potential successor to Premier Li Keqiang, has been sidelined: He’s not in the Standing Committee or the Politburo.From Opinion: Ai Weiwei, an artist and outspoken critic of the Chinese government, argues that the Communist Party has suppressed all possible dissent, despite hopes that capitalism and the internet would create opportunities for rebellion.Liz Truss’s departure plunged Britain deeper into financial uncertainty.Sam Bush for The New York TimesBoris Johnson bows outBritain’s Conservative Party plans to select a new prime minister this week, days after Liz Truss resigned.One thing is for sure: It won’t be Boris Johnson, who was forced to resign as prime minister in July. Johnson pulled out of the race yesterday evening, despite speculation that he was eyeing a return to power.The State of the WarA Looming Crisis: Russia’s stepped-up attacks on infrastructure and vital utility networks in Ukraine herald a new phase of the war — one that threatens millions of Ukrainians with the prospect of a winter without electricity, water and heat in half-destroyed buildings.A New Front?: Russia is massing thousands of troops in its western neighbor Belarus, raising fears that Moscow might plan to open another front in the war. But officials in Kyiv and Washington are casting doubt on whether the buildup represents a serious threat.Occupied Regions: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia declared martial law in four illegally annexed regions of Ukraine as pro-Kremlin authorities in the city of Kherson said they would evacuate tens of thousands of people in advance of a possible Ukrainian counterattack.An Opportunity Ahead: American officials are convinced that the next six weeks, before fall mud spreads, could allow Ukraine’s military to press forward in the Donbas region and potentially retake Kherson.Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor of the Exchequer who had lost to Truss, is now the favorite to win. He had lined up at least 147 votes by late afternoon yesterday, according to a tally by the BBC.Sunak could become prime minister as early as today: If only one candidate receives 100 or more nominations from the 357 Conservative members of Parliament, that person will become the next prime minister.Analysis: Some experts link Truss’s downfall to the bitter factions Brexit created in the Conservative Party.A broken window at a hospital in Mariupol, where many resettled children once lived.Evgeniy Maloletka/Associated PressRussia resettles Ukraine’s childrenSince Russia’s invasion started in February, thousands of Ukrainian children have been transferred to Russia, often against their will, to be adopted and become citizens.Russian authorities have celebrated the adoptions with patriotic fanfare. On state-run television, officials offer teddy bears to new arrivals, who are portrayed as abandoned children being rescued from war.But this mass transfer of children is a potential war crime. Some were taken after their parents had been killed or imprisoned by Russian troops, according to Ukrainian officials. And while many did come from orphanages and group homes, the authorities also took children whose relatives or guardians want them back.“I didn’t want to go,” one 14-year-old girl told my colleague Emma Bubola. “But nobody asked me.” Fighting: Russian forces pounded Ukraine’s power plants with some of the heaviest missile strikes in weeks.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificThe women say that they have suffered lasting trauma from the episode at Hamad International Airport in Doha, Qatar.Karim Jaafar/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFive Australian women have sued Qatar two years after they underwent invasive medical procedures when a newborn was found in an airport bathroom.Pakistan’s election commission effectively barred former Prime Minister Imran Khan from office, escalating a political showdown and raising the possibility of mass unrest.Indonesia has banned cough syrup sales amid worries that tainted product from India may be connected to the deaths of dozens of children in Gambia.BTS members can still perform at South Korean national events during their upcoming military service, The Korea Times reports.Around the WorldThe Jan. 6 committee subpoenaed Donald Trump for testimony and documents.At least 50 people died when security forces in Chad opened fire on protesters, who were demanding that the military junta stick to a promise to hold elections.Palestinians have moved into caves as Israel tries to expel them from their villages and demolish their homes, which could amount to a war crime. Other Big StoriesSteve Bannon, a former adviser to Donald Trump, was found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesSteve Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison for defying a Jan. 6 committee subpoena.A U.S. court temporarily blocked the Biden administration from canceling any student debt.Protests, a riot and gunshots: Here’s how a fire at a notorious Iranian prison spread.A Morning ReadTamara Plieshkova, right, feels like “an old, mature tree being replanted into new soil,” her daughter said. Plieshkova reunited with her granddaughter in Colorado after escaping the war in Ukraine in September.Theo Stroomer for The New York TimesThere is a name for the specific type of grief that both refugees and migrants experience. It’s “cultural bereavement.”Lives lived: Peter Schjeldahl, an art critic whose enthusiasm and elegant reviews helped define New York’s art scene, died at 80. Read his witty essay from 2019 on his lung cancer diagnosis.GLOBAL GASTRONOMYNoma in KyotoNoma, the celebrated Danish restaurant, will open a 10-week pop-up in Kyoto, Japan. It will span sakura (cherry-blossom) season and incorporate ingredients and methods from the region, which is the historic center of Japanese Buddhism.The very structure of the meal also references Buddhist culinary traditions. The ubiquitous modern tasting menu has its roots in kaiseki, a carefully orchestrated progression of small plates that grew from a Buddhist tea ceremony into a luxurious cuisine in Kyoto. In the late 1960s, elements of the meal began to flow from Japan into fine dining, often through the influential Tsuji culinary school in Osaka.The conceptual approach to ingredients was partially born in kaiseki, too: Kyoto’s kaiseki menus have always changed to reflect the seasons. That idea has given rise to foraging, restaurant gardens and the farm-to-table movement.“I was taught that the tasting menu was invented by the French and then reinvented in Spain,” René Redzepi, Noma’s chef, told The Times. “I had no idea of the vast repository of ideas and techniques that is Japanese food.”Details: Noma Kyoto will be open from March 15 through May 20. The meal will cost just over 850 euros (about $839) per person and reservations will open on Nov. 7 on Noma’s website.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookKate Sears for The New York TimesYou only need one pan for this shrimp scampi with crispy gnocchi.What to Listen toTaylor Swift’s new album, “Midnights,” comments on life as a deeply observed figure.What to Read“Is Mother Dead,” a harrowing Norwegian novel, features a middle-aged painter desperate to reconcile with her estranged parent.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: British baked good (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. Best wishes for a great week. — AmeliaP.S. The Concorde made its last commercial flight 19 years ago today.Start your week with this narrated long read about Yiyun Li, a novelist beloved for her powerful distillations of grief. And here’s Friday’s edition of “The Daily,” on Liz Truss’s downfall.You can reach Amelia and the team at briefing@nytimes.com. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Three Blunders of Joe Biden

      by

      If the Democrats end up losing both the House and the Senate, an outcome that looks more likely than it did a month ago, there will be nothing particularly shocking about the result. The incumbent president’s party almost always suffers losses in the midterms, the Democrats entered 2022 with thin majorities and a not-that-favorable Senate map, and the Western world is dealing with a war-driven energy crunch that’s generally rough on incumbent parties, both liberal and conservative. (Just ask poor Liz Truss.)But as an exculpating narrative for the Biden administration, this goes only so far. Some races will inevitably be settled on the margins, control of the Senate may be as well, and on the margins there’s always something a president could have done differently to yield a better political result.President Biden’s case is no exception: The burdens of the midterms have been heavier for Democrats than they needed to be because of three notable failures, three specific courses that his White House set.The first fateful course began, as Matthew Continetti noted recently in The Washington Free Beacon, in the initial days of the administration, when Biden made critical decisions on energy and immigration that his party’s activists demanded: for environmentalists, a moratorium on new oil-and-gas leases on public lands and, for immigration advocates, a partial rollback of key Trump administration border policies.What followed, in both arenas, was a crisis: first a surge of migration to the southern border, then the surge in gas prices driven by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.There is endless debate about how much the initial Biden policy shifts contributed to the twin crises; a reasonable bet is that his immigration moves did help inspire the migration surge, while his oil-lease policy will affect the price of gas in 2024 but didn’t change much in the current crunch.But crucially, both policy shifts framed these crises, however unintentionally, as things the Biden administration sought — more illegal immigration and higher gas prices, just what liberals always want! And then instead of a dramatic attempt at reframing, prioritizing domestic energy and border enforcement, the Biden White House fiddled with optics and looked for temporary fixes: handing Kamala Harris the border portfolio, turning the dials on the strategic petroleum reserve and generally confirming the public’s existing bias that if you want a party to take immigration enforcement and oil production seriously, you should vote Republican.The second key failure also belongs to the administration’s early days. In February 2021, when congressional Democrats were preparing a $1.9 trillion stimulus, a group of Republican senators counteroffered with a roughly $600 billion proposal. Flush with overconfidence, the White House spurned the offer and pushed three times as much money into the