More stories

  • in

    Adm Linda Fagan becomes first female to lead US armed forces branch

    Adm Linda Fagan becomes first female to lead US armed forces branchFagan, who has been second-in-command at the coast guard, will serve as the 27th commandant Adm Linda L Fagan will be the first woman to lead a branch of the US armed forces, serving as the 27th commandant of the US coast guard.Fagan will lead the coast guard after being sworn into the position on Wednesday, reported the Associated Press.Joe Biden led the congratulations. “The trailblazing career of Adm Fagan shows young people entering the services, we mean what we say: there are no doors –– no doors –– closed to women,” said the president during a change of command ceremony at coast guard headquarters in Washington DC.“Now we need to keep working to make sure Adm Fagan may be the first but not the only … We need to see more women at the highest levels of command in the coast guard and across every service.”Fagan has been second-in-command at the coast guard since June 2021, the first woman to ever earn a four-star rank in the branch, according to a US Coast Guard biography.Fagan was promoted following the retirement of Adm Karl Schultz, nominated to the top position by Biden in April.Last month, Fagan was unanimously confirmed to the position by the Senate. Vice Adm Steven Poulin will succeed Fagan as vice commandant after being approved by the Senate.A 1985 graduate of the coast guard academy, Fagan was a part of only the academy’s sixth class to include women.Fagan later obtained two graduate degrees, a Master of Science in Marine Affairs from the University of Washington, and a Master in National Resource Strategy degree from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.Across her decades long career, Fagan has served in all seven continents and worked aboard the US Polar Star, a heavy ice breaker ship, as the only woman.Fagan was also the first recipient of the coast guard’s gold Ancient Trident award in 2016, commemorating her as the longest serving Marine safety officer.During the ceremony, while speaking on her promotion, Fagan thanked her parents for supporting her career in the armed forces.“I was 16. I announced my intent to attend the academy, full of righteousness as only a 16-year-old can be. And like all good parents, they said, ‘Oh, she’ll outgrow it,’ ” said Fagan as the ceremony’s guests laughed.“I did not,” added Fagan. TopicsUS militaryUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    US defence chief urges Ukraine ceasefire in call with Russian counterpart – as it happened

