United States International Relations

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares92 Views

      in Elections

      The Long Global Trail of Resentment Behind Trump’s Resurrection

      by

      As the Cold War wound down almost four decades ago, a top adviser to the reformist Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, warned the West that “we are going to do the most terrible thing to you. We are going to deprive you of an enemy.”In the celebrations of the triumph of Western liberal democracy, of free trade and open societies, few considered how disorienting the end of a binary world of good and evil would be.But when the spread of democracy in newly freed societies looked more like the spread of divisive global capitalism, when social fracture grew and shared truth died, when hope collapsed in the communities technology left behind, a yearning for the certainties of the providential authoritarian leader set in.“In the absence of a shared reality, or shared facts, or a shared threat, reason had no weight beside emotion,” said Nicole Bacharan, a French political scientist. “And so a dislocated world of danger has produced a hunger for the strongman.”A different Russia, briefly imagined as a partner of the West, eventually became an enemy once more. But by the time it invaded Ukraine in 2022, disillusionment with Western liberalism had gone so far that President Vladimir V. Putin’s tirades against the supposed decadence of the West enjoyed wide support among far-right nationalist movements across Europe, in the United States and elsewhere. Western allies stood firm in defense of Ukrainian democracy, but even that commitment is wobbling.The curious resurrection and resounding victory of Donald J. Trump amounted to the apotheosis of a long-gathering revolt against the established order. No warning of the fragility of democracy or freedom, no allusion to 20th-century cataclysm or Mr. Trump’s attraction to dictators, could hold back the tide.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

    • 100 Shares76 Views

      in Elections

      What the Collapse of Germany’s Ruling Coalition Means

      by

      After decades of relative stability, the country has entered a new era of political fragmentation and will hold new elections at a precarious time.The collapse of its governing coalition is an extraordinary moment for Germany, a country known for stable governments. It has happened only twice before in the 75 years since the modern state was founded.But like a marriage that has finally ended after years of fighting, the spectacular breakup on Wednesday night of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party coalition was expected by most and welcomed by many.A recent national poll found that a majority of Germans wanted to end the “traffic light” coalition, named for the colors of the parties that made it up — red for the Social Democratic Party, yellow for the pro-business Free Democratic Party and green for the Greens. Only 14 percent still had confidence in the coalition, according to the same poll.Although the opposition is pushing for Mr. Scholz to end the government sooner, Wednesday’s announcement will very likely lead to early elections in March, at a precarious time for Germany both domestically and internationally.Here’s what we know about the collapse of the coalition.How did we get here?On Wednesday night, Mr. Scholz fired his finance minister, Christian Lindner, who is the head of the Free Democrats, over disagreements about the 2025 budget and the economy in general. That precipitated the end of the coalition.The coalition was initially both successful and popular. But a constitutional court ruling late in 2023, barring the government from repurposing finances left over from the pandemic, spelled the beginning of the end.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

    • 125 Shares76 Views

      in Elections

      Gazans Fear Neither Candidate in U.S. Election Will Help Them

      by

      American politics have not been topmost in the minds of Gazans. “We only need one thing: for this war to come to an end,” one man said.The Biden administration’s support for Israel in the war in Gaza has been divisive for left-leaning voters in the United States, including many Arab Americans, and some say it has soured them on Vice President Kamala Harris’s candidacy.Many in Gaza share that anger over the United States’ willingness to keep shipping weapons to Israel to carry out its campaign against Hamas despite the death and devastation in Gaza. But in interviews across the territory, many said they were skeptical that either Ms. Harris or former President Donald J. Trump would do much to improve their situation.“I am fearful that both candidates are for the same thing, which is no end in sight for the war in Gaza,” said Abdul Kareem al-Kahlout, 35, a math teacher in Deir al Balah.The war began after the militant group Hamas led the Oct. 7 terror attack that Israeli authorities say killed about 1,200 people in Israel. Since then, the Israeli military’s bombardment and ground operations in Gaza have killed more than 43,000 people, according to local authorities, a figure that includes Hamas fighters. The war has pushed the remaining population to the brink of famine and left much of the territory in ruins.Many people interviewed in Gaza said they were more focused on keeping themselves and their loved ones alive after more than a year of war. They have had little access to electricity or the internet, or to adequate food and medicine, so they have not had much time to follow American politics.“I have no preference,” said Mohammed Owaida, 33, who is from Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip. “We only need one thing: for this war to come to an end. We are exhausted. Whoever wins and can do that, I support.”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

