Vladimir Putin

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ukraine-Russia crisis: who’s winning the international influence war?

      by

      Ukraine-Russia crisis: who’s winning the international influence war? The balance of power in the diplomatic battle is shifting constantly. But are any of the key players making real advances?Briefly raised hopes of averting a “horrendous” war in Ukraine are fading again after the US predicted an invasion in the “next several days” and British officials said they believed Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, had decided to attack.The mood in Washington and London had shifted abruptly after Russian-backed separatists shelled Ukrainian targets in the disputed eastern Donbas region. Moscow claimed Kyiv’s forces opened fire first. Clashes are continuing.Analysis: what can the west expect if Putin gives order to invade?Read more US president Joe Biden said that Russia was “engaged in a false-flag operation to have an excuse to go in” and was increasing, not reducing, troop numbers. That analysis was echoed in other Nato and EU countries, which are preparing punitive sanctions. Diplomatic efforts to halt the slide to war are not yet exhausted. Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, is due to meet his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Europe this week – assuming there is no invasion. They will discuss Russia’s demands, delivered in writing last week, for a Nato withdrawal from eastern Europe and curbs on US missile deployments. Lavrov will also insist Ukraine be permanently denied Nato membership.In the documents, which are a formal response to American proposals for continued dialogue, Russia warns it will be forced to take measures of an unspecified “military-technical character” if its concerns are not addressed.Western leaders, including Boris Johnson, Kamala Harris, the US vice-president, Olaf Scholz, Germany’s chancellor, and Ukraine’s president will discuss the crisis this weekend at the annual Munich security conference. Unusually, Russia and China will not attend.Meanwhile, global stock markets reacted badly to increased fears of war, with share prices falling sharply. Gloom about the prospects for peace overwhelmed a midweek surge of optimism, sparked when predictions that Russia would invade last Wednesday proved wrong. Instead, Putin said he was pulling back some forces from Ukraine’s border. It seemed catastrophe had been averted. Yet within hours US and Nato officials were claiming the pullback was illusory. The White House flatly accused Russia of lying, saying troop numbers have swelled to around 150,000.For his part, Putin alleged, without evidence, that “genocide” against ethnic Russians was under way in the Donbas – another possible pretext for invasion. He continues to insist his troops are withdrawing and that there is no intention to attackWho and what to believe? The next few days could be a turning point. Or the stand-off could drag on inconclusively for months. The only certainty is that the future of Ukraine, and of relations between Russia and the west, hangs in the balance this weekend. Although an armed invasion has not yet happened, the 2022 “war for Ukraine” is already being waged on multiple non-military, political, diplomatic, economic, technological and covert fronts. So who’s winning so far?Vladimir PutinThe question on everyone’s lips: what does Putin want? One theory is this former low-level KGB officer and part-time taxi driver has a massive chip on his shoulder.He has a small man’s visceral need to prove his (and Russia’s) superiority to the western victors of the cold war – but also to the former Soviet elites, from whose ranks he was excluded.A less complex explanation is that Putin views Ukraine as an integral part of historical Russia and Ukrainians and Russians as one people. He claims Ukraine is not a real country. For him, re-absorption into the fatherland is natural and logical, while efforts by Kyiv’s leaders to align with the west are anathema.Experts say Putin is intent on recreating the supposed glories of the Soviet era. He calls the collapse of the Soviet Union a geopolitical tragedy.Looked at this way, a conquest of Ukraine is part of a larger scheme to rebuild a Russian sphere of influence encompassing eastern Europe and central Asia. More mundanely, Putin’s actions can be explained by genuine fear that Russia’s security is threatened, his (disputed) belief that Nato broke a pledge not to expand up to Russia’s borders, and concern that it may accept Ukraine’s membership. Putin, a de facto dictator, feels threatened by a pro-western, democratic Ukraine on his doorstep.Is he winning? Putin has succeeded in forcing the west to consider his security concerns. He has intimidated Ukraine. And he has reminded a rattled Europe of its dependency on Russian gas.At the same time, he has hugely reinvigorated Nato, permanently changed western security assumptions, united the US and Europe against him, and reinforced Russia’s reputation as a rogue state that ignores international law and breaks its word.Joe BidenThe US president was relatively quick out of the blocks over Ukraine. He needed to be. Last year’s chaotic US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and the resulting damage to Nato’s credibility were laid at his door. With Covid and economic woes already hurting his domestic approval ratings, Biden could not afford a repeat foreign policy disaster.Having made promotion of democracy and human rights around the world a key foreign policy objective, Biden could also not stand back as Russia threatened a free, independent, democratic state.Biden’s approach to the crisis is influenced by two additional strategic factors. One is his aim to reboot the transatlantic alliance, undermined by his predecessor Donald Trump. The other is his desire to demonstrate to China, Russia’s ally, that the US will stoutly support its friends, be they in Ukraine or Taiwan.Biden has sent US troops to reinforce Nato’s eastern flank, assured Kyiv of non-military US support, and stiffened European backbones via an intense diplomatic offensive. In an unusual step, the US continues to disclose detailed (mostly unsubstantiated) intelligence about Russian intentions in an apparent attempt to pre-empt and forestall Putin’s next move.Biden’s tactics may