economy on a party-line vote.What followed was what a few dissenting center-left economists, led by Larry Summers, had predicted: the worst acceleration of inflation in decades, almost certainly exacerbated by the sheer scale of the relief bill. Whereas had Biden taken the Republicans up on their proposal or even simply counteroffered and begun negotiations, he could have started his administration off on the bipartisan footing his campaign had promised while‌ hedging against the inflationary dangers that ultimately arrived.The third failure is likewise a failure to hedge and triangulate, but this time on culture rather than economic policy. Part of Biden’s appeal as a candidate was his longstanding record as a social moderate — an old-school, center-left Catholic rather than a zealous progressive.His presidency has offered multiple opportunities to actually inhabit the moderate persona. On transgender issues, for instance, the increasing qualms of European countries about puberty blockers offered potential cover for Biden to call for greater caution around the use of medical interventions for gender-dysphoric teenagers. Instead, his White House has chosen to effectively deny that any real debate exists, positioning the administration to the left of Sweden.Then there is the Dobbs decision, whose unpopularity turned abortion into a likely political winner for Democrats — provided, that is, that they could cast themselves as moderates and Republicans as zealots.Biden could have led that effort, presenting positions he himself held in the past — support for Roe v. Wade but also for late-term restrictions and the Hyde Amendment — as the natural national consensus, against the pro-life absolutism of first-trimester bans. Instead, he’s receded and left Democratic candidates carrying the activist line that absolutely no restrictions are permissible, an unpopular position perfectly designed to squander the party’s post-Roe advantage.The question in the last case, and to some extent with all these issues, is whether a more moderate or triangulating Biden could have held his coalition together.But this question too often becomes an excuse for taking polarization and 50-50 politics for granted. A strong president, by definition, should be able to pull his party toward the center when politics demands it. So if Biden feels he can’t do that, it suggests that he’s internalized his own weakness and accepted in advance what probably awaits the Democrats next month: defeat.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

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      As Europe Piles Sanctions on Russia, Some Sacred Cows Are Spared

      by

      The European Union has been severing economic ties with Moscow to support Ukraine, but some countries have lobbied to protect key sectors.BRUSSELS — Eight months into the war in Ukraine, and eight rounds of frantic negotiations later, Europe’s sanctions against Russia run hundreds of pages long and have in many places cut to the bone.Since February, the European Union has named 1,236 people and 155 companies for sanctions, freezing their assets and blocking their access to the bloc. It has banned the trade of products in nearly 1,000 categories and hundreds of subcategories. It has put in place a near-total embargo on Russian oil. About one-third of the bloc’s exports to Russia by value and two-thirds of imports have been banned.But even now some goods and sectors remain conspicuously exempted. A look at just a few items reveals the intense back-room bargaining and arm-twisting by some nations and by private industry to protect sectors they deem too valuable to give up — as well as the compromises the European Union has made to maintain consensus.The Belgians have shielded trade in Russian diamonds. The Greeks ship Russian oil unimpeded. France and several other nations still import Russian uranium for nuclear power generation.The net impact of these exemptions on the effectiveness of Europe’s penalties against Russia is hard to assess, but politically, they have allowed the 27 members of the bloc to pull together an otherwise vast sanctions regime with exceptional speed and unanimity.“Ultimately, this is the price of unanimity to hold together this coalition, and in the grander scheme of things the sanctions are really working,” said Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow in the Brussels office of the research group the German Marshall Fund, citing Russia’s diminished access to military technology as evidence.A Lukoil gas station in Priolo Gargallo, Italy, last month. The European Union has put in place a near-total embargo on Russian oil, but some sectors of trade remain conspicuously exempt from sanctions.Gianni Cipriano for The New York Times“We would love to have everything included, diamonds and every other special interest hit, but I am of the opinion that, if sparing them is what it takes to keep everyone together, so be it,” he added.The Ukrainian government has criticized some of the exemptions, with President Volodymyr Zelensky chiding European nations for continuing to permit business with Russia, saying they are skirting sacrifices.