More stories

  • in

    Clash between Poland and US over MiG-29s reveals tensions in escalating war

    Clash between Poland and US over MiG-29s reveals tensions in escalating warAnalysis: the public spat over planes is a setback and the upshot of this mini-debacle is that Russia retains air superiority

    Russia-Ukraine war: latest updates
    The buck-passing between Poland and the US over the possible use of elderly MiG-29s to hit Russian forces inside Ukraine is one of the west’s few diplomatic failures of the past month. It also raises questions about how far European countries are prepared to escalate militarily before they believe they will touch a dangerous Russian tripwire.The US and Europe have worked hard to keep their differences over sanctions and oil embargos to a public minimum, and tried to accommodate each other’s national interests. So it was striking on Tuesday when first the Pentagon described a Polish offer to send planes to the US airbase in Ramstein as “untenable”, and then the deputy US secretary of state said the US had not been consulted about the plan.Part of the problem was that the Polish proposal was subtly but critically different to a scheme that had previously been discussed in private. Against the backdrop of highly charged diplomatic tensions, presentation matters.In essence, Poland said it would cooperate in strengthening the Ukrainian air force so long as this would be seen in Moscow as a US, Nato or EU scheme but not a Polish one.In its original, US-conceived iteration, the proposal was a trilateral deal whereby Poland would hand over the MiGs to Ukrainian pilots to fly into their homeland, and the US would then provide some substitute planes. Boris Johnson, an enthusiast, described the plan as “rent a MiG”.That proposal, arguably, was not qualitatively different to Nato members providing Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank missiles. In return, Poland would eventually fill the hole in its air force with 28 F-16s being provided by the US.But under private pressure from the US, Poland felt the plan unduly exposed its citizens to Putin’s ire. So instead, in a game of diplomatic pass the parcel, Poland tweaked the proposals so the planes would be sent free of charge to the US airbase in Ramstein, Germany, rather than being flown out of Poland into Ukraine. The move would literally take Poland out of the line of Russia’s fire since the plan could be labelled as that of the US, Nato or the EU.US dismisses Polish plan to provide fighter jets to be sent to UkraineRead morePoland also suggested other frontline Nato countries with MiG planes should match its plan, a proposal directed at Slovakia and Romania. If executed it would mean Ukraine had 70 extra planes at its disposal.The Pentagon’s response – “it is simply not clear to us that there is a tangible justification for this” – was swift. Passing the parcel back, it said any decision to hand over planes ultimately rested with the Polish government, although it did not kill off the proposal altogether.It is possible that Poland’s nationalist government launched its plan with the aim of relieving pressure from the US Congress and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, knowing full well it would be rejected.Either way the public spat is a setback. Over the weekend the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, had said a plan involving planes was under active consideration.The upshot after this mini-debacle is Russia retains air superiority. Ukrainian pilots who were being trained in Poland to fly the planes are now grounded with no machines with which to defend their country. An opportunity has been squandered.The episode may have lessons for both sides. The possibility of making the MiG-29s available first appeared publicly on 27 February, when the EU made the unprecedented decision to provide military aid to a country outside the bloc. The first tranche of equipment for Ukraine is expected to amount to €500m (£417m), but up to €5bn is to be spent under the European Peace Initiative.It was then that the head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, said that aid for Kyiv would also include offensive weapons, including planes. At that point it became clear that the planes would only be MIG-29 and Su-25, because Ukrainian pilots only have experience with these machines. Poland, it would seem, did not appreciate the issue being disclosed. However, the country has emerged strengthened in another way from the past 24 hours. The US has provided Poland with two Patriot defence missiles. Each battery consists of two firing platoons with two launchers. This means there will be 16 launchers in Poland. They can have either four or six missiles. The latest Pac-3 MSE missiles are capable of shooting down the Russian Iskander ballistic and manoeuvring missiles.Unfortunately, they are also the anti-aircraft defence that Ukraine lacks. Nato, as its constitution requires, looks after its own.TopicsUkrainePolandUS politicsUS CongressRussiaEuropeUS foreign policyanalysisReuse this content More