have succeeded in heading off an invasion until now. There are two large caveats. One is that Washington’s attempts to find a diplomatic solution have struggled, while its tough stance may have compromised European efforts. This vacuum is dangerous. The other big reservation is that Biden controversially vowed from the start that US forces would not fight to defend non-Nato Ukraine – despite past US interventions in non-Nato Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere.Putin could yet take catastrophic advantage of this most un-American display of caution.Volodymyr ZelenskiyUkraine’s president impressed world leaders in the Munich security conference this weekend with a brave and punchy speech after ignoring warnings to stay at home for fear of a Russian-inspired coup attempt. His response to the unfolding crisis has surprised some in the west. Criticising alarming claims in Washington and London about an “any day” invasion, Zelenskiy said such suggestions risked causing panic and harming his country’s economy. As Russian military pressure increased last week, the official tone in Kyiv shifted. But by and large Ukrainians appear unimpressed by frantic talk of war. A “day of unity” last Wednesday – the supposed invasion D-day – was not widely supported. As western diplomats and nationals hastily evacuate, most Ukrainians are firmly staying put.One explanation is that people have learned to live with threats from Russia. Low-intensity conflict with Russian-backed Donbas separatists has become the new normal since 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea. Last week’s passage of a resolution in the Russian Duma (parliament) supporting independence for the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” in the Donbas was an attempt to increase Putin’s leverage. Such a unilateral move would spell the end for the so-called Minsk accords, whose terms are disputed by both sides.Ukraine’s aspiration to join Nato lies at the heart of the crisis. Zelenskiy is being pressed by European governments to drop this objective, a key Russian demand, and adopt a neutral, non-aligned status. So far at least, the Kyiv government, cast in the role of underdog, has benefited from increased international support, weapons deliveries and financial aid. It says any war would be about Europe’s future, not just Ukraine’s.True or not, Ukrainians will be the big losers if Putin resorts to force.Emmanuel Macron and Olaf ScholzEmmanuel Macron, the French president who also holds the rotating presidency of the EU council of ministers, has thrust himself into the diplomatic frontline. As the Americans and Russians haggled over Moscow’s demands for new security arrangements in Europe, Macron met Putin in Moscow and sketched possible compromises.These ideas, including recognition of Russian concerns about Nato expansion, its forward deployments in eastern Europe, and current and future US missile capabilities in Poland and Romania, may yet provide the basis for a deal. Macron also raised the possibility of Ukraine adopting neutral status, not unlike Finland during the cold war.Macron publicly supports the US-orchestrated plan to impose severe sanctions on Russia should it invade, and insists he acts in close consultation with Washington. But his Moscow talks raised eyebrows. British officials accused him of appeasement and of undermining the west’s united front.While Macron can shrug off criticism from London, he needs the backing of Germany, the biggest European player. But Olaf Scholz, its newly elected chancellor, has appeared in two minds. On the one hand he wants to salvage the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia. On the other he is under intense pressure from Biden to abandon it in support of anti-Kremlin sanctions.Yet Scholz surprised his critics last week when he met Putin in Moscow. He delivered a feisty performance, raising questions about media freedom and human rights.That may have reassured hawkish allies such as Poland and the Baltic republics, which have accused him of being “soft” on Russia. At the same time, Scholz extracted a commitment from Putin to continue dialogue in line with Macron’s approach.The EU commission has been sidelined during the crisis. But the French and German leaders have emerged with reputations enhanced. So far.Boris JohnsonBeset by scandals arising from illegal lockdown parties and reportedly anxious to change the subject, Boris Johnson seized on the Ukraine crisis in late January after having previously largely ignored it.At his direction Downing St began briefing about a big, cross-departmental Whitehall push to tackle the crisis. Britain, Johnson claimed, would lead western attempts to deter Russia. But saying it does not make it so. Suggestions that this new effort to aid Ukraine was part of so-called Operation Save Big Dog to rescue his career were denied, naturally.The UK has since sent extra troops to Estonia, missiles to Ukraine, and placed Royal Navy ships on alert. It is typically iffy about accepting refugees, but has offered humanitarian aid.But Britain’s emphasis on muscular deterrence has come at the expense of diplomacy. It has contributed almost nothing to peace-making efforts. When Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, met Lavrov in Moscow, their talks ended in an icy standoff.Johnson has gratuitously undermined Macron’s Moscow initiative while Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, spoke disparagingly of a “whiff of Munich”. Meanwhile, the government has yet to enforce effective measures to curb Russian money-laundering in London.All else aside, the Ukraine crisis has brutally underscored Britain’s diminished international influence abroad. Separated by choice from the EU, the UK is now viewed in Russia (and much of Europe) as little more than a cheerleader and errand boy for America.When Johnson asked Biden what else the UK could do in a phone call last week, the US president replied: “We’re not going anywhere without you, pal.” That summed up Britain’s war to date. The rule of thumb for post-Brexit foreign policy: ask politely what Washington wants, then follow directions.TopicsUkraineThe ObserverRussiaVladimir PutinUS politicsJoe BidenVolodymyr ZelenskiyEmmanuel MacronfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      The Dirty Relationship Between Russia and China