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Farmers Brace for New Trump Trade Wars Amid Tariff Threats

      by

      Despite their concerns, some farm operators still support the former president and prefer his overall economic plan.To former President Donald J. Trump, “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the dictionary.But to farmers in rural America, the blanket import duties that Mr. Trump wants to enact if elected are a nightmare that they would rather not live through again.As president, Mr. Trump imposed tariffs in 2018 and 2019 on $300 billion of Chinese imports, a punishment he wielded in order to get China to negotiate a trade deal with the United States. His action triggered a trade war between Washington and Beijing, with China slapping retaliatory tariffs on American products. It also shifted more of its soybean purchases to Brazil and Argentina, hurting U.S. soybean farmers who had long relied on the Chinese market.When Mr. Trump finally announced a limited trade deal in 2019, American farmers were frazzled and subsisting on subsidies that the Trump administration had handed out to keep them afloat.Now it could happen all over again.“The prospect of additional tariffs doesn’t sound good,” said Leslie Bowman, a corn and soybean farmer from Chambersburg, Pa. “The idea of tariffs is to protect U.S. industries, but for the agricultural industry, it’s going to hurt.”The support of farmers in swing states such as Pennsylvania could be pivotal in determining the outcome of Tuesday’s election. Mr. Trump remains popular in rural America, and voters such as Mr. Bowman say they are weighing a variety of factors as they consider whom to vote for.Mr. Trump has said that if he wins the election he will put tariffs as high as 50 percent on imports from around the world. Tariffs on Chinese imports could be even higher, and some foreign products would face levies upward of 200 percent. Economists have warned that such tariffs could reignite inflation, slow economic growth and harm the industries that Mr. Trump says he wants to help.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

    • 125 Shares84 Views

      in Elections

      German Government at Risk of Collapse After Rift on Economy

      by

      A breakup of the divided and unpopular coalition well before elections set for next September could leave the country directionless at a critical time for Europe.Germany’s three-party coalition government, wracked by infighting and policy paralysis over a stagnant economy, is teetering on the brink of collapse.It does not look likely to last until the next scheduled elections in September 2025 and could fall imminently over a nasty budget debate that comes to a head this month, analysts say. The main political parties are already laying out their campaign positions, and coalition leaders are barely talking.The growing rift became more evident Friday evening, when a leaked position paper by the leader of one coalition party called for a fundamental economic overhaul that contradicts government policies, and is meant to cut costs.The 18-page economic paper was written by Christian Lindner, the leader of the pro-market liberal Free Democratic Party.Mr. Lindner wants to cut some social service payments, drop a special “solidarity tax” intended to help fund German reunification, and follow European Union climate regulations rather than more ambitious national ones — all demands that his coalition partners are highly unlikely to accept.After coalition parties lost votes in three state elections in September, Mr. Lindner warned that the coming months would become the “autumn of decisions.” And he has suggested that if the coalition did not work in his favor, his party could quit the government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz.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