    Lloyd Austin, the US defense secretary, held a call with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on Friday in which he called for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, the Pentagon said.During the call Austin also “emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication”, according to Pentagon press secretary John Kirby.The call is the first time Austin had spoken with Shoigu since February 18, six days before Russia invaded Ukraine.The call came after Republican senator Rand Paul blocked the passage of a $40bn aid bill for Ukraine on Thursday. The bill will be taken up again next week.Russia has shown no signs of halting its aggression. On Friday the UK ministry of defence said Russia was stepping up its attacks near the cities of Izyum and Severodonetsk, in eastern Ukraine, in an attempt to “envelop Ukrainian forces”.We’ll wrap up the blog here, after another busy day in Washington and US politics as a whole. To close on a sobering note, in light of the protests planned across the US tomorrow over the supreme court’s apparent desire to overturn the right to abortion, here’s Maanvi Singh’s report from Oakland, about the challenges which face those protecting that right even in states which support it:Even in abortion ‘safe havens’ finding care can be challengingRead moreWidespread marches are planned for Saturday, in protest of the apparent readiness of the supreme court to strike down the right to abortion. Here’s some preparatory reading from David Sirota and Andrew Perez…Even as the Democrats’ feeble legislative attempt to codify federal protections for abortion rights goes down in flames, many Washington elites are directing their attention and anger towards the same target: no, not rightwing judges reaching their ideological hands into millions of people’s bodies, but instead the protesters peacefully demonstrating outside the homes of supreme court justices who are about to overturn Roe v Wade.Prominent Republican lawmakers, conservative operatives and Beltway pundits are demanding the government arrest demonstrators – and to do so, they are citing a McCarthy-era statute passed to stop people from protesting against the prosecutions of alleged communists. Ignored in the discourse is a past ruling from the supreme court effectively blessing conservative protests at the homes of abortion clinic workers.The largely manufactured outrage is the latest distraction designed to shift attention away from the issue at hand: the US supreme court’s conservative supermajority is about to deny basic reproductive rights to tens of millions of people in roughly half the country.Conservative operatives want Washington reporters focused on inane questions like who leaked the court’s draft opinion, and they want journalists and Democrats to criticize protesters who are outraged by the court’s overriding lack of respect for people’s bodily autonomy. It is part of a larger rightwing movement in recent years to cancel, criminalize and literally crush dissent throughout the country, even as the conservative political noise machine continues to blare Braveheart-esque screams of “freedom!” against so-called “cancel culture”.Read more:Prepare for McCarthy-era crackdowns on pro-choice protesters | Andrew Perez and David SirotaRead moreThe population of the United States is much younger than that of most European countries, but its political establishment is much older. The 2020 presidential election was fought between 74-year-old Donald Trump and 77-year-old Joe Biden – compare that to 53-year-old Marine Le Pen and 44-year-old Emmanuel Macron in last month’s French presidential election. The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, is 71, while minority leader Mitch McConnell is 80. In the generally younger House of Representatives, the majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, is 82, making minority leader Kevin McCarthy look like a spring chicken at a mere 57. This is not just a problem for the functioning of the democratic system; it endangers the survival of it.Read more:The Democratic party needs new, younger leadership before it’s too late | Cas MuddeRead moreAriana Grande, Billie Eilish, Megan Thee Stallion, Olivia Rodrigo and Selena Gomez joined a slew of fellow music stars and other celebrities to take out a full-page advertisement in Friday’s New York Times, decrying the looming fall of nationwide abortion rights.“The supreme court is planning to overturn Roe v Wade,” read the ad, referring to the landmark 1973 ruling that in effect legalized abortion across the US. “Our power to plan our own futures and control our own bodies depends on our ability to access sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.”It continued: “We are artists. Creators. Storytellers. We are the new generation stepping into our power. Now we are being robbed of our power. We will not go back – and we will not back down.”More than 160 musicians, songwriters, actors, models and other celebrities signed the ad, which invited the public to take to the streets on Saturday and participate in planned demonstrations across the US protesting the supreme court’s expected reversal of Roe v Wade.Other notable names include Asa Butterfield, Camila Cabello, Camila Mendes, Demi Lovato, Dove Cameron, Lil Dicky, Dylan O’Brien, Finneas, Hailee Steinfeld, Hailey Bieber, Halsey, Ilana Glazer, Joey King, Kendall Jenner, Miley Cyrus, Paramore, Phoebe Bridgers, Quvenzhané Wallis, Shawn Mendes, Tate McRae and Thomas Doherty.Full story:Ariana Grande and other stars support Roe v Wade in New York Times adRead moreThe House select committee investigating the Capitol attack made a political and legal gambit when it issued unprecedented subpoenas that compel five Republican members of Congress to reveal inside information about Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election.The move sets into motion an extraordinary high-stakes showdown of response and counter-response for both the subpoenaed House Republicans – the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks – and the panel itself.Bennie Thompson, the Democrat chair of the committee, authorized the subpoenas on Wednesday after the panel convened for final talks about whether to proceed with subpoenas, with House investigators needing to wrap up work before June public hearings.“We inquired to most of them via letter to come forward, and when they told us they would not come, we issued the subpoena,” Thompson said of McCarthy and his colleagues. “It’s a process. And the process was clearly one that required debate and discussion.”The decision came after a recognition that their investigation into January 6 would not have been complete if they did not at least attempt to force the cooperation of some of the House Republicans most deeply involved in Trump’s unlawful schemes to return himself to office.But the subpoenas are about deploying a political and legal power play in the crucial final moments of the investigation as much as they are about an effort to gain new information for the inquiry into efforts to stop Joe Biden’s certification in time for public hearings.Full story:Subpoenas of Trump allies by January 6 panel set up high-stakes showdownRead moreWe’re on to the Iran nuclear deal and whether Russia is now an obstacle to resurrecting the pact, which Donald Trump dropped. Russia is an obstacle, Psaki says, given its invasion of Ukraine.Why is the US not calling for an independent inquiry into the shooting of Shireen Abu Aqleh, an Al Jazeera journalist, in the West Bank?The US will provide assistance if Israel wants it, Psaki says. That’s that.Asked about immigration reform, which is stalled, Psaki points out simply that Congress won’t move on it. Biden was elected in part on a promise to work with Republicans in Congress, based on his three decades there as a senator, but that’s all part of the fun.Obviously, in a lot of ways a White House briefing should be this frustrating, in that the press secretary should spend the time parrying questions no matter how many times they are rephrased by the press, and should achieve that parrying by verbal sleight of hand or by simply drowning the inconvenient questions in inexorable verbiage.Which is what Jen Psaki does here, before nodding, closing her binder and leaving the White House podium for the final time, with a simple: “Thank you, everyone.”So it goes.Psaki is asked about Republican attacks over the baby formula situation. “We do like facts here,” Psaki says, flipping her binder, and trying to make the point that perhaps Republican critics of the administration are, let’s say, less keen on facts in such circumstances.Will there soon be a Covid vaccine for the under-fives? Psaki says she as a parent is eager for such a move but Joe Biden “moves at the pace of science”.Psaki is also asked about the absence of meaningful reform on police and policing promised in light of the murder of George Floyd and the national protests that followed.She says the administration is taking such efforts seriously and hopes Republicans will support Biden’s efforts, including $10m for policing announced today, and a police reform executive order “will be a part of that”.Asked about advice for Karine Jean-Pierre, her successor as press secretary who is in the room, Psaki says she will have to “project and convey the positions of the president of the United States”. As a “bit of a policy nerd”, Psaki advises deep engagement on that front too.“You never want to be a meme with one line,” Psaki also says, advising the provision of context in answers. The camera does not cut to Peter Doocy of Fox News, with Psaki the subject of many such memes. Shame.Baby formula is back on the agenda. Psaki notes administration approaches and what it claims are successes.Jen Psaki continues her final briefing as White House press secretary, fielding questions about Americans held in Iran and about Brittney Griner, the women’s NBA star who is being held in Russia. Griner has been “wrongfully detained”, Psaki says, without giving much of an answer beyond saying efforts continue to get Griner home.Here’s our story:WNBA star Brittney Griner’s detention in Russia extended by monthRead morePsaki is also asked about Covid funding from Congress and says, “There is no Plan B”, which seems rather stark as such funding runs out. “More Americans will die needlessly,” she says, if funding is allowed to lapse.Psaki is asked about all the other pressing issues too: the price of living, of gas, the scarcity of baby formula. They all have their roots in the pandemic, she says. And the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. And there are good signs, Psaki insists, including strong economic performance in the US.She rattles through Biden achievements on oil, internet access for the less well off, and so forth, like the pro she is. “Look at the alternative,” she says. “What are Republicans presenting as the option?”A lot of questions are being asked about baby formula. Specifically, when will parents be able to get it.“[The] FDA took a step to ensure that babies were taking safe formula,” Psaki says. “We’re going to work with manufacturers, we’re going to import more to expedite this as quickly as possible.”Asked whether the government should push to produce more formula, Psaki says:“The production of baby formula is so specialised and so specific that you can’t just use the Defense Production Act to say to a company that makes something else: produce baby formula.”A nationwide baby formula shortage has forced parents into online groups to swap and sell to each other to keep their babies fed.US infant formula shortage: what you need to knowRead morePsaki’s final White House briefing continues.“I promised myself I wouldn’t get emotional,” she says. She succeeds.Psaki thanks the president and first lady, and some staffers, and then the assembled members of the press.“Without accountability and debate democracy is not as strong and you all play a pivotal role,” she says.Before asking questions the White House press corps, not known for being the most combative of journalists, are each thanking Psaki for her service.Psaki is asked if the president has a reaction to images from this morning of Israeli troops beating people carrying the casket of Shireen Abu Aqleh, a Palestinian-American journalist.Abu Aqleh was shot in the head on Wednesday morning in the West Bank city of Jenin during what her colleagues at the scene said was a burst of Israeli fire on a small group of journalists covering an expected Israeli military raid.