  • in

    Biden’s State of the Union address: a perfect summation of his presidency | Moira Donegan

    Biden’s State of the Union address: a perfect summation of his presidencyMoira DoneganThe US president has good intentions, with only halting, sporadic, uncreative, and trepidatious efforts to actually enact them There’s always something a bit grim about the State of the Union. A setpiece of American political theater, the annual speech by the president to a joint session of Congress is choreographed to eliminate any chance of accidental sincerity. The president speaks in carefully calibrated spin; every word sounds like it has been focus-grouped. Members of the opposition party make a show of their animosity, vamping for the cameras with either staid, dignified displeasure or ravenous hatred, depending on where they are running for re-election. No one’s mind is changed and little new information is delivered. By its nature, the speech is meant to describe the status quo. It is not meant to change it.State of the Union: Joe Biden pledges to make Putin pay for Ukraine invasionRead moreThis year, President Biden had a particularly grim task. After months and months of negotiations with Senator Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, proved fruitless, his sweeping economic agenda, the Build Back Better Plan, appears to be dead. The two voting rights bills that would have helped secure the franchise for Black Americans and protect the integrity of future elections were killed when Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, of Arizona, declined to support an exemption to the filibuster, meaning that the erosion of voting rights in Republican-controlled states is likely to advance unchallenged. Many economic indicators are strong, but with inflation running rampant, this means little to working families, who see their paychecks covering less and less of what they need. This spring, the US supreme court will hand down opinions that will drastically reshape American government and American lives, including the case from Mississippi, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, that will overturn Roe v Wade. The midterms are coming, and in Europe, a pointless and brutal war of self-aggrandizement has been launched by an erratic and mendacious dictator with a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons.Perhaps it was to be expected, then, that Biden’s speech was wide-ranging in tone, frenziedly ambitious in its agenda, and light on specifics. He opened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, condemning the murderous ambitions of Vladimir Putin and praising the courage of the unexpectedly resilient Ukrainian military and civilian volunteer forces to rapturous applause. The Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, was in attendance as a guest of the first lady, and she received the night’s first standing ovation, her hand placed over her heart from her balcony seat, as lawmakers below fluttered her country’s blue and yellow flag. Homages to the Ukrainian struggle were everywhere in the House chamber, with a number of women lawmakers dressed in blue and yellow ensembles, men and women alike wearing stickers of the Ukrainian flag on their lapels, and others fielding subtler signals of solidarity: when the camera lingered on Senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, she had a cloth sunflower, the Ukrainian national symbol, pinned to her collar.Biden boasted of the devastating impact of western economic sanctions on the Russian economy, reaffirmed his support for Nato, and vowed to deploy the justice department to seize yachts belonging to Putin’s friends. Promisingly, it seems as if concerns over growing Russian aggression might spark a renewed interest in energy independence that could help the US and Europe break their addiction to Russian oil and gas. Speaking of the recent return of significant numbers of American troops to Central Europe for the