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      North Korea, in the Spotlight Over Ukraine, Launches a Long-Range Missile

      by

      The launch, into waters west of Japan, came shortly after the United States and South Korea criticized the North for sending troops to join Russia’s war. North Korea launched an intercontinental ballistic missile off its east coast on Thursday, South Korean defense officials said, shortly after the United States and South Korea condemned the country for deploying troops near Ukraine to join Russia’s war effort.The missile was fired from Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, at a deliberately steep angle so that it reached an unusually high altitude but did not fly over Japan, the South Korean military said in a brief statement. The missile landed in waters between North Korea and Japan.The military said it was analyzing data to learn more about the missile, but that it believed it was an ICBM. North Korea last tested a long-range missile​ in December, when it test-fired its solid-fueled Hwasong-18 ICBM.The launch on Thursday was the North’s first major weapons test since September, when it fired a new type of Hwasong-11 short-range ballistic missile, which it said could carry a “super-large” conventional warhead weighing 4.5 tons.On Wednesday, South Korean defense intelligence officials told lawmakers that North Korea might conduct long-range missile tests before the American presidential election next week. They also said that the North was preparing to conduct its seventh underground nuclear test, in a bid to raise tensions and gain diplomatic leverage with the next U.S. president. North Korea conducted its last nuclear test in 2017.In recent weeks, North Korea has posed a fresh security challenge to Washington and its allies by sending an estimated 11,000 troops to Russia to fight in its war against Ukraine. Thousands of them, outfitted with Russian uniforms and equipment, have moved closer to the front lines, preparing themselves for possible battle against Ukrainian troops, South Korean and American officials said.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

    • 113 Shares96 Views

      in Elections

      Behind the Tactical Gains Against Iran, a Longer-Term Worry

      by

      Experts inside and outside the Biden administration fear that Iran may conclude it has only one defense left: racing for an atomic weapon.When Israeli fighter jets roared off the runways on Friday night, on a thousand-mile run to Iran, they headed for two major sets of targets: the air defenses that protect Tehran, including Iran’s leadership, and the giant fuel mixers that make propellant for Iran’s missile fleet.Israel’s military leaders, in calls with Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and other senior American officials, had concluded that taking out the air defenses would make Iran’s leaders fearful that Tehran itself could not be defended. That feeling of vulnerability was already high, after Israel decimated the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah, Tehran’s proxy forces that could strike Israel, over the past month.The surprise element for the Iranians was a set of strikes that hit a dozen or so fuel mixers, and took out the air defenses that protected several critical oil and petrochemical refineries, according to a senior U.S. official and two Israeli defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning.Without the capability to mix fuel, Iran cannot produce more of the type of ballistic missiles that its forces fired on Israel on Oct. 1, the immediate provocation for Israel’s strike. And it could take more than a year to replace them from Chinese and other suppliers.By Saturday, American and Israeli officials were claiming a major success, but lurking behind the satisfaction with the tactical gains lies a longer-term worry. With Iran’s Russian-produced air defenses in smoldering piles, many fear the Iranian leaders may conclude they have only one defense left: racing for an atomic weapon.That is just what American strategists have been desperately trying to avoid for a quarter-century, using sabotage, cyberattacks and diplomacy to keep Tehran from crossing the threshold to become a full nuclear-armed power.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

    • 113 Shares97 Views

      in Elections

      In Deciding Whether to Retaliate, Iran Faces a Dilemma

      by

      Iran faces a dilemma after the Israeli strikes on Saturday.If it retaliates, it risks further escalation at a time when its economy is struggling, its allies are faltering, its military vulnerability is clear and its leadership succession is in play.If it does not, it risks looking weak to those same allies, as well as to more aggressive and powerful voices at home.Iran is already in the middle of a regional war. Since the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has moved swiftly to damage the militant group in Gaza and other Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah, the Houthis and its allies in Syria and Iraq.These groups represent Iran’s “forward defense” against Israel, the heart of the nation’s deterrence. They have been badly weakened by the Israeli military’s tough response since Oct. 7, which weakens Iran, too, and makes it more vulnerable.Iranian officials have made it clear that they do not want a direct war with Israel. They want to preserve their allies, the so-called ring of fire around Israel.After Israel struck Iran, Tehran on Saturday publicly played down the effect of the attack and showed ordinary programming on television. It did not immediately vow a major retaliation, but simply restated its right to do so.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