“There are people for whom the diamonds sold in Antwerp are more important than the battle we are waging. Peace is worth much more than diamonds,” Mr. Zelensky said to the Belgian Parliament during an address by video link in late March.Keeping Diamonds ComingThe continued success of Belgium and the broad diamond sector in keeping the Russian diamond trade flowing exemplifies the sacred cows some E.U. nations refuse to sacrifice, even as their peers accept pain to punish the Kremlin.Exports of rough diamonds are very lucrative for Russia, and they flow to the Belgian port of Antwerp, a historically important diamond hub.The trade, worth 1.8 billion euros a year — about $1.75 billion — has been shielded in consecutive rounds of the bloc’s sanctions, despite being raised as a possible target soon after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February.The Belgian government has said that it has never asked the European Commission, the E.U. executive body that drafts the measures, to remove diamonds from any sanctions list and that if diamonds were added, it would go along.Diamonds being sorted in Mirny, Russia, at a facility operated by Alrosa, the Russian state-owned diamond company. Russian diamonds have been shielded in consecutive rounds of European sanctions.Maxim Babenko for The New York TimesTechnically speaking, that may be true. But the latest round of penalties, adopted this month, exposed the intensive interventions when a coordination error occurred among the various services in the bloc that are involved in the technical preparation of sanctions.The incident, described to The New York Times by several diplomats involved as “farcical,” shows how the lobbying works. The diplomats spoke anonymously in order to describe freely what happened.The European Commission over the course of September prepared the latest round of sanctions and left diamonds off that list.But the European External Action Service — the E.U.’s equivalent of a foreign service or state department, which works with the commission to prepare sanctions — did not get the memo that diamonds should remain exempted and included in its own draft listings Alrosa, the Russian state-owned diamonds company.Once Alrosa had been put on the draft document, removing it became difficult. Spotting the error, Poland and other hard-line pro-Ukraine countries in the bloc dragged out the negotiations over the package as much as they could on the basis that Alrosa should indeed face sanctions.In the end, the need for unanimity and speed prevailed, and Alrosa continues to export to the European Union, at least until the next round of sanctions is negotiated. In proposals for a fresh, ninth round of sanctions, presented by Poland and its allies last week, diamonds were again included, but formal talks on the new set of penalties have not yet begun.A spokesman for the European External Action Service declined to comment, saying it does not comment on internal procedures involved in preparing sanctions.The Tricastin nuclear power plant in the Drôme region of southeastern France. France is one of several E.U. countries that depend on Russian uranium to operate civil nuclear power facilities. Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesNuclear PowerMost exemptions have not been as clear-cut as diamonds because they have involved more complex industries or services, or affected more than one country.Uranium exported from Russia for use in civil nuclear power production falls under this category. Nuclear power plants in France, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland and other countries depend on Russian civilian uranium exports.The trade is worth 200 million euros, or about $194 million, according to Greenpeace, which has been lobbying for its ban. Germany and other E.U. countries have supported the calls to ban civilian nuclear imports from Russia, making this another issue likely to come up in the next round of sanctions talks.In August, Mr. Zelensky also highlighted the persistent protection of the Russian nuclear exports to Europe just as Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant came under fire.Some supporters of keeping Russian uranium running say that France and the other countries’ ability to generate electricity by operating their nuclear power plants during an acute energy crisis is more important than the political or financial gains that could come from a ban through E.U. sanctions, at least for now.Tankers in the NightOne of the most complex and important lobbying efforts to protect a European industry from sanctions is the one mounted by Greek diplomats to allow Greek-owned tankers to transport Russian oil to non-European destinations.This has facilitated one of the Kremlin’s biggest revenue streams. More than half of the vessels transporting Russia’s oil are Greek-owned, according to information aggregated from MarineTraffic, a shipping data platform.Supporters of the Greek shipping industry say that if it pulled out of that business, others would step in to deliver Russian oil to places like India and China. Experts say lining up enough tankers to make up for a total Greek pullout would not be simple, considering the sheer size of Greek-interest fleets and their dominance in this trade.According to European diplomats involved in the negotiations, their Greek counterparts were able to exempt Greek shipping companies from the oil embargo in a tough round of talks last May and June.Since then, the E.U. has come around to a United States-led idea to keep facilitating the transport of Russian oil, in order to avert