      by

      The leaders of Russia and China are joining forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing for the Winter Olympics to show solidarity with his largest trade partner at an event that the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia are boycotting diplomatically.

      The statement that Putin signed with Chinese leader Xi Jinping confirms their overlapping interests, their joint insistence on the right to do whatever they like within their own borders, and their disgust over the destabilizing nature of various US military actions.

      In Ukraine, More Than European Peace Is at Stake

      READ MORE

      There’s much high-flown language in the statement about democracy, economic development and commitment to the Paris climate goals of 2015. But the timing of the statement suggests that it’s really about hard power. Putin didn’t travel all the way to Beijing and Xi didn’t meet with his first foreign leader in two years just to hammer out a general statement of principles. Putin wants China to have his back on Ukraine and is supporting Chinese claims over Taiwan and Hong Kong in return.

      This isn’t an easy quid pro quo, given that the two countries have long had a wary relationship. In the past, Russia eyed China’s global economic ambitions with concern, and a certain type of Russian conspiracy theorist worried about large numbers of Chinese moving into the underpopulated Russian Far East. Before Putin took over, China was uncomfortable with the political volatility of its northern neighbor. After Putin, Beijing was not happy with the Kremlin’s military escapades in its near abroad.

      Embed from Getty Images

      But that is changing. “For the first time in any of Russia’s recent aggressions, Putin has won the open support of China’s leader,” Robin Wright writes in The New Yorker. “China did not back Russia’s war in Georgia in 2008, or its invasion of Ukraine in 2014, nor has it recognized Russia’s annexation of Crimea.”