first time in years, Biden reaffirmed his commitment to preventing a direct military confrontation with Russia, and emphasized that the troops would be there not to attack the Russians, but to protect Nato allies. One suspects that Putin will not appreciate the distinction.When Biden moved on to domestic policy, the crowd quickly became divided. As he touted his American Rescue Plan, last year’s Covid relief package, boos erupted from the Republican side when Biden noted that the 2017 Republican tax cuts had primarily benefitted the very rich. It was a theme he maintained as he turned to his bipartisan infrastructure law, the $1tn legislative achievement that provides funds for the maintenance and repair of the nation’s physical infrastructure – roads, bridges, airports, commuter trains, and internet. Biden touted a series of shovel-ready projects he claims will go into effect this year and emphasized the bill’s ability to encourage the return of the American manufacturing sector.Domestic manufacturing was largely his prescription for fighting inflation, too. Biden introduced his broader economic agenda with a call to make more stuff in the US, and to use the federal government’s purchasing power to support those American-made goods. This segue led into a litany of briefly visited agenda items, such as allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices; cutting the cost of childcare for working class families so that more women could return to the paid workforce; establishing a 15% minimum corporate tax rate; and supporting the labor-strengthening Pro Act.Many of these proposals seemed less like Biden was putting forward achievable goals for the next year of his presidency and more like he was shifting through the wreckage of his disastrous Build Back Better negotiations with Manchin, searching for some workable leftovers. Most of the items he proposed had already been presented to Congress; none of them had been able to get through the obstructionism of the Republican party and the Manchin-Sinema block. These things would substantially improve the lives of Americans, but it was clear he had no plan for how to implement any of them.This was true especially for abortion rights. Though reproductive choice advocates had long urged Biden to say the word “abortion” in public – he has never done so as president – he referred tonight only offhandedly to the importance of reproductive rights. There was no mention of the fact that Roe v Wade has been nullified in the state of Texas for six months, as of Tuesday. There was no mention of the fact that the Reproductive Health Act, an attempt to legislatively secure the federal right to an abortion, failed in the Senate this week. There was no mention of the fact that of the five supreme court justices present at the speech, three of them – John Roberts, Brett Kavanagh, and Amy Coney Barrett – will vote to eliminate that right in a few short months. “We have to protect a woman’s right to choose,” said Biden, not offering any ideas as to just how that right might be protected. The camera cut momentarily to Amy Coney Barrett, who pursed her lips as thin as paper.In this way, the speech was a perfect summation of Biden’s presidency: good intentions, with only halting, sporadic, uncreative, and trepidatious pursuit of actually enacting them. Unlike his predecessor, Biden tends to stay on script, but the State of the Union speech featured several ad libs – a product, some suspected, of the multiple revisions the speech was subjected to at the last minute, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine placed new demands on the broadcast. The last of these was probably the most apropos: “Go get him,” Biden told the nation. Him who? Get him how? It didn’t make sense, but so little of this does.
    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
    TopicsJoe BidenOpinionUS politicsAbortionUS economyUS domestic policyUS foreign policyUkrainecommentReuse this content More