a global oil-market meltdown, but to do so at a capped price to limit Russia’s revenues.The Greeks saw an opening: They would continue to transport Russian oil, but at the capped price. The bloc offered them additional concessions, and Greece agreed that the shipping of Russian oil would be banned if the price cap was not observed.The Greek-flagged oil tanker Minerva Virgo. Greek diplomats have lobbied for Greek-owned tankers to be allowed to transport Russian oil to non-European destinations. Bjoern Kils/ReutersEven if the economic benefits of such exemptions are hard to define, from a political perspective, the continued protection of some goods and industries is creating bad blood among E.U. members.Governments that have readily taken big hits through sanctions to support Ukraine, sacrificing revenues and jobs, are embittered that their partners in the bloc continue to doggedly protect their own interests.The divisions deepen a sense of disconnect between those more hawkish pro-Ukraine E.U. nations nearer Ukraine and those farther away, although geographical proximity is far from the only determinant of countries’ attitudes toward the war.And given that the bloc is a constant negotiating arena on many issues, some warn that what goes around eventually will come around.“This may be a raw calculation of national interests, but it’s going to linger,” Mr. Kirkegaard said. “Whoever doesn’t contribute now through sacrifice, next time there’s a budget or some other debate, it’s going to come back and haunt them.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Elections Approaching, Erdogan Raises the Heat Again With Greece

      by

      Turkey’s president suggested that troops “may suddenly arrive one night” in Greece. With inflation rampant and the lira sinking, a manufactured crisis might be just the thing he needs.ISTANBUL — Last week at a closed dinner in Prague, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece was addressing 44 European leaders when President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey interrupted him and started a shouting match.Before stalking from the room, Mr. Erdogan accused Mr. Mitsotakis of insincerity about settling disputes in the eastern Aegean and blasted the European Union for siding with its members, Greece and Cyprus, according to a European diplomat and two senior European officials who were there.While the others, flabbergasted and annoyed, finished their dinners, Mr. Erdogan fulminated at a news conference against Greece and threatened invasion. “We may suddenly arrive one night,” he said. When a reporter asked if that meant he would attack Greece, the Turkish president said, “Actually you have understood.”The outburst was only the latest from Mr. Erdogan. As he faces mounting political and economic difficulties before elections in the spring, he has been ramping up the threats against his NATO ally since the summer, using language normally left to military hawks and ultranationalists.While few diplomats or analysts are predicting war, there is a growing sense among European diplomats that a politically threatened Mr. Erdogan is an increasingly dangerous one for his neighbors — and that accidents can happen.Mr. Erdogan needs crisis to buoy his shaky standing at home after nearly 20 years in power, a diplomat specializing in Turkey said, requesting anonymity. And if he is not provided one, the diplomat said, he may create one.The rising tensions between Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, now threaten to add a difficult new dimension to Europe’s efforts to maintain its unity in the face of Russia’s war in Ukraine and its accumulating economic fallout.Mr. Erdogan met President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Kazakhstan on Thursday.Pool photo by Vyacheslav ProkofyevAlready, Mr. Erdogan has made himself a troublesome and unpredictable ally for his NATO partners. His economic challenges and desire to carve out a stable security sphere for Turkey in a tough neighborhood have pushed him ever closer to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.Mr. Erdogan has earned some shelter from open criticism by allies because of his efforts to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, especially in the deal to allow Ukrainian grain exports.But he has refused to impose sanctions on Russia and continues to get Russian gas through the TurkStream pipeline, while asking Moscow to delay payment for energy.On Thursday, Mr. Erdogan met Mr. Putin in Kazakhstan, where they discussed using Turkey as an energy hub to export more Russian gas after the pipelines to Germany under the Baltic Sea have been damaged.But it is the escalating rhetoric against Greece that is now drawing special attention.Sinan Ulgen, the director of EDAM, an Istanbul-based research institution, said that of course there was an electoral aspect to Mr. Erdogan’s actions. But there were also deep-seated problems that foster chronic instability and dangerous tensions.