More stories

  • in

    Trump Dislikes Ukraine for the Most MAGA of Reasons

    It’s certainly understandable that many millions of Americans have focused on Springfield, Ohio, after the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. When Trump repeated the ridiculous rumor that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were killing and eating household pets, he not only highlighted once again his own vulnerability to conspiracy theories, it put the immigrant community in Springfield in serious danger. Bomb threats have forced two consecutive days of school closings and some Haitian immigrants are now “scared for their lives.”That’s dreadful. It’s inexcusable. But it’s not Trump’s only terrible moment in the debate. Most notably, he refused to say — in the face of repeated questions — that he wanted Ukraine to win its war with Russia. Trump emphasized ending the war over winning the war, a position that can seem reasonable, right until you realize that attempting to force peace at this stage of the conflict would almost certainly cement a Russian triumph. Russia would hold an immense amount of Ukrainian territory and Putin would rightly believe he bested both Ukraine and the United States. He would have rolled the “iron dice” of war and he would have won.There is no scenario in which a Russian triumph is in America’s best interest. A Russian victory would not only expand Russia’s sphere of influence, it would represent a human rights catastrophe (Russia has engaged in war crimes against Ukraine’s civilian population since the beginning of the war) and threaten the extinction of Ukrainian national identity. It would reset the global balance of power.In addition, a Russian victory would make World War III more, not less, likely. It would teach Vladimir Putin that aggression pays, that the West’s will is weak and that military conquest is preferable to diplomatic engagement. China would learn a similar lesson as it peers across the strait at Taiwan.If Vladimir Putin is stopped now — while Ukraine and the West are imposing immense costs in Russian men and matériel — it will send the opposite message, making it far more likely that the invasion of Ukraine is Putin’s last war, not merely his latest.But that’s not how Trump thinks about Ukraine. He exhibits deep bitterness toward the country, and it was that bitterness that helped expose how dangerous he was well before the Big Lie and Jan. 6.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Starmer, Meeting Biden, Hints at Ukraine Weapons Decision Soon

    As the president deliberated with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the question of whether to let Ukraine use long-range weapons in Russia was a rare point of contention between allied nations.President Biden’s deliberations with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain about whether to allow Ukraine to attack Russia with long-range Western weapons were fresh evidence that the president remains deeply fearful of setting off a dangerous, wider conflict.But the decision now facing Mr. Biden after Friday’s closed-door meeting at the White House — whether to sign off on the use of long-range missiles made by Britain and France — could be far more consequential than previous concessions by the president that delivered largely defensive weapons to Ukraine during the past two and a half years.In remarks at the start of his meeting with Mr. Starmer, the president underscored his support for helping Ukraine defend itself but did not say whether he was willing to do more to allow for long-range strikes deep into Russia.“We’re going to discuss that now,” the president told reporters.For his part, the prime minister noted that “the next few weeks and months could be crucial — very, very important that we support Ukraine in this vital war of freedom.”European officials said earlier in the week that Mr. Biden appeared ready to approve the use of British and French long-range missiles, a move that Mr. Starmer and officials in France have said they want to provide a united front in the conflict with Russia. But Mr. Biden has hesitated to allow Ukraine to use arms provided by the United States in the same way over fears that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia would see it as a major escalation.On Thursday, Mr. Putin responded to reports that America and its allies were considering such a move by declaring that it would “mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia,” according to a report by the Kremlin.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Russian Forces Are Stepping Up Attacks on Pokrovsk, Ukraine Says