  • in

    US condemns Putin nuclear deterrence order but cautiously welcomes talks report

    US condemns Putin nuclear deterrence order but cautiously welcomes talks report
    Psaki: Russia ‘manufacturing threats to justify aggression’
    Analysis: Nuclear posturing requires west to tread carefully
    Ukraine crisis – live coverage
    The Biden administration on Sunday condemned Vladimir Putin’s decision to place Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alert. The White House also faced growing calls from senior Republicans to target Russia’s energy sector with new sanctions.Vladimir Putin puts Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alertRead moreAs Russia’s invasion of Ukraine entered its fourth day, the US also expressed guarded optimism over talks between delegations from the two countries set to take place inside Ukraine, near the Belarusian border, on Monday.Speaking on ABC’s This Week, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, described the nuclear deterrence announcement as an example of Putin “manufacturing threats that don’t exist in order to justify further aggression”.In televised comments, Putin said he had ordered “the deterrence forces of the Russian army to a special mode of combat duty”, due to “aggressive statements” from Nato leaders. Analysts told the Guardian that while the order itself was not immediately clear, it was not indicative of preparation for a first strike.Psaki said: “At no point has Russia been under threat from Nato, has Russia been under threat from Ukraine, this is all a pattern from President Putin. And we’re going to stand up for it. We have the ability to defend ourselves, but we also need to call out what we’re seeing here from President Putin.”Biden administration officials expressed tentative support for planned talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, as announced by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.The US ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told CNN’s State of the Union the US would “look forward to what comes out of those discussions.“As you know … we leaned in on diplomacy with the Russians throughout this process and we hoped that Putin would find a way to the negotiating table and he made the unfortunate decision of aggression over diplomacy.”Pressed on whether she believed the talks announcement indicated a good faith effort on behalf of Russia, Thomas Greenfield responded: “I can’t get into Putin’s head or into Russian reasoning, so it remains to be seen.”The talks announcement was tentatively welcomed by the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, who told CNN he had “absolute and full confidence” in Zelenskiy’s judgment on “whether it is right to sit down and find a political solution”.But Stoltenberg also expressed concerns about Russia’s motivations.“It remains to be seen whether Russia is really willing to make some serious compromises and also to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine,” he said.Stoltenberg characterized Putin’s decision to order Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alert as “dangerous rhetoric” and “a behaviour that is irresponsible”.The Biden administration has issued tough sanctions, targeting banks and the finances of some Russian oligarchs as well as restricting export of vital technologies key to Russian military and economic development.Over the weekend, the US and its European allies announced plans to target the Russian central bank’s foreign reserves and to block selected Russian financial institutions from the Swift messaging system for international payments.00:48But the sanctions have not yet targeted oil and gas exports, which reportedly accounted for 36% of Russia’s annual budget last year. That has lead to criticism both inside the Ukraine and in the US.On Sunday Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas and a prominent foreign policy hawk, urged the administration to continue to amplify sanctions.“It’s time for the president and some of our European partners to quit pussyfooting around,” he told ABC. “The financial sanctions announced last night are riddled with loopholes.”Donald Trump defends calling Putin ‘smart’, hints at 2024 presidential bidRead moreCotton was also grilled on Donald Trump’s stance on the war. Trump, who often praised Putin while he was in the White House, finally condemned the invasion during a speech on Saturday night, but also continued to praise the Russian leader.Cotton refused four times to condemn or comment on Trump’s record.The Biden administration has not ruled out further sanctions and has alluded to further measures being taken as the war progresses.“The purpose of the sanctions are to put as much pressure on the Russian economy as possible. And we want to do as much as we can to protect the impact on our own economy,” Thomas-Greenfield said.“But we’re continuing to look at new and even harsher measures against the Russians.”TopicsUkraineRussiaEuropeUS foreign policyUS national securityUS politicsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Biden and the west respond to Putin’s invasion: Politics Weekly America

    In a historic week for Ukraine, Europe and the world, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Ivo Daalder, the former US ambassador to Nato, about how Biden is responding, and why – for the Ukrainians – it’s too late

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

    Archive: BBC, Sky News, ITV, CSPAN Listen to Politics Weekly UK with John Harris Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com. Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts. More

  • in

    ‘Putin chose this war,’ Biden says as he announces new sanctions against Russia – US politics live

    Key events

    Show

    4.18pm EST

    16:18

    Obama condemns Russia’s ‘brutal onslaught’ against Ukraine

    1.50pm EST

    13:50

    ‘Putin chose this war,’ Biden says as he announces new sanctions against Russia

    1.45pm EST

    13:45

    Biden delivers national address on Russian invasion of Ukraine

    12.45pm EST

    12:45

    McConnell: withdrawal from Afghanistan was an invitation to autocrats to make a move

    12.30pm EST

    12:30

    Today so far

    12.05pm EST

    12:05

    House intelligence chairman calls for tougher sanctions against Russia

    10.07am EST

    10:07

    Biden to address nation as Russia invades Ukraine

    Live feed

    Show

    Show key events only

    4.50pm EST

    16:50

    Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, spoke to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken today to discuss the latest round of US sanctions against Russia in response to the invasion.
    “Call with @SecBlinken on ways to stop Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine,” Kuleba said on Twitter.
    “Secretary informed me on the new U.S. sanctions on Russia, as well as plans to deliver new defensive weapons to help Ukraine defend itself. Ukraine holds ground. We need the world to help us.”

    Dmytro Kuleba
    (@DmytroKuleba)
    Call with @SecBlinken on ways to stop Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Secretary informed me on the new U.S. sanctions on Russia, as well as plans to deliver new defensive weapons to help Ukraine defend itself. Ukraine holds ground. We need the world to help us.