      The geopolitics of the new relationship between China and Russia is certainly important. But let’s take a look at what’s really fueling this new alliance. Quite literally.

      Fossil Fuel Friendship

      Inside the Arctic Circle, just across from the bleak military outpost of Novaya Zemlya, Russia has built the northernmost natural gas facility in the world: Yamal LNG. More than 200 wells have been drilled to tap into the equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil. Nuclear-powered icebreakers clear the port of Sabetta for liquefied natural gas tankers to transport the fuel to points south. Russia also plans to build a train line to ship what it expects to be 60 million tons of natural gas per year by 2030.

      Russia can thank climate change for making it easier to access the deposits of natural gas. It can also thank China. Beijing owns about 30% of Yamal LNG. The Arctic is quite far away from China’s usual Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects. Yamal is also an increasingly perilous investment because melting permafrost puts all that infrastructure of extraction at risk. But China needs huge amounts of energy to keep its economy growing at the rate the central government deems necessary.

      That’s why so many of the BRI projects involving Russia are centered around fossil fuel. At the top of the list is the first Power of Siberia pipeline, which opened in 2019 to pump natural gas from the Russian Far East into China. A second such pipeline is under consideration, which would connect China to… Yamal LNG.

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

      At the moment, the natural gas from the Russian Arctic supplies consumers in Europe. With a second Power of Siberia pipeline, Russia could more easily weather a boycott from European importers. Yamal, by the way, is already under US sanctions, which has made Chinese financial backing even more essential. China is investing a total of $123.87 billion in the three phases of the Power of Siberia project, which is more than any other BRI oil and gas investment and four times what China spends on energy from Saudi Arabia.

      But these are not the only Belt and Road connections between the two countries. Five of the top 10 BRI mining projects are in Russia, including a $1.8 billion coal mining complex. China is also investing in an Arctic free trade zone and upgraded rail and road links between the two countries.

      Let’s be clear: the bear and the dragon don’t see eye to eye on everything. As Gaye Christoffersen writes in The Asan Forum: “China focused on infrastructural projects useful for importing Russian natural resources, while Russia focused on developing industries in resource processing. The two sides failed to reach a consensus. Later, China insisted, as a Near-Arctic state, on equal partnership in developing the Northern Sea Route, while Russia demanded respect for its sovereignty and rejected China’s Arctic claims. They are still in disagreement despite joint efforts.”

      But the basic relationship remains: Russia has energy to sell and China is an eager buyer. In a side deal that coincided with their recent Olympic statement, for instance, China agreed to purchase $117.5 billion worth of oil and gas. “Rosneft, Russia’s largest oil producer, announced a new agreement to supply 100 million tons of crude through Kazakhstan to the Chinese state company China National Petroleum Corporation over the next ten years—while the Russian energy giant Gazprom pledged to ship 10 billion cubic meters of gas per year to China through a new pipeline,” writes Frederick Kempe at the Atlantic Council. Talk about greasing the wheels of cooperation.

      A Future Eastern Alliance?

      Putin hasn’t given up on Europe. He still has friends in Victor Orban’s Hungary and Aleksandar Vucic’s Serbia. Europe remains the biggest market for Russian oil and gas. And both NATO and the European Union continue to attract the interest of countries on Russian borders, which means that the Kremlin has to pay close attention to its western flank.

      But the Ukraine crisis, even if it doesn’t devolve into war, could represent a turning point in contemporary geopolitics.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping share a great deal in common. They are both nationalists who derive much of their public legitimacy not from an abstract political ideology, but from their appeals to homeland. They have a mutual disgust for the liberalism of human rights and checks on government power. Despite their involvement in various global institutions, they firmly believe in a sovereignist position that puts no constraints on what they do within the borders of their countries.

      But perhaps the most operationally important aspect of their overlapping worldviews is their approach to energy and climate.