    Bombardments are increasing in and around Pokrovsk, Ukrainian officials said, with water supplies now cut and a road overpass destroyed.Stepped-up Russian bombardments in and around Pokrovsk in eastern Ukraine cut off water supplies and destroyed a road overpass that blocked a key route out of the strategic city, Ukrainian officials said on Thursday, as conditions deteriorated for civilians.Russian troops are pressing ahead with an offensive and are now on the city’s doorstep, about five miles away, officials said, renewing calls for all residents to evacuate. Those who remain must rely on water from wells dug near apartment blocks, according to residents. Already, much of the city is without natural gas or electricity.“The situation is dire and won’t improve anytime soon,” Vadym Filashkin, the head of the military administration for the Donetsk region, said in a post on the Telegram messaging app of the loss of water in Pokrovsk. “Leaving is the only smart option,” he added.The city is the focus of a monthslong Russian offensive that has not let up despite a risky move by Ukraine in August to divert forces by invading the Kursk region of Russia.Ukrainian troops are now also facing a counterattack toward their positions in Kursk, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said on Thursday. That statement came after posts on social media by Russian military bloggers and commentary by analysts that Ukraine had lost control of several villages in recent fighting.“Russia began counteroffensive activities,” Mr. Zelensky said, according to the Interfax-Ukraine media outlet.Ukrainian soldiers unloading artillery shells brought by their battalion commander to their position in the Pokrovsk region on Tuesday.Nicole Tung for The New York TimesInside Ukraine, Pokrovsk looks set for a similar grim fate experienced by other cities in the eastern Donbas region, like Sievierodonetsk and Bakhmut, as they came within range of Russian artillery or rockets that hit key infrastructure.In those cities, the lights blinked out, water taps ran dry and most people of means fled, leaving a small number of citizens, many of them older people who took shelter in basements as frequent shelling reduced buildings around them to ruins.Over the summer, the Russian Air Force began hitting Pokrovsk with glide bombs, which are far more destructive than ground-based artillery since they can carry far higher loads of explosives.In an interview last month, the city’s military administrator, Serhiy Dobryak, said he expected bombing to target infrastructure first and then residential areas as the Russian army closed in on the city.The Ukrainian military has prepared for urban combat in Pokrovsk, setting up concrete pillboxes on some roadsides. Russia’s offensive over the past about 10 days had concentrated on rural areas south of the city, but Pokrovsk remains at risk.Ukraine has halted daily evacuation trains from the city’s train station, in a further sign of unraveling security in the city.A bombardment overnight led to the collapse of an overpass.Civilians are still able to evacuate by car or bus using side roads, but the loss of water and destruction of bridges heralded a new phase of worsening conditions in Pokrovsk, Ukrainian officials said.Maria Varenikova More

  • in

    Ukraine Says Russian Missile Hit Grain Ship in Black Sea

    If confirmed, the attack would be the first on a commercial vessel since Ukraine secured a shipping route to grain markets abroad last year.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said on Thursday that a Russian missile struck a cargo ship in the Black Sea that was carrying wheat to Egypt, and a Ukrainian military spokesman said that the attack took place in Romanian waters.If confirmed, it would be the first such direct attack on a civilian vessel in open water since Ukraine established a new maritime export route last year.Mr. Zelensky said on social media that there were no casualties in the attack, which he said had happened overnight. He did not describe the extent of any damage.There was no immediate independent confirmation of the claim; and Russia’s defense ministry did not mention it on its Telegram channel.Captain Dmytro Pletenchuk, the spokesman for Ukraine’s southern command said in a telephone interview that the ship had been hit by a missile from a Russian military jet while it was in “the exclusive economic zone waters of Romania. It was not in the grain corridor of Ukraine.” He said the ship was sailing under the flag of a third country, but did not say which.An attack in the exclusive economic zone waters of Romania, a NATO member, would not be equivalent to an attack on sovereign territory under international law. Rather, the zone is an area where a government can control economic activity, such as oil drilling.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Debate Puts Trump’s Affinity for Putin Back in the Spotlight

    The former president’s refusal to back Ukraine’s war effort showed the likely limits of U.S. support for Kyiv if he returns to the White House.Donald J. Trump’s refusal to say that he hopes Ukraine will win its war against Russia has cast a spotlight on what promises to be an abrupt U.S. policy shift toward the conflict — and Washington’s relations with Moscow — if Mr. Trump returns to the White House.Twice Mr. Trump was asked directly at the debate on Tuesday night whether he hoped for Ukraine’s victory, and both times he insisted that his main goal was for the war to end quickly. “I think it’s in the U.S.’s best interest to get this war finished and just get it done, negotiate a deal, because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed,” he said.The former president went on to suggest that he would leverage his friendly relationship with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, underscoring clear signs that he intends to reverse President Biden’s confrontational relationship with Russia.Mr. Trump’s answers “should tell people all they need to know — which is that if Trump gets elected and gets involved, Ukraine’s going to be the loser and Russia’s going to be the winner,” said John R. Bolton, who served as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. Mr. Bolton has become a vocal critic of the former president, who fired him after repeated policy disagreements.Mr. Trump offered little detail on how he would negotiate a rapid end to the Ukraine war, saying only that he would speak to both Mr. Putin and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to strike a deal even before he was inaugurated in January.That is a seemingly impossible goal. Mr. Zelensky has ruled out any settlement with Russia that does not restore his country’s original borders, while Mr. Putin seems determined to conquer even more of Ukraine than the roughly one-fifth of its territory that his army now occupies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    North Korean Missiles Rain Down on Ukraine Despite Sanctions