    February 24, 2022

    4.33pm EST

    16:33

    Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, sharply criticized Joe Biden for not issuing direct sanctions on Vladimir Putin in response to his invasion of Ukraine.
    “We should not be seeking permission from allies to go after Putin and his cronies. We should move ahead forcefully against Putin, a war criminal, and demand our allies join us,” Graham said.
    “When it comes to sanctions against Putin: If we are not doing everything possible, we are not doing enough. Time is not on our side.”
    Biden said today that his administration is not eliminating the possibility of issuing direct sanctions against Putin, but he ignored questions about why he was not taking that step now.
    Graham also reiterated that he would work with his congressional colleagues in both parties to quickly pass a bill providing emergency supplemental aid to Ukraine in response to the invasion.
    “How we deal with Putin determines what happens in other regions like Asia and the Middle East,” Graham said. “We need to get this done in the Senate next week.”

    4.18pm EST

    16:18

    Obama condemns Russia’s ‘brutal onslaught’ against Ukraine

    Barack Obama has released a new statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Vladimir Putin’s military actions represent a threat to democracies around the world.
    “Last night, Russia launched a brazen attack on the people of Ukraine, in violation of international law and basic principles of human decency,” the former president said.
    “For exercising rights that should be available to all people and nations, Ukrainians now face a brutal onslaught that is killing innocents and displacing untold numbers of men, women and children.”

    Barack Obama
    (@BarackObama)
    Last night, Russia launched a brazen attack on the people of Ukraine, in violation of international law and basic principles of human decency. Here’s my statement on what it means, and what should happen next. pic.twitter.com/Wa0C8XGwvK

    February 24, 2022

    Obama warned that the invasion of Ukraine “threatens the foundation of the international order and security,” underscoring how the “forces of division and authoritarianism” are mounting an assault on global democratic values.
    “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows where these dangerous trends can lead — and why they cannot be left unchallenged,” Obama said. “People of conscience around the world need to loudly and clearly condemn Russia’s actions and offer support for the Ukrainian people.”
    Obama called on “every American, regardless of party” to support Joe Biden’s latest sanctions against Russia, which target some of the country’s largest banks and more elite Russian families.
    “There may be some economic consequences to such sanctions, given Russia’s significant role in world energy markets,” Obama acknowledged. “But that’s a price we should be willing to pay to take a stand on the side of freedom.”

    3.56pm EST

    15:56

    House speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded Joe Biden’s latest round of sanctions against Russia in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, expressing support for the Ukrainian people.
    “The leadership of President Biden and our allies to demonstrate overwhelming resolve is crucial in this moment of heartbreak and suffering for the Ukrainian people,” Pelosi said in a statement.
    “We are united with unprecedented strength and coordination in our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
    Pelosi noted that House members received a briefing from the Biden administration on the Ukraine crisis today and will receive a classified, in-person briefing next week.
    “President Biden has made clear throughout Russia’s escalation that we will continue to impose costs on Russia that will leave it weakened in every way,” Pelosi said. “The United States Congress joins President Biden and all Americans in praying for the Ukrainian people.”

    3.38pm EST

    15:38

    Adam Schiff, the House intelligence committee chairman, said the US sanctions against Russia need to go even further than those announced by Joe Biden today.
    “I think the package of sanctions that the president announced is the most severe we’ve ever levied against Russia and many times more devastating than anything that was implemented after their last invasion in 2014,” Schiff told MSNBC.
    “Nevertheless, I favor going further. I favor expelling them from Swift. I favor imposing sanctions directly on Vladimir Putin. This is an unprecedent situation, and even though we don’t generally sanction heads of state, on occasion we do, and I think it’s merited here.”
    Biden said during his event this afternoon that direct sanctions on Putin were one possibility the US may explore, but he ignored a question about why he is not authorizing those sanctions now.