      Both China and Russia are nominally committed to addressing climate change. They have pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, though they both resort to some dodgy accounting to offset their actual emissions and meet their Paris commitments. China is more serious in terms of installing renewable energy infrastructure, with solar, wind and other sources responsible for 43% of power generation. Russia’s commitment to renewable energy at this point is negligible.

      But both remain wedded to fossil fuels. It’s a matter of economic necessity for Russia as the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, the second-largest exporter of petroleum and the third-largest exporter of coal. Fossil fuels accounted for over 60% of the country’s exports in 2019; oil and gas alone provide well over a third of the federal budget. All of this is in jeopardy because a good number of Russia’s customers are trying to wean themselves of fossil fuel imports to cut their carbon emissions and to decrease their dependency on the Kremlin.

      But not China. Despite its considerable investments into renewable energy, Beijing is still a huge consumer of fossil fuels. Chinese demand for natural gas has been rising for the last few years and won’t peak until 2035, which is bad news for the world but good news for the Russian gas industry. Oil consumption, which is more than twice that of natural gas and is rising more slowly, will peak in 2030.

      Coal is still China’s largest source of energy. “Since 2011, China has consumed more coal than the rest of the world combined,” according to ChinaPower. “As of 2020, coal made up 56.8 percent of China’s energy use.” In 2020, as Alec MacGillis points out in a New Yorker piece, China built three times more power-generating infrastructure from coal than the rest of the world combined, and it continues to mine staggering amounts of the stuff. Despite all the domestic production, however, China still relies on imports. Because of trade tensions with Australia — the world’s second-largest exporter of coal after Indonesia — China has increasingly turned to Russia to meet demand.

      Embed from Getty Images

      In other words, Russia and China are positioning themselves to use as much fossil fuel and emit as much carbon as they can in the next two decades to strengthen their economies and their hegemonic power in their adjacent spheres—and before international institutions acquire the resolve and the power to hold countries to their carbon reduction promises.

      Yes, other countries are slow to abandon fossil fuels. The United States, for instance, relies increasingly on natural gas for electricity generation to compensate for a marked reduction in the use of coal. Japan remains heavily dependent on oil, natural gas and coal. So, Russia and China are not unique in their attachment to these energy sources.

      But if the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels teams up with one of the world’s largest producers, it doesn’t just discomfit NATO generals and the trans-Atlantic establishment. It should worry anyone who believes that we still have a chance to prevent runaway climate change by 2050.

      *[This article was originally published by FPIF.]

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

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Ukraine crisis: miscalculation could trigger unintended wider conflict