“We have all seen those images and they’re obviously deeply disturbing,” Psaki says. “We regret the intrusion into what should have been a peaceful procession,” she adds. The US government has been in touch with both Israeli and Palestinian governments, she says.Jen Psaki is holding her final White House press conference, and she’s arrived with a couple of local officials.There’s a mayor and a chief of police. Psaki says they are sterling examples of how cities can use money from the 2021 $1.9tn Covid-19 relief package – the American Rescue Plan – to provide “historic levels of support to make our communities safer”.Quinton Lucas, the mayor of Kansas City, says money from the rescue plan – which was introduced to support Americans impacted by the coronavirus pandemic – has enabled the city to retain and hire more police officers.The Detroit chief of police, James White, says money from the plan has helped train law enforcement officers, including crisis intervention training.This comes as Joe Biden plans to urge states and cities to use unspent money from the Covid relief package to fund crime prevention programs and hire police officers. When the plan was introduced in January 2021 – Biden signed it into law the following March – Biden said it would help the “millions of Americans, [who] through no fault of their own, have lost the dignity and respect that comes with a job and a paycheck”.A lawyer for the New York attorney general’s office said Friday that the office is “nearing the end” of its three-year investigation into former president Donald Trump and his business practices, The Associated Press reports. Andrew Amer made the disclosure during a hearing in a federal lawsuit Trump filed against attorney general Letitia James as he seeks to put an end to her investigation.His lawyers argued the probe is a politically motivated fishing expedition.Trump is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the investigation, which James has said uncovered evidence that Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, misstated the value of assets like skyscrapers and golf courses on financial statements for over a decade.James has asked a judge to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit.US district judge Brenda Sannes said she would weigh both issues and deliver a decision in writing. She heard arguments for about an hour via video. She did not give a timetable for a ruling.Trump lawyer Alina Habba argued that James, a Democrat, campaigned for office in 2018 as a Trump antagonist and, as attorney general, has used the office to harass the Republican former president and his company with myriad subpoenas and evidence requests. Habba said:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}“We’ve produced millions and millions and millions of pages” of evidence…We keep getting subpoenas. They keep looking for things. If they don’t find it, they look again.”Amer, a special litigation counsel for James, countered that the state judge overseeing legal fights over subpoenas issued by the attorney general’s office has found there is a “sufficient basis for continuing its investigation.”That finding, combined with evidence uncovered to date, “really shuts the door on any argument” by Trump’s lawyers that the office was proceeding in bad faith, Amer said.It’s been a lively morning so far in US political news and there is more to come, so do stay tuned. Here’s where things stand:
    US defense secretary Lloyd Austin held a call with Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu on Friday in which he called for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine
    In an overt break from Donald Trump, former US vice president Mike Pence will hold a rally on May 23 with Georgia governor – and Trump foe – Brian Kemp, a day before Georgia’s midterms Republican primary
    Lloyd Austin, the US defense secretary, held a call with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on Friday in which he called for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, the Pentagon said.During the call Austin also “emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication”, according to Pentagon press secretary John Kirby.The call is the first time Austin had spoken with Shoigu since February 18, six days before Russia invaded Ukraine.The call came after Republican senator Rand Paul blocked the passage of a $40bn aid bill for Ukraine on Thursday. The bill will be taken up again next week.Russia has shown no signs of halting its aggression. On Friday the UK ministry of defence said Russia was stepping up its attacks near the cities of Izyum and Severodonetsk, in eastern Ukraine, in an attempt to “envelop Ukrainian forces”.Bernie Sanders has written an interesting op-ed piece today on his new Medicare for All bill, and it has been published in an interesting place: Fox News.The op-ed appears to be an attempt to reach out to Americans who might not normally hear Sanders’ case for universal healthcare. It focuses on the cost and corruption of the medical healthcare system, as Sanders champions his bill, which has 15 co-sponsors in the Senate. The legislation be implemented over a four-year period and would guarantee health care in the United States as a fundamental human right to all.“Despite spending more than twice as much on healthcare as the average developed country our health outcomes are worse than most. For example, our life expectancy is about 4.5 years lower than Germany’s and we have the highest infant mortality rate of almost any major country on earth,” Sanders writes.Sanders continues:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Now, if Medicare for All was so great, you might ask, why hasn’t it been enacted by now? Why hasn’t the United States joined every major country on earth in guaranteeing health care for all?
    Well, the answer is pretty simple. Follow the money. Since 1998, in our corrupt political system, the private health care sector has spent more than $10.6 billion on lobbying and over the last 30 years it has spent more than $1.7 billion on campaign contributions to maintain the status quo. And, by the way, they are “bi-partisan.” In fact, they own many of the politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties.
    Here is the bottom line: If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, there is no reason, other than greed, that the United States of America cannot do the same.Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, will give her last briefing today, before reportedly taking up a tv host role at MSNBC.Psaki’s departure will mark the end of a 16-month stint as Joe Biden’s chief spokesperson. Karine Jean-Pierre, currently the principal deputy press secretary, will be taking over, becoming the first Black person and first out gay person in the role.In joining MSNBC – a move that has not been officially announced, but was revealed by Axios last month – Psaki is following a well-trodden path of White House communications to television pundit.A slew of Donald Trump’s four former White House press secretaries, Kayleigh McEnany has gone on to be a Fox News host, while Sean Spicer has his own show on the right-wing network Newsmax.Multiple rallies are set to take place on Saturday across the country as abortion rights activists take to the streets in opposition to the news that a majority of the Supreme Court favors overturning Roe v Wade, according to a draft ruling leaked on May 2.The so-called “Bans Off Our Bodies” marches will take place across small towns and major cities, including Washington, DC, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Birmingham and Chicago. A coalition of pro-choice advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood, UltraViolet, Move On and the Women’s March, is helping organize Saturday’s nationwide protests.“This Saturday we are taking to the streets to express our outrage—and our determination,” Planned Parenthood Action Fund executive director Kelley Robinson said in a press statement. “Abortion access is in crisis, and Planned Parenthood organizations are proud to stand with partners and hundreds of thousands of people nationwide to come together and show that we reject the rollback our rights and freedoms,” she added. With tens of thousands expected to turnout across the country, Saturday’s protests could be the biggest women-focussed protest since the first official Women’s March, held in Washington with support marches in other cities on January 21, 2017, the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated as president.The brash Republican took the White House despite allegations from dozens of women about sexual harassment and misconduct, which he has always denied, and the emergence on the eve of the 2016 election of a tape of him boasting that he just approaches women he is attracted to and grabs “them by the pussy”. In Washington DC, protestors are expected to march from the Washington Monument to the Supreme Court, which has been heavily shielded with metal barricades since protests immediately erupted after the draft decision was leaked that the supreme court is minded, with its conservative super-majority, to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe decision that established a woman’s constitutional right to seek an abortion in America.Many anti-abortion activists are also expected to turn out in support of banning the procedure.Former US vice president Mike Pence plans to hold a rally for incumbent Georgia governor Brian Kemp on the eve of that state’s midterms Republican primary – in very public defiance of former president Donald Trump who has chosen to support Kemp’s GOP rival.The Georgia primary is on May 24 and Pence will hold the rally for Kemp on May 23. Trump, who has repeatedly attacked Kemp for refusing to entertain his outlandish and untrue claims of voter fraud, has endorsed former David Perdue for the governorship, the former US Senator who lost his seat to Democrat Jon Ossoff in a sensational sweep by Democrats to turn Georgia blue in 2020.Pence has gently gone against Trump in recent months. In March Pence told Republican donors that “there is no room in this party for apologists for Putin”, comments which came a few days after Trump had called the Russian leader “smart” and “savvy”.Pence has also disputed Trump’s nonsense claim that the former vice-president could have overturned the 2020 election.But Pence’s enthusiastic endorsement of Kemp is his most overt pushback against Trump yet. It marks a big change from Pence, who was a famously sycophantic deputy during Trump’s four-year term.Find someone who looks at you the way Pence looks at Trump pic.twitter.com/lRzuEHq3ep— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) February 14, 2020
    Beyond the Pence-Trump intrigue, the Georgia governor primary will offer a revealing look at Trump’s influence over Republican voters – and the future of the Republican party.Trump has had some hits with his endorsed candidates for the Senate and the House so far this year, but appears to wield less influence in governors races. Trump endorsed Charles Herbster for Nebraska governor, but Hebster lost this week. The former president has also endorsed a primary contender to Brad Little, the sitting governor of Nebraska, but Little is expected to win easily next week.Good morning and welcome to the Guardian’s coverage of daily US political news. Mike Pence has made himself a target for the ire of his former boss, by announcing he will holding a rally with Georgia governor – and Trump foe – Brian Kemp.Politico reported that Pence will hold an event with Kemp on May 23, the day before a contentious Georgia primary. Trump, who has repeatedly attacked Kemp for refusing to entertain his outlandish and untrue claims of voter fraud, has endorsed Kemp’s rival, David Perdue.It sets up what will be revealing clash between Pence and Trump, who apparently remains furious that Pence did not do more to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.Trump has campaigned for Perdue, and the former president’s political action committee has pumped money into Perdue’s campaign. But polling from April showed Kemp was likely to defeat Trump’s man in the Republican primary.In a statement, Pence called Kemp “one of the most successful conservative governors in America”, per Politico.“Brian Kemp is my friend, a man dedicated to faith, family and the people of Georgia,” Pence said. “I am proud to offer my full support for four more years of Brian Kemp as governor of the great state of Georgia.” In other news, Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator, single-handedly held up a bill on Thursday which would have pledged $40bn aid for Ukraine. Paul’s blockage delayed passage of the measure into next week – the Senate has scheduled an initial procedural vote on the bill for late Monday afternoon. More