    Updated
    at 3.39pm EST

    3.17pm EST

    15:17

    After his speech on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Joe Biden was asked by a reporter why the US and its allies are not moving to block Russia out of Swift (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication).
    “The sanctions that we have proposed on all of their banks are of equal consequence, maybe more consequence, than Swift,” Biden said.
    He added, “It is always an option, but right now that’s not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take.”
    The West’s refusal to crack down on Russia’s use of Swift has outraged the Ukrainian government. The Guardian’s Daniel Boffey and Jessica Elgot report:

    Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, voiced his anger as EU heads of state and government appeared likely to decide against blocking Russia from an international payments system through which it receives foreign currency.
    With casualties mounting, Kuleba warned that European and US politicians would have ‘blood on their hands’ if they failed to impose the heaviest toll on Moscow by cutting Russia from the so-called Swift payments system.
    ‘I will not be diplomatic on this,’ he tweeted. ‘Everyone who now doubts whether Russia should be banned from Swift has to understand that the blood of innocent Ukrainian men, women and children will be on their hands too. BAN RUSSIA FROM SWIFT.’

    2.57pm EST

    14:57

    The US Treasury noted that the latest sanctions against Russia will impact nearly 80% of all banking assets in the country, fundamentally threatening the Russian economy and weakening the Kremlin’s geopolitical posture.
    “Treasury is taking serious and unprecedented action to deliver swift and severe consequences to the Kremlin and significantly impair their ability to use the Russian economy and financial system to further their malign activity,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said.
    “Our actions, taken in coordination with partners and allies, will degrade Russia’s ability to project power and threaten the peace and stability of Europe.”
    Yellen said the US is also “prepared to impose further costs on Russia in response to its egregious actions” if Vladimir Putin pursues further aggression against Ukraine.
    “We are united in our efforts to hold Russia accountable for its further invasion of Ukraine while mitigating impacts to Americans and our partners,” Yellen said.

    2.43pm EST

    14:43

    The White House has released a fact sheet on the latest round of sanctions against Russia in response to Vladimir Putin launching a fuller-scale invasion of Ukraine.
    The sanctions call for Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, to be severed from the US financial system, restricting the bank’s access to transactions made in the American dollar.
    Meanwhile, full sanctions will be imposed on four other financial institutions, including Russia’s second-largest bank of VTB. That measure will freeze any of the banks’ assets touching the US financial system and prohibit Americans from dealing with them.

    The White House
    (@WhiteHouse)
    In response to President Putin’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, the United States, along with Allies and partners, is imposing severe and immediate economic costs on Russia.Read more: https://t.co/L83Q2uFwKx pic.twitter.com/kpxfNmQvxM

    February 24, 2022

    2.29pm EST

    14:29

    Joe Biden was asked whether Vladimir Putin’s latest military actions in Ukraine and the resulting sanctions on Russia represent a complete rupture in US-Russian relations.
    “There is a complete rupture right now in US-Russian relations if they continue on this path that they’re on,” Biden said.

    CSPAN
    (@cspan)
    President Biden: “There is a complete rupture right now in U.S.-Russian relations…It’s going to be a cold day for Russia.” pic.twitter.com/GbVF9jW81f

    February 24, 2022

    Addressing the possibility of another Cold War starting, Biden said the vast majority of the world does not support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
    “So it’s going to be a cold day for Russia,” Biden said. “You don’t see a whole lot of people coming to his defense.”
    After taking several questions from reporters, Biden concluded the event and walked away from his podium in the East Room.

    2.23pm EST

    14:23

    Another reporter pressed Joe Biden on the fact that Vladimir Putin has so far been undeterred by the threat of sanctions, asking what might be effective at stopping the Russian leader.
    “No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening. This could take time, and we have to show resolve so he knows what’s coming, and so the people of Russia know what he’s brought on them. That’s what this is all about,” Biden said.
    “He’s going to test the resolve of the West to see if we stay together, and we will. We will, and it will impose significant costs on him.”