      by

      Ukraine crisis: miscalculation could trigger unintended wider conflict‘Risk of something going down like a mid-air collision, or a trigger-happy Russian or American, can really escalate things quickly’ The unprecedented Russian military encirclement of Ukraine has not only brought closer the prospect of a devastating war in that country, it has also raised the risks of triggering an unintended wider conflict.The US and Nato have been adamant that their troops will not enter Ukraine no matter what happens, and the Pentagon has pulled out the 160 national guard soldiers who were acting as military advisers.Biden warns Putin: you’ll pay a heavy cost if you attack UkraineRead moreEven during the cold war, Washington and Russia made sure their forces did not clash, and Joe Biden has made clear he would seek to keep it that way.“That’s a world war when Americans and Russia start shooting at one another,” Biden said.However, the massing of Russian troops in Belarus and the deployment of a substantial Russian naval force in the Black Sea, matched on a smaller scale by Nato land, sea and air reinforcements on the alliance’s eastern flank, means there is much far more military hardware in close proximity than is normal. And with proximity comes the increased danger of accidents and unintended consequences.“The risk of something going down like a mid-air collision, or a trigger-happy Russian or American, can really escalate things quickly,” said Danny Sjursen, a former army major and director of the Eisenhower Media Network.“You’re setting yourself up for accidents and miscalculation, and that’s when you can get out of control real quick, because there are domestic considerations both in Russia and in the United States. An American pilot dies – now what? I’m not saying that necessarily means we go to cataclysmic nuclear war but it escalates things.”The US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told CBS News on Sunday that the US had sought to be transparent about its troop deployments in eastern Europe in order “to avoid mistake miscalculation or escalation and also to send a very clear message to Russia we will defend every inch of Nato territory”.There is a long history of close encounters over the Baltic and Black Seas. Earlier this month US jet fighters scrambled to intercept Russian warplanes operating close to Nato airspace while British and Norwegian planes took off to monitor Russian aircraft flying into the North Sea.While Russia has shut off large parts of the Black Sea to conduct its manoeuvres, Nato navies have stayed out of the immediate vicinity for now, while building up their presence in the Mediterranean. If they do decide to go through the Bosphorus in a show of strength, or to safeguard commercial shipping, the risk will rise again.Elisabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said the danger is further heightened by Russia’s suspected use of “GPS spoofing”, interference with the navigational equipment of other vessels.On several occasions recently, civilian ships traveling in the Black Sea have encountered mysterious GPS troubles that showed the vessels being in a different part of the Black Sea or even on land. It was widely though the incidents were caused by Russia testing its technology.“It raises the risk for naval vessels that are in the Black Sea, which we should remember is not that big, and it’s crowded,” Braw said. “There’s enormous shipping activity in the Black Sea, and so all those crews face the risk of having no GPS.”The transfer of combat troops from Russia’s far east to Belarus has not only significantly increased the imminent threat to Ukraine, but also made eastern European Nato members increasingly nervous.“The closest training ranges in Belarus are 150 to 200km from Vilnius or Warsaw,” said Kristjan Mäe, the head of the Nato and EU department at Estonia’s ministry of defence. “This is a Russian force posture that hasn’t been there previously.”A refugee crisis at the Polish-Belarus border year led to a close encounter between the troops facing each other, with Warsaw complaining that Belarus forces opened fire in the direction of their soldiers.“We have to remember that the people who are actually out on the frontline are very young men and women and they face enormous responsibility,” Braw said. “Yes there is a chain of command but if there is some sort of provocation or aggression, intentional or unintentional, that is directed against them, then they have to respond.”The close encounters so far have occurred in peacetime. In the event of war, nerves will be far more on edge, communications could be hampered or flooded with disinformation.“We cannot be entirely confident that in the lead up to or during a conflict that Nato and Russia will be able to communicate, especially as current civil and military communication systems between them are not as robust or technically resilient as they should be,” Sahil Shah, a policy fellow at the European Leadership Network, said.“The world’s two largest nuclear-armed states have returned to the brink of conflict exactly 60 years after the Cuban missile crisis. If diplomacy is not pursued to the fullest extent, the risks of miscalculation and miscommunication could potentially pull in wider Europe into a devastating war. Without dialogue on how to manage de-escalation, it will be as if our leaders are running into a monsoon with newspapers over their heads.”TopicsUkraineEuropeRussiaJoe BidenVladimir PutinVolodymyr ZelenskiyUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

      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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Coming to Terms With the Game Being Played on the Russia-Ukraine Border

      by

      Over at least the past two months, US President Joe Biden’s White House has successfully inculcated in nearly all of the corporate media its firm belief that Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, has made the decision to mount a military invasion of Ukraine. Most of the articles published on the subject at best wonder about only two things. When will the invasion take place? And how far will it go?

      The Pentagon’s Latest Glorious Failure

      READ MORE

      Since the question of whether he will invade has been put aside, the pundits are asking themselves a different question. It concerns President Putin’s motives. Does Putin feel he needs to overthrow the Ukrainian government and reestablish a friendly regime that will serve as a buffer state between Russia and Europe? Or will he simply be content with controlling the Russian-speaking eastern parts of Ukraine, effectively destabilizing the current regime and thus preventing the possibility of the nation’s integration into NATO?

      Given the apparently Beltway mantra that an invasion is imminent and that the West insists on Ukraine’s right to do what it wants, including joining NATO, it was therefore surprising to read in The New York Times this week that people in the White House — in this case, people who usually are removed from communication with the media — may have made a different assessment. In an article whose title “War May Loom, but Are There Offramps?” is an acknowledgment of the level of uncertainty that surrounds the current geopolitical standoff, David E. Sanger reveals that “even President Biden’s top aides say they have no idea if a diplomatic solution, rather than the conquest of Ukraine, is what Mr. Putin has in mind.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      Like most Russians, and unlike most Americans, Putin knows something about how the game of chess is played. Geopolitics for Russians has always been a game of chess. Curiously, Western commentators instead seem to believe that the game logic Putin respects is similar to that of American football or basketball. They incessantly talk about Russia’s “playbook.” These are sports where you assign roles, plan actions and then try to execute. However complex the configurations may come, plays in a playbook follow a logic of going from step one to step two. Chess requires a different form and level of thinking.

      It is reasonable to suppose that the Russian-American AP reporter Vladimir Isachenkov has a good understanding of Russian politics and Russian culture. Here is how he describes the current situation: “Amid fears of an imminent attack on Ukraine, Russia has further upped the ante by announcing more military drills in the region.

      Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Up the ante:

      A metaphor from poker that when used correctly means to increase the initial stakes of a game, the amount that must be advanced by each player to enter the game. It is often used incorrectly as an equivalent of another poker term: call the bluff.  

      Contextual Note

      Isachenkov predictably foresees the invasion authorities in the West almost seem to desire, and not only in Washington. This week, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson forecasted Putin’s “plan for a lightning war.” Translated into German, that means Blitzkrieg, a term Johnson preferred to avoid using, though the innuendo was clear. The point of the entire effort to predict a Russian invasion is to instill the idea that Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler.

      Russians, however, are not known for practicing Blitzkrieg. Chess players prefer to construct their game patiently through a series of maneuvers that look at a long-term evolution. They challenge their opponent’s understanding of an evolving situation and are extremely sensitive to the layout on the chessboard, with the intent of making a checkmate inevitable. Americans, in particular, tend to go for strikes and are always hoping for a lucky strike.

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

      Perhaps because Isachenkov believes Americans may not understand such strategies, instead of looking to the subtlety of chess for his gaming metaphor or even to Putin’s documented experience of judo, he draws his literary inspiration from another quintessential American game, poker. He tells us Russia has “upped the ante.” In so doing, he misinterprets not only the meaning of Putin’s moves but even the practice of poker itself. Isachenkov appears to interpret “up the ante” as meaning “increase the pressure” or “raise the temperature.” He didn’t realize that poker offers a better metaphor for Putin’s actions: calling Biden’s bluff.

      No respectable Western commentator would frame the situation in those terms. It would mean acknowledging that the US resorts to the ignoble art of bluffing. Bluffing implies hypocrisy. The US has only one goal: to make the world more equitable and to help democracy prevail. Secretary of State Antony Blinken defined the mission in these terms: “It’s about the sovereignty and self-determination of Ukraine and all states,” before adding that “at its core, it’s about Russia’s rejection of a post-Cold War Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.” And, just to make things clear: “It’s about whether Ukraine has a right to be a democracy.”

      Isachenkov points out that Russia “has refused to rule out the possibility of military deployments to the Caribbean, and President Vladimir Putin has reached out to leaders opposed to the West.” He calls this “military muscle-flexing” but perhaps fails to see this for the theater it is meant to be, coming from the president of a nation that gave us Pushkin, Gogol, Chekhov and Gorki. Evoking the Caribbean is Putin’s way of alluding to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It may especially be meant to call Americans’ attention to the idea that powerful nations do not look kindly to discovering an adverse military nuclear presence at its borders. If John F. Kennedy could force Nikita Khrushchev to back down 60 years ago, Putin should be allowed to do the same to Biden today.