“Turkey and Greece have a set of unresolved bilateral disputes,” he said, “and this creates a favorable environment whenever a politician in Ankara or Athens wants to raise tensions.”The two countries nearly went to war in the 1970s over energy exploration in the Aegean, in 1995-96 over disputed claims over an uninhabited rock formation in the eastern Mediterranean, and in 2020, again over energy exploration in disputed waters. “And now we’re at it again,” Mr. Ulgen said. “And why? Because of elections in Turkey and Greece.”Mr. Mitsotakis is also in campaign mode, with elections expected next summer, damaged by a continuing scandal over spyware planted in the phones of opposition politicians and journalists. As in Turkey, nothing appeals to Greek patriotism more than a good spat with an old foe.A Turkish drill in August off Mersin, Turkey. Turkey and Greece nearly went to war in 2020 over Turkish energy exploration in disputed waters.Adem Altan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesHe has sought to appear firm without escalating. Confronted at the dinner in Prague, Mr. Mitsotakis retorted that leaders should solve problems and not create new ones, that he was prepared to discuss all issues but could not stay silent while Turkey threatened the sovereignty of Greek islands.“No, Mr. Erdogan — no to bullying,” he said in a recent policy speech. He told reporters that he was open to talks with Mr. Erdogan despite the vitriol, saying he thought military conflict unlikely. “I don’t believe this will ever happen,” he said. “And if, God forbid, it happened, Turkey would receive an absolutely devastating response.”He was referring to Greek military abilities that have been significantly bolstered recently as part of expanded defense agreements with France and the United States.Mr. Mitsotakis has also taken advantage of American annoyance with Mr. Erdogan’s relations with Russia and his delay in approving NATO enlargement to Finland and Sweden to boost ties with Washington. In May, he was the first Greek prime minister to address Congress and urged it to reconsider arms sales to Turkey.He has said Greece will buy F-35s, while Turkey, denied F-35s because of its purchase of a Russian air-defense system, is still pressing to get more F-16s and modernization kits, using NATO enlargement as leverage.But Mr. Erdogan is facing considerable problems at home, making tensions with Greece an easy and traditional way to divert attention and rally support.Mr. Erdogan is presiding over a disastrous economy, with inflation running officially at 83 percent a year — but most likely higher — and the currency depreciating. Turkish gross domestic product per capita, a measure of wealth, has dropped to about $7,500 from more than $12,600 in 2013, based on Turkey’s real population, which now includes some four million Syrian refugees, according to Bilge Yilmaz, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.Mr. Erdogan is presiding over a disastrous economy, with inflation running officially at 83 percent a year.Yasin Akgul/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Erdogan has kept cutting interest rates against conventional economic advice. “We need to reverse monetary policy,” said Mr. Yilmaz, who is touted as a likely finance minister should Mr. Erdogan lose the election. “A strong adjustment of the economy will not be easy.”There is also growing popular resentment of the continuing cost of the refugees, who were taken in by Mr. Erdogan as a generous gesture to fellow Muslims in difficulty.Still, Mr. Erdogan is thought to have a solid 30 percent of the vote as his base, and government-controlled media dominate, with numerous opposition journalists and politicians jailed or silenced.In a report on Wednesday, the European Union criticized “democratic backsliding” and said that “in the area of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, Turkey needs to reverse the negative trend as a matter of priority with addressing the weakening of effective checks and balances in the political system.”Still, at this point, analysts think Mr. Erdogan could lose his majority in Parliament and might just lose the presidential election itself.That is an analysis firmly rejected by Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, the AKP, said Volkan Bozkir, a former diplomat and member of Parliament, who says flatly that Mr. Erdogan and his party will be re-elected.Constantinos Filis, the director of the Institute of Global Affairs at the American College of Greece, believes that Mr. Erdogan is trying to keep all options open, “casting Greece as a convenient external threat and creating a dangerous framework within which he could justify a potential move against Greece in advance.”As for Washington, he said, they are telling Mr. Erdogan: “Thank you for what you did in Ukraine, of course you haven’t imposed sanctions on Russia, but OK, you’re in a difficult position, strategically, diplomatically, economically — but don’t dare to do something in the Aegean or the Eastern Mediterranean that will bring trouble to NATO.”Migrants at the border between Turkey and Greece in March 2020. There is growing popular resentment of the continuing cost of the refugees in Turkey, who include four million Syrians.The New York TimesMore likely, Mr. Filis said, Mr. Erdogan would again send migrants toward Europe, or launch another energy exploration in disputed areas off Cyprus or Crete, which produced near clashes in 2020, or intercept a Greek ship transporting military equipment to one of the Aegean Islands.Mr. Ulgen also does not expect armed conflict but would not be surprised. “It could happen; it’s not something we can rule out anymore,” he said. “But if it happens, it will be small-scale.”Niki Kitsantonis More