    2.15pm EST

    14:15

    Joe Biden warned that Vladimir Putin is likely looking far beyond Ukraine as Russia launches a full-scale invasion of its neighboring country.
    “He has much larger ambitions than Ukraine. He wants to, in fact, re-establish the former Soviet Union. That’s what this is about,” Biden said.
    “And I think that his ambitions are completely contrary to the place where the rest of the world has arrived.”

    2.13pm EST

    14:13

    Joe Biden took several questions from reporters after finishing his prepared remarks on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which included an announcement of additional sanctions on Russia.
    Asked whether he intends to speak to Vladimir Putin in the near future, Biden said, “I have no plans to talk with Putin.”

    CSPAN
    (@cspan)
    President Biden: “I have no plans to talk with Putin.” pic.twitter.com/ZicZMrsRyS

    February 24, 2022

    Another reporter asked Biden whether the US is urging China, which has traditionally aligned itself with Russia, to help the West isolate Putin.
    “I’m not prepared to comment on that at the moment,” Biden said.

    2.08pm EST

    14:08

    Joe Biden pledged that Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine would cost Russia “dearly, economically and strategically,” as the US and its allies announce new sanctions against the country.
    “Putin will be a pariah on the international stage,” Biden said, warning that any countries affiliating themselves with Russia would be “stained by association”.
    “When the history of this era is written, Putin’s choice to make a totally unjustifiable war on Ukraine will have left Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger,” Biden said.

    2.04pm EST

    14:04

    Joe Biden emphasized the importance of the US and its allies standing up to Russian aggression, arguing that Vladimir Putin’s military maneuvers in Ukraine threaten freedom everywhere.
    “This aggression cannot go unanswered. If it did, the consequences for America would be much worse,” Biden said. “America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.”

    CSPAN
    (@cspan)
    President Biden: “This aggression cannot go unanswered. If it did, the consequences for America would be much worse. America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.” pic.twitter.com/cXTN5Xltah

    February 24, 2022 More

  • in

    Elimination of IS Leader Is a Positive, But Not a Final, Step

    On January 3, the United States announced the elimination of Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, the leader of the so-called Islamic State (IS) during a counterterrorism raid in Atmeh, a town in Syria’s Idlib province close to the Turkish border. In an address to the nation, US President Joe Biden said that the operation had taken “a major terrorist leader off the battlefield,” adding that special forces were used in the operation in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties.

    Why Now?

    The raid comes after IS conducted an attack on al-Sinaa prison in the northeastern city of Hasakah in January in an attempt to break free its fighters. In the assault, several Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters were killed. According to SDF officials, IS was planning the attack for six months. Nevertheless, the US-backed SDF recaptured the prison about a week later. 

    Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona suspects that the attack on the prison “was the catalyst that led to the decision to act on what was obviously already known location intelligence on … al-Qurayshi.” Francona, who served as the US military attaché in Syria from 1992 to 1995, notes that “Over the past few months, there has been an increase in ISIS activity — more widespread and bolder in nature. This also comes at a time when Iranian-backed militias have also stepped up attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq.”

    Embed from Getty Images

    Both Qurayshi and his predecessor, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, were eliminated in Idlib province, in areas under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Previously, HTS was known as Jabhat al-Nusra, affiliated with al-Qaeda and initially aligned with IS. In 2013, however, it split from IS and has been at war with the group since 2014. In 2016, it also broke relations with al-Qaeda and rebranded itself as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS). The following year, JFS assumed its current iteration as it merged with other groups. 

    During much of the past decade, Idlib served as a hideout for extremists. In 2017, then-US envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, Brett McGurk, stated that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” Following Baghdadi’s elimination in 2019, former US President Donald Trump suggested Baghdadi was in Idlib as part of a plan to rebuild IS. Indeed, it was surprising to see Qurayshi hiding in Idlib as well. 