      Historical Note

      If Vladimir Putin is calling Joe Biden’s bluff, what is the nature of that bluff? In the simplest terms, Biden’s bluff is the latest version of what President George H.W. Bush, after the demise of the Soviet Union, proudly called the “new world order.” After defeating Donald Trump, Biden announced to his allies in Europe that “America is back,” which was his way of saying “my version of America is great again,” the version that uses its military reach to protect its business interests across the globe.

      In a New York Times op-ed dated January 24, national security expert, Fiona Hill, who served under presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, claims that Putin’s aim is not just to annex all or part of Ukraine. He isn’t looking at taking a pawn or even a bishop. He has the whole chessboard in view. Hill is undoubtedly correct about Putin’s real purpose, that he “wants to evict the United States from Europe.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      “Right now,” Hill writes, “all signs indicate that Mr. Putin will lock the United States into an endless tactical game, take more chunks out of Ukraine and exploit all the frictions and fractures in NATO and the European Union.” In other words, the current posture of the United States is offering Putin a winning hand (poker) or setting itself up for a checkmate.

      Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who knows something about the stakes associated with warfare, makes a complementary point concerning the nature of the risk for the US: “It is another thing altogether to speak only of the pain sanctions would cause Russia, with little thought, if any, to the real consequences that will be paid on the home front.” If events get out of control, as is likely if there is no diplomatic solution, the effects on the West’s economy will be far more dramatic than any damage that can be inflicted on Russia through sanctions. 

      The US has refused to listen to the arguments not just of Putin, but also of foreign policy wonks such as John Mearsheimer. They believe that even the daydream of linking Ukraine with NATO crosses the reddest of lines, not just for Putin but for Russia itself. Failing to take that into account while insisting that it’s all a question of respecting an independent nation’s right to join a hostile military alliance represents a position that makes war inevitable.

      In a 2021 Geopolitical Monitor article with the title “Do We Live in Mearsheimer’s World?” Mahammad Mammadov cited “Mearsheimerian realism,” which he claims “sees Ukraine’s future as a stable and prosperous state in its being a ‘neutral buffer’ between multiple power poles, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Accordingly, Russia is still a declining power with a one-dimensional economy and need not be contained.”

      That seems like a solution most people in the West could live with… apart from the military-industrial complex, of course. And Democratic presidents seeking to prove they are not weaklings before this year’s midterm elections.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

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

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden warns Russia will ‘pay a heavy price’ if Putin launches Ukraine invasion – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      3.59pm EST

      15:59

      Ivanka Trump asked to cooperate with Capitol attack committee

      3.11pm EST

      15:11

      US accuses Russia of conspiring to take over Ukraine government

      1.29pm EST

      13:29

      Congressman Jamaal Bowman arrested outside Capitol amid voting rights protests – report

      12.49pm EST

      12:49

      Georgia DA requests grand jury to investigate Trump efforts

      12.30pm EST

      12:30

      Today so far

      11.52am EST

      11:52

      Biden clarifies Ukraine comments: ‘Russia will pay a heavy price’ for invasion

      11.16am EST

      11:16

      ‘There are no minor incursions,’ Ukrainian president says after Biden’s flub

      Live feed

      Show

      Show key events only

      From

      11.52am EST

      11:52

      Biden clarifies Ukraine comments: ‘Russia will pay a heavy price’ for invasion

      Joe Biden sought to clarify his comments from yesterday about a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, after the US president appeared to downplay the threat of a “minor incursion” into Ukraine.
      Speaking at the start of a meeting on infrastructure, Biden told reporters moments ago, “I’ve been absolutely clear with President Putin. He has no misunderstanding. If any — any — assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion.”
      Biden said such an invasion would be met with a “severe and coordinated economic response,” which he has “discussed in detail with our allies as well as laid out very clearly for President Putin”.
      He added, “But there is no doubt — let there be no doubt at all that, if Putin makes this choice, Russia will pay a heavy price.”

      ABC News
      (@ABC)
      “I’ve been absolutely clear with President Putin…If any, any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion,” Pres. Biden says. “It will