    Russia has received new shipments of Hwasong-11 short-range ballistic missiles, according to a new report.North Korea has continued to supply advanced short-range ballistic missiles to Russia in defiance of sanctions meant to prevent Pyongyang from developing such weapons and Moscow from importing them, according to a report by a weapons research group.Remnants of four of the missiles, which are called Hwasong-11, were examined in Kyiv on Sept. 3 by investigators from Conflict Armament Research, an independent group based in Britain that identifies and tracks weapons and ammunition used in wars around the world.That team decoded production markings on several parts from each missile collected by Ukrainian authorities.A Hwasong-11 missile used in an Aug. 18 attack on Kyiv had markings showing that it was made this year. Internal parts from three others, which were used in attacks in July and August, lacked markings that would indicate when they were manufactured.The researchers released those findings in a report on Wednesday.In early January, the White House accused North Korea of providing ballistic missiles to Russia, but subsequent shipments had not been previously reported.The Hwasong-11 missile has a range of about 430 miles and can be fitted with nuclear or conventional warheads, according to a U.S. Army report. It is visually similar to the Russian Iskander short-range ballistic missile and may have been made with foreign assistance, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Russian Forces Capture 2 Villages in Eastern Ukraine, Analysis Shows

    Russia appears to be trying to cut off Ukrainian soldiers around the strategic city of Pokrovsk, a focal point of the war in recent months.Russian forces have captured two villages in eastern Ukraine and are now pressing to encircle Ukrainian soldiers at two locations along the frontline, according to an analysis of the battlefield on Monday.The two villages, Nevelske and Vodiane, were captured by Russian troops on Sunday, according to DeepState, a group of analysts mapping the battlefield. DeepState’s analysis is based on sources in the Ukrainian military and open-source data like satellite imagery and photos and video posted on social media.Russian forces have been expanding the territory they control around a key objective in the region, the strategic city of Pokrovsk, which has been strengthened in recent days by Ukrainian reinforcements, the analysis shows.Now, Russia appears to be trying to cut off Ukrainian forces with pincer movements in two areas — to the south of Pokrovsk and in a pocket of Ukrainian-held territory near the town of Vuhledar, another strategically important site.Control of those areas would allow Russian forces to broaden their lines of approach toward Pokrovsk, a logistics and transit hub that has been a focal point of the war in recent months, experts say.“They are trying to strengthen their flanks in this way” along the main axis of attack toward Pokrovsk, said Mykhailo Samus, deputy director at the Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies in Ukraine, an independent institution. “Their route to Pokrovsk depends on those flanks.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Iran Sent Short-Range Missiles to Russia, U.S. and European Officials Say

    U.S. and European countries had warned of sanctions if Iran provided weapons that could be used against Ukraine. President Biden’s lame-duck status could hamper a response.Iran has sent short-range ballistic missiles to Russia, according to U.S. and European officials, despite sharp warnings from Washington and its allies not to provide those precise armaments to Moscow to use against targets in Ukraine.The new missiles are expected to help Russia further its efforts to destroy Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, which President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said this week now involved 4,000 bombs a month across the country.The U.S. and European officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, confirmed that after months of warnings about sanctions, Iran has shipped several hundred short-range ballistic missiles to Russia. The delivery was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.Iran denied providing the weapons in a statement released on Friday by its permanent mission to the United Nations and said its position on the war in Ukraine was unchanged.“Iran considers the provision of military assistance to the parties engaged in the conflict — which leads to increased human casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and a distancing from cease-fire negotiations — to be inhumane,” the statement said. “Thus, not only does Iran abstain from engaging in such actions itself, but it also calls upon other countries to cease the supply of weapons to the sides involved in the conflict.”The Group of 7 nations warned in March that they would impose coordinated sanctions on Iran if it carried out the missile transfer, a warning that was repeated at a NATO summit meeting in Washington in July. On Friday, a spokesman for the National Security Council said that the United States was “alarmed” by reports of a missile transfer and was prepared to respond with “significant consequences.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More