  • in

    A Sacred Oath review: Mark Esper on Trump, missiles for Mexico and more

    A Sacred Oath review: Mark Esper on Trump, missiles for Mexico and more The ex-defense secretary’s memoir is scary and sobering – but don’t expect Republican leaders or voters to heed his warningMark Esper was Donald Trump’s second defense secretary. Like James Mattis, his predecessor, he fell from Trump’s grace. Six days after the 2020 election, the 45th president fired him, via Twitter. Unlike Mattis, Esper now delivers a damning tell-all.This Will Not Pass review: Trump-Biden blockbuster is dire reading for DemocratsRead moreA Sacred Oath pulls no punches. It depicts Trump as unfit for office and a threat to democracy, a prisoner of wrath, impulse and appetite.Over 752 pages, Esper’s Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times are surgically precise in their score-settling. This is not just another book to be tossed on the pyre of Trump-alumni revenge porn. It is scary and sobering.Esper is a West Point graduate and Gulf war veteran. No one confuses him with Omarosa Manigault Newman, Cliff Simms or Chris Christie. Esper ignores Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway and barely mentions Melania Trump. He is complimentary toward Jared Kushner.In general, Esper disliked what he saw. Trump’s fidelity to process was close to nonexistent, his strategy “narrow and incomplete”, his “manner” coarse and divisive. The ends Trump “often sought rarely survived the ways and means he typically pursued to accomplish them”.The book captures Trump’s rage when advised that Gen Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, lacked command authority over the active-duty and national guard troops Trump wanted to deploy against protesters in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd.“‘You are losers!’ the president unloaded. ‘You are all fucking losers!’”In addition to Esper, Milley and William Barr, the attorney general, Trump also targeted Mike Pence.Esper writes: “He repeated the foul insults again, this time directing his venom at the vice-president as well, who sat quietly, stone-faced, in the chair at the far end of the semi-circle closest to the Rose Garden.“I never saw him yell at the vice-president before, so this really caught my attention.”Esper explains why he didn’t resign: “I didn’t think it was the right thing to do for our country.”His wife, Leah, framed it this way: “As your wife, please quit. As an American citizen, please stay.”The government attempted to censor A Sacred Oath, as it did The Room Where It Happened, a memoir by John Bolton, Trump’s third national security adviser. Fortunately, the powers that be buckled after Esper filed suit in federal court. Here and there, words are blacked out. The core of the story remains.At one point, Trump proposed launching “missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs”. The then-president said: “No one would know it was us.” He would simply deny responsibility. Esper looked at Trump. He was not joking.According to reports, the censors found this inflammatory. They did not, however, deny its veracity. Confronted with the story, Trump issued a “no comment”. Donald Trump Jr asked if his father’s scheme was “a bad thing”. Hunter Biden isn’t the only troublesome first son.Trump’s reliance on underlings who put their boss ahead of country distressed Esper too. Mark Meadows, Stephen Miller, Robert O’Brien and Ric Grenell all receive attention. Little is good.Esper found their bellicosity grating. After a meeting with Trump’s national security council, Esper commented to Milley about its lack of military experience and eagerness for war with Iran.“We couldn’t help but note … the irony that only two persons in the room that had ever gone to war were the ones least willing to risk doing so now.”Esper offers a full-throated defense of Trump’s decision to kill Qassem Suleimani. The Iranian general had American blood on his hands and was planning an attack on US diplomats and military personnel.Esper also writes about the state of the union.“I was worried for our democracy,” he says. “I had seen many red flags, many warnings, and many inconsistencies. But now we seemed on the verge of crossing a dark red line.”In the summer of 2020, the unrest that followed the murder of Floyd transported Trump to a Stygian realm. In the run-up to the election, Esper feared Trump would seek to use the military to stay in office.Esper met Milley and Gen Daniel Hokanson, the general in charge of the national guard, in an attempt to avert that outcome.“The essence of democracy was free and fair elections, followed by the peaceful transition of power,” Esper writes.Ultimately, Trump did not rely on the military to negate election results – a path advocated by Mike Flynn, his first national security adviser. Instead, the drama played out slowly. By early January 2021, Milley was telling aides the US was facing a “Reichstag moment” as Trump preached “the gospel of the führer”.On 6 January, Trump and his minions unleashed the insurrection.“It was the worst attack on the Capitol since the war of 1812,” Esper writes. “And maybe the worst assault on our democracy since the civil war.”The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of historyRead moreYet Trump and Trumpism remain firmly in the ascendant. In Ohio, in a crucial Senate primary, Trump’s endorsement of JD Vance proved decisive. In Pennsylvania, his support for Mehmet Oz may prove vital too.Down in Georgia, Herschel Walker, Trump’s choice, is on a glide path to nomination. Walker’s run-ins with domestic violence and death threats pose no problem for the faithful. Even Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has bought in.Days ago, Esper told the New York Times Trump was “an unprincipled person who, given his self-interest, should not be in the position of public service”.Most Republicans remain unmoved. Esper is only an author. Trump spearheads a movement.
    A Sacred Oath is published in the US by William Morrow
    TopicsBooksPolitics booksDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS national securityUS militaryUS foreign policyreviewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump sought strike on top Iran military figure for political reasons – Esper book