    According to David Lesch, professor of Middle East History at Trinity University in Texas and author of “Syria: A Modern History,” “it seems strange that al-Baghdadi and al-Qurayshi were killed in [a] province largely controlled by its rival HTS and overseen by Turkey, but on the other hand it is the only area not under the control of the Syrian government and its allies or the US-supported SDF, all of whom are opposed to ISIS.”

    “Idlib is now home to thousands of IDPs, therefore it was easier for the two to blend in, live secretively, and not be identified as outsiders since most everyone in certain areas of the province are outsiders,” Lesch explains. “Yet they were still found because despite all this they lived in an area still teaming with enemies who were obviously directly or indirectly assets to US intelligence.”

    Embed from Getty Images

    The recent US operation in Idlib, which was reportedly planned over several months, has been the largest of its kind in the country since the 2019 raid that eliminated Baghdadi. Although Qurayshi was less charismatic than Baghdadi, the fact that he was targeted in the US raid confirms his importance.

    It is worth noting that Qurayshi was named as the leader of IS in 2019, following the death of Baghdadi. While IS called on all Muslims to pledge allegiance to Qurayshi as the new “caliph,” it did not provide much information about his bona fides. The use of the name “Qurayshi” seemed to be an attempt to trace his lineage to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a tactic that was also used vis-à-vis Baghdadi with the aim of legitimizing his leadership role. Qurayshi’s real name is Amir Muhammad Said Abdal-Rahman al-Mawla but he is also known as Hajji Abdullah and Abdullah Qaradash.  

    As the US continues to create an impression that it is minimizing its presence in the region, especially following its withdrawal from Afghanistan last year, the raid seems to have been used to demonstrate US reliability to reassure Washington’s partners. It also comes as a needed win for Biden at a time when the Ukraine crisis remains unsolved. 

    However, while Qurayshi’s elimination is a positive development, it may simply be a “symbolic victory,” as Sean Carberry suggests in The Hill. While the operation against Qurayshi may create internal chaos within IS, ultimately, the terror group is likely to name a new leader and move on, which is what took place following Baghdadi’s assassination. Although IS was militarily defeated, the group has not been eliminated and remains a threat. In fact, there have been increased indications, such as the attack on al-Sinaa prison, suggesting that the group is in a state of resurgence. The militants might also seek to use the recent US raid to encourage revenge attacks. 

    US Policy in Syria

    The Biden administration’s policy vis-à-vis Syria seems to indicate that the official approach will be “markedly timid,” as Abdulrahman al-Masri and Reem Salahi suggest. It should not be surprising to learn that Syria does not constitute a top diplomatic priority for President Biden. Yet while the US does not want to remain engaged in endless regional wars, it seems to believe that a political settlement in war-torn Syria would only empower President Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington would never back. 

    Moreover, the US and the Kurds are partners, and Washington would not want to portray an image that it has abandoned those who have shouldered the fight against the Islamic State. This was the overall perception when Trump announced the withdrawal of US forces from Syria in 2019, and Biden seems keen to remedy that controversial decision. 

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

    It is worth noting that during President Barack Obama’s tenure, Vice President Biden was one of the skeptics when it came to what the US could achieve in Syria. Nevertheless, it should not be taken as a given that as president, Biden may be in favor of removing all US forces from the country. For instance, he criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw forces from Syria, saying it granted IS “a new lease on life.” In the same year, Biden also said he supports keeping some forces in eastern Syria for the foreseeable future. 

    Middle East expert and former US State Department analyst, Gregory Aftandilian doesn’t see the US leaving Syria anytime soon. Aftandilian, who is also a non-resident fellow at Arab Center Washington DC, thinks “It is doubtful [Biden] will do more than the anti-ISIS campaign and humanitarian aid. In light of the attempted prison break in northeastern Syria he may put pressure on some countries to take back ISIS prisoners.”

    For the US to play a role in stabilizing Syria, there needs to be a clear strategy. Unfortunately, at the moment, that strategy is largely lacking. While the elimination of Qurayshi is a positive step, much more work needs to be done to stabilize the country.

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