    Trump sought strike on top Iran military figure for political reasons – Esper bookRobert O’Brien told top general shortly before 2020 election that Trump wanted to kill unnamed official, according to Esper memoir Shortly before the 2020 election, Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, “stunned” the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff by saying the president wanted to kill a senior Iranian military officer operating outside the Islamic Republic.“This was a really bad idea with very big consequences,” Mark Esper, Trump’s second and last secretary of defense, writes in his new memoir, adding that Gen Mark Milley suspected O’Brien saw the strike purely in terms of Trump’s political interests.I warned national guard of possible coup, Trump defense secretary saysRead moreA Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Defense Secretary in Extraordinary Times will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Throughout the memoir, Esper presents himself as one of a group of aides who resisted bad or illegal ideas proposed by Trump or subordinates – such as the proposed strike on the Iranian officer.Among other such ideas that were discussed, Esper says, were sending “missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs”; sending 250,000 troops to the southern border; and dipping the decapitated head of a terrorist leader in pig’s blood as a warning to other Islamist militants.Trump made belligerence towards Tehran an important part of his administration and platform for re-election, pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and regularly warning in bombastic terms of the cost of conflict with the US.He also ordered a drone strike on a top Iranian general blamed for attacks on US targets. In January 2020, Qassem Suleimani, the head of the elite Quds force, was killed in Baghdad.At a meeting in July 2020, Esper writes, O’Brien pushed for military action against Iran over its uranium enrichment – work that accelerated after Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal.Esper’s book is subject to occasional redactions. In this case, it says “O’Brien was pushing for” one blacked out word “and military action”. Esper says the vice-president, Mike Pence, “subtly lean[ed] in behind” O’Brien, who said: “The president has an appetite to do something.”Esper writes that Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, “jumped in to contradict this statement” and the moment passed.However, a month or so later, on 20 August, Esper says Milley told him O’Brien had called the evening before, to say “the president wanted to strike a senior military officer who was operating outside of Iran”.Esper writes: “Milley and I were aware of this person and the trouble he had been stirring in the region for some time. But why now? What was new? Was there an imminent threat? What about gathering the national security team to discuss this?“Milley said he was ‘stunned’ by the call, and he sensed that ‘O’Brien put the president up to this,’ trying to create news that would help Trump’s re-election.”Milley, Esper writes, told O’Brien he would discuss the request with Esper and others.“I couldn’t believe it,” Esper writes. “I had seen this movie before, where White House aides meet with the president, stir him up, and then serve up one of their ‘great ideas’. But this was a really bad idea with very big consequences. How come folks in the White House didn’t see this?”Fears that Trump might provoke war with Iran persisted throughout his presidency, stoked by reports of machinations among hawks on his staff. Such fears intensified as the 2020 election approached and Trump trailed Joe Biden in the polls.Esper book details Trump rage at Pence and proposal to hit Mexico with missilesRead moreIn September 2020, Trump tweeted: ““Any attack by Iran, in any form, against the United States will be met with an attack on Iran that will be 1,000 times greater in magnitude!”In the case of O’Brien’s suggested strike on the Iranian officer, Esper writes that he told Milley he would do nothing without a written order from Trump.“There was no way I was going to unilaterally take such an action,” he writes, “particularly one fraught with a range of legal, diplomatic, political and military implications, not to mention that it could plunge us into war with Iran.”He also says the O’Brien call to Milley in late August was “the last time something involving Iran seriously came up before the election”.TopicsBooksIranMiddle East and north AfricaDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsUS national securitynewsReuse this content More

  • in

    I warned national guard of possible coup, Trump defense secretary says

    I warned national guard of possible coup, Trump defense secretary saysMark Esper writes in new memoir of how worried he was that Trump would try to use US military to hold on to power A week before election day 2020, the US secretary of defense was so worried that Donald Trump would seek to involve the military in the election in an attempt to hold on to power, he told the general commanding the US national guard to notify him of any communication from anyone at all at the White House.Trump called top aides including Pence ‘losers’ as 2020 protests raged, book saysRead more“Without being too explicit,” Mark Esper writes in a new memoir, “my message was clear: the US military was not going to get involved in the election, no matter who directed it. I would intercede.”Such an intercession, Esper writes, would involve trying to persuade Trump not to use the military to hold on to power, then if necessary Esper would resign, appeal to Republicans in Congress and hold a press conference to appeal to the American people directly.Esper thought Trump might order actions such as seizing ballot boxes in key states. Ultimately, Trump did not attempt to use the military to influence the election, which he lost to Joe Biden. He did seek to overturn the result by other means.Esper was fired by Trump on 9 November 2020, six days after the election.He details the extraordinary steps he felt compelled to take before that in a new book, A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Defense Secretary in Extraordinary Times, which will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Esper devotes considerable space to his work with Gen Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to stymie Trump’s attempts to use the military for political purposes, either in military strikes against Iran or in Syria – or even Mexico – or at home, by invoking the Insurrection Act against protesters for racial justice.Trump’s request that such protesters be shot in the legs, and Esper’s account of his resistance to it, has been reported elsewhere. The protests died down but Esper says the two most senior Pentagon figures remained concerned Trump could seek to use the military domestically, to tilt power his way.Esper describes a meeting at the Pentagon with Milley and the national guard chief, Gen Daniel Hokanson, on 30 October, “the last Friday before the election”.The “ostensible purpose of the meeting”, Esper says, given it was visible to anyone who could see his calendar, was an update on national guard military police units placed on alert to placate Trump during the protests for racial justice.But with regard to the election, Esper says, “this was a serious moment”.He says he told Gen Hokanson: “If at any point in the coming days – before, during or after the election – you get a call from anyone at the White House, take it, acknowledge the message, and call me immediately. The same rule applies if you hear of any TAGS [national guard state adjutant generals] or governors getting a similar call.”Esper says he also asked Hokanson “to figure out a discreet way to get this last part out, which he said he would”.Esper writes that as the only civilian between the president and the military, he was concerned the White House might “try to circumvent me to do something inappropriate” and “wanted to be ready for anything”.“The whole point of my game plan – the reason that I had taken so much crap over the last several months – was to be in this position, at this moment, to act. The essence of democracy was free and fair elections, followed by the peaceful transition of power.”Milley, he writes, told him he and the other joint chiefs would “resign if pressed to break their oath” and involve the military in the election. Esper says he did not want to allow the generals “to be put in such a compromising position, especially if a presidential order was legal but grossly wrong or inappropriate.“… If such an order came from the White House, my immediate recourse would be to demand a meeting with the president. I would want to hear and understand the directive straight from him, to offer alternative solutions if such were possible, and to voice my opposition face-to-face if he was unyielding. If I was unsuccessful I would be forced to resign on the spot in protest. But that wouldn’t be the end of the line for me.”Esper writes that he would have called senior Republicans on Capitol Hill to ask them to intercede with Trump, then staged a press conference “where I informed the country about all that had transpired and continued to unfold.Trump the hero for anti-abortion movement after bending supreme court his wayRead more“I would present my best case and make an appeal to the American people, their elected leaders in Congress, and the institutions of government to intervene. The point would be to buy time and put pressure on the president to stand down.”As Esper writes, election day, 3 November, “came and went without any incident involving the armed forces. Thank God.” He says he was relieved that though the contest was not called until the following weekend, Biden’s lead was clear.Esper also says he “never imagined” what came next: Trump’s attempt to overturn the election through lies about electoral fraud and coordination with Republicans in Congress and other rightwing groups and advisers, culminating on 6 January 2021 in the storming of the US Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.The attack on the Capitol has been linked to seven deaths and has led to more than 800 charges. But it failed to stop certification of Biden’s win. Having been fired after the election, Esper watched the attack on TV.TopicsBooksDonald TrumpUS militaryUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Biden’s record defense budget draws progressive ire over spending priorities

    Biden’s record defense budget draws progressive ire over spending prioritiesPresident’s $813bn proposal is a 4% increase for the Pentagon which already spends more than the next 11 countries combined When Joe Biden released his annual budget proposal last week, one number in particular jumped out to progressives: $813bn. That is how much Biden is calling to spend on national defense in the US in the coming fiscal year. If approved, that number would represent the largest defense budget that America has ever seen.US presidents’ budget proposals are generally considered to be reflections of their policy priorities rather than realistic estimates of final spending allocations. If Biden’s call for a 4% increase in defense spending was meant to signal his policy priorities, progressives wasted no time in telling the president that his priorities are backwards.The US should cut the Pentagon budget to fund social | Emma Claire FoleyRead moreProgressive lawmakers have fiercely criticized the proposed defense budget, arguing that the US already spends far too much on its military and needs to invest more in domestic programs. But the war in Ukraine has complicated progressives’ arguments and given Republicans an opening to demand even more money for the military.Just hours after the White House announced its budget proposal on Monday, leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus released a statement attacking Biden’s plan to increase defense spending and opening up a familiar split in the party.“It is simply unacceptable that after the conclusion of our longest war and during a period of Democratic control of both chambers of Congress, the president is proposing record high military spending,” said the CPC chair, Pramila Jayapal, and former chairs Mark Pocan and Barbara Lee.“Appropriators and advocates are constantly called to answer for how we will afford spending on lowering costs and expanding access to healthcare, housing, childcare services, on fighting the Covid-19 pandemic, and on combating climate change – but such concerns evaporate when it comes to the Pentagon’s endlessly growing, unaudited budget.”We do not need to raise the defense budget by another $31 billion. It’s time to make investments into our communities — not into a defense budget that is already larger than the next 11 countries combined. pic.twitter.com/2nUpMpNt6E— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) March 28, 2022
    Bernie Sanders, who chairs the Senate budget committee, echoed the CPC’s concerns, saying on Monday, “At a time when we are already spending more on the military than the next 11 countries combined, no we do not need a massive increase in the defense budget.”So far, the White House has stood by its request, insisting the increased funding will allow the US to better defend its international interests and assist Ukraine’s battle against Russia’s military assault.“As I have said many times, we need resources matched to strategy, strategy matched to policy and policy matched to the will of the American people,” the defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, said. “This budget gives us the resources we need to deliver on that promise.”And even as progressives urge Biden to curb funding for the military, the president is simultaneously facing criticism from the right for not proposing an even higher defense spending hike in response to the war in Ukraine.“The world is a dangerous place and growing more dangerous by the day,” the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said on Monday. “Amid all this, the White House has proposed no meaningful increase in resources for protecting innocent Americans, promoting our interests, supporting our partners, assisting Ukraine, or replenishing our stockpiles.”Progressives have pushed for years to lower US defense spending, but the devastation in Ukraine has added a new challenge to their efforts. Polling indicates that a majority of Americans believe Biden has not been tough enough in his response to Russia’s aggression, which has added fuel to Republicans’ demands for more military funding.But progressives are not abandoning their campaign, instead arguing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrates how US military dollars would be better spent elsewhere.“I think it’s a political challenge, but it’s not an actual budgetary challenge. This increase in money is not about Ukraine. This is about spending more on the US military-industrial complex,” said Robert Weissman, president of the progressive group Public Citizen. “The United States already spends more than 10 times what Russia does on its military. And that expenditure, obviously, didn’t deter Russia from invading Ukraine.”Even as Republicans point to the war in Ukraine to advocate for more defense spending, it is worth remembering that most of Biden’s budget proposal was crafted before the Russian invasion.Dr Travis Sharp, budget studies director at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the requested funding increase is more a reflection of how record-high US inflation has affected government agencies’ finances rather than the impact of the crisis in Ukraine.“Providing a higher level of defense spending does help to correct for some of the decreasing buying power as a result of inflation,” Sharp said. “If you didn’t provide a higher level of defense spending, then you would be trying to support the same-sized military with less money, so that would force you to make some hard trade-offs.”However, progressives reject inflation-based arguments for increasing the Pentagon’s budget, saying the Pentagon has consistently failed to account for how it spends its funds and should not be trusted with even more money.“An agency that can’t pass an audit needs to do a little bit more homework before we can be honest about what the impacts of inflation are,” said Stephen Miles, president of the progressive group Win Without War. He added, “Republicans don’t seem particularly concerned about the impacts of inflation on any other part of the budget, besides the military.”As the number of US coronavirus deaths nears 1 million and the world faces the grim realities of climate change, it was “unconscionable” to demand more funding for the military, Miles said.“The threats we face in the 21st century are primarily not going to be solved by spending more money at the Pentagon,” he told the Guardian.For Sharp, the Pentagon’s significant budget is a reflection of America’s military commitments around the world and its strategy to maintain strong alliances with key foreign partners. He suggested that, in order for progressives to be successful in their push to lower defense spending, they need to make a pitch for a new kind of American foreign policy.“If you really want to reduce the size of US defense spending, then you need to go after the strategy,” Sharp said. “If you pare back the strategy, reduce the operational tempo, then the dollars will decline proportionately.”TopicsUS militaryBiden administrationUS politicsDemocratsanalysisReuse this content More

  • in

    The US government is deploying robot dogs to the Mexican border. Seriously? | Moustafa Bayoumi

    The US government is deploying robot dogs to the Mexico border. Seriously?Moustafa BayoumiAs if the border isn’t surveilled and militarized enough, the Department of Homeland Security wants to go full Black Mirror Are we all doomed to live in Charlie Brooker’s techno-dystopia? In Metalhead, an episode from season four of his famed Netflix show Black Mirror, a woman navigates an austere post-apocalyptic landscape while running for her life from a murderous robot dog. What makes the mechanized beast in the show particularly frightening is the lethal combination of the single-mindedness of a computer program with the extreme ferocity of an angry, feral dog.But it’s just TV, right? Not exactly. The military, technological, security and political classes in this country appear united in their desire to make robot dogs part of our future, and we should all be worried.The latest example came on 1 February, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a press release titled “Robot Dogs Take Another Step Towards Deployment at the Border”. DHS dressed up their statement with the kind of adorable language made to warm the hearts of dog lovers everywhere. “The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) is offering US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) a helping hand (or ‘paw’),” read the release. Isn’t that cute? A picture of the “four-legged ground drone” accompanied the release, and the “Automated Ground Surveillance Vehicle”, as it’s called, looked remarkably (and scarily) similar to the monstrous quadrupeds seen in the Black Mirror episode. But let’s not judge based on appearance. The real issue is that we keep rushing to militarized and technological solutions to what ultimately are human and political questions, creating more problems along the way.These particular robot dogs are made by Ghost Robotics, which claims that its 100lb machine was “bred” to scale “all types of natural terrain including sand, rocks and hills, as well as human-built environments, like stairs”. Each robot dog is outfitted with a bevy of sensors and able to transmit real-time video and information feeds. The devices are not yet in operation on the US-Mexico border, but a testing and evaluation program is under way in El Paso, Texas.To listen to DHS, it all sounds so utterly charming and so very next-gen – until you realize that what we’re talking about is the further encroachment of government surveillance on our daily lives. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, “people who live along the border are some of the most heavily surveilled people in the United States. A massive amalgamation of federal, state and local law enforcement and national security agencies are flying drones, putting up cameras and just generally attempting to negate civil liberties – capturing the general goings-on of people who live and work in proximity to the border.”Then there’s the question of lethal force. These specific ground drones may not be armed, but Ghost Robotics is already infamous for the combination of robot dog and robot rifle. In 2021, small arms manufacturer Sword International (must these companies choose such dystopian names?) outfitted a robot dog from Ghost Robotics with a custom-made weapon, called a “special purpose unmanned rifle” or Spur. This darling invention was unveiled at the annual conference of the Association of the United States Army.Incidentally, US policy not only does not “prohibit the development or employment” of killer robots (officially known as “lethal autonomous weapon systems,” or Laws) but also opposes any international preemptive ban. Meanwhile, as the Congressional Research Service notes, Israel has already exported what many consider a lethal autonomous weapon system to Chile, China, India, South Korea and Turkey. We’re fast running out of time for robust international dialogue on this issue.Domestically, the short history of the use of the robot dogs in our cities is also troubling. The Honolulu police department used about $150,000 of pandemic funding to buy their robot dog, which they then used to scan the eyes and take the temperatures of unhoused people to check for symptoms of Covid. The practice raised the alarms of advocates who said the practice was fundamentally dehumanizing. Needless to say, no housed person was treated that way.And after public outcry in 2021, the New York police department returned its $94,200 robot dog, Digidog. That robot was deployed to a home invasion in the Bronx and to a tense situation in a public housing building in Manhattan, attracting the angry notice of New Yorkers. Once again, many Black and brown New Yorkers felt over-policed, over-surveilled and under-resourced.“You can’t give me a living wage, you can’t raise a minimum wage, you can’t give me affordable housing; I’m working hard and I can’t get paid leave, I can’t get affordable childcare,” said Representative Jamaal Bowman in a video he posted to Twitter. “Instead we got money, taxpayer money, going to robot dogs?”Bowman is hardly alone. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized both the NYPD’s robot dog in 2021 and the recent news of robot dogs at the border. “It’s shameful how both parties fight tooth + nail to defend their ability to pump endless public money into militarization,” she recently tweeted. “From tanks in police depts to corrupt military contracts, funding this violence is bipartisan + non-controversial, yet healthcare + housing isn’t. It’s BS.”She’s right, of course, as is Bowman. Where exactly are our priorities?The Biden administration has a chance to stop this program in its tracks before the border becomes even more of a militarized, technological dystopia. We’re so easily mesmerized by the massive capabilities of technology, but the fact is that techno-military solutions to human problems too often create more problems than they solve. Just ask the unhoused populations in Honolulu, the urban poor in New York, and – if the program’s not cancelled – asylum seekers on the border. These are the people whose daily realities are increasingly being militarized by this technology. And because they are vulnerable and without political clout, they’re the ones closest to living in a Black Mirror episode. Meanwhile, the rest of us are sold a hi-tech bill of goods that unites everything that Americans love – technology, dogs and guns – and told to believe it’s all for the best.Look, I love my tech and all it can do as much as the next person, but when our embrace of technology reduces rather than enhances our dignity, then we have a problem. Humans deserve better. And frankly, so do dogs – even robot ones.
    Moustafa Bayoumi is the author of the award-winning books How Does It Feel To Be a Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America and This Muslim American Life: Dispatches from the War on Terror. He is a professor of English at Brooklyn College, City University of New York
    TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS-Mexico borderUS militaryUS policingcommentReuse this content More

  • in

    US Senate panel close to approving ‘mother of all sanctions’ against Russia

    US Senate panel close to approving ‘mother of all sanctions’ against RussiaNegotiations for package of sanctions against Putin ‘on the one-yard line’, says Bob Menendez of foreign relations committee

    Opinion: Russia’s phony war is playing out as surreal theatre
    The leaders of the Senate foreign relations committee said on Sunday they were on the verge of approving “the mother of all sanctions” against Vladimir Putin, warning there would be no appeasement as the Russian president contemplates an invasion of Ukraine.UK to bring in measures to allow for tougher sanctions on Russia, says TrussRead more“We cannot have a Munich moment again,” the panel’s Democratic chair, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, told CNN’s State of the Union, referring to the 1938 agreement by which allies ceded parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, believing it would stave off war.“Putin will not stop if he believes the west will not respond,” Menendez said. “We saw what he did in 2008 in Georgia, we saw what he did in 2014 in pursuit of Crimea. He will not stop.”Menendez said he believed bipartisan negotiations for severe sanctions were “on the one-yard line”, despite disagreements with Republicans over whether measures should be imposed before or after any Russian invasion. The UK government promised to ramp up sanctions against Putin and his associates.Tensions on the Ukraine border continued to escalate with Reuters reporting the Russian military build-up included supplies of blood in anticipation of casualties. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, told Fox News Sunday: “Putin has a lot of options available to him if he wants to further invade Ukraine, and he can execute some of those options imminently. It could happen really, honestly, at any time.”Seeking to show bipartisan resolve, Menendez gave CNN a joint interview with his committee’s ranking Republican, James Risch of Wisconsin.Menendez said: “There is an incredible bipartisan resolve for support of Ukraine, and an incredibly strong bipartisan resolve to have severe consequences for Russia if it invades, and in some cases for what it has already done.“We are building on the legislation that both Senator Risch wrote independently, and I wrote, which I called the mother of all sanctions. It’s to include a variety of elements, massive sanctions against the most significant Russian banks, crippling to their economy, Russia sovereign debt. These are sanctions beyond any that we have ever levied before.”Risch said talks had been a “24 hour-a-day effort for the last several days” in an attempt to reach agreement over sanctions timing and content, and that he was optimistic.“That’s a work in progress,” Risch said, when pressed over discussions about pre-emptive sanctions or measures to be taken in the event of an invasion. “[But] I’m more than cautiously optimistic that when we get back to DC tomorrow that we’re going to be moving forward.”Menendez said he believed western allies did not have to wait to start penalising Putin.“There are some sanctions that could take place up front because of what Russia has already done, cyber attacks on Ukraine, false flag operations, the efforts to undermine the Ukrainian government internally,” he said.“But then the devastating sanctions that ultimately would crush Russia’s economy, and the continuing lethal aid that we are going to send, means Putin has to decide how many body bags of Russian sons are going to return to Russia.“The sanctions we’re talking about would come later on if he invades, some sanctions would come up front for what has been done already, but the lethal aid will travel no matter what.”Risch criticized the stance of several far-right figures, including the Fox News host Tucker Carlson and the Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie, who have questioned why the US is backing Ukraine and opposing Russia. Carlson said “it makes sense” that Putin “just wants to keep his western border secure” by opposing moves by Ukraine to join Nato.“We side always with countries that are democracies, and certainly there isn’t going to be a truce committed in that regard,” Risch said.“But the people who were saying that we shouldn’t be engaged in this at all are going to be singing a very different tune when they go to fill up their car with gas, if indeed there is an invasion. There are going to be sanctions that are going to be crippling to Russia, it is going to cripple their oil production. And as we all know, Russia is simply a gas station that is thinly disguised masquerading as a country. It is going to have a devastating effect on the economy around the world.”UK ready to commit extra forces to Nato allies as Russia tension mountsRead moreOn NBC’s Meet the Press, Dick Durbin, co-chair of the Senate Ukraine caucus, addressed concerns aired by President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday that growing rhetoric over the crisis was causing panic and destabilising his country’s economy.His comments followed a call with Joe Biden that Ukraine officials said “did not go well”.“Any decision about the future of Ukraine will be made by Ukraine,” said Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. “It won’t be made in Moscow or in Washington, in the European Union or in Belarus. It’s their future and their fate and their decision as far as that is concerned.”The caucus co-chair, Republican Rob Portman of Ohio, who is also on the foreign relations committee, told NBC he believed Putin had underestimated the unity of Nato and others.“One thing Vladimir Putin has done successfully is he has strengthened the transatlantic alliance and countries around the world who are looking at this and saying, ‘We cannot let this stand, we cannot let this happen’,” Portman said.“For the first time in nearly 80 years we could have a major and very bloody conflict in Europe unless we stand up together and push back, and so far so good.”TopicsUkraineRussiaUS foreign policyUS national securityUS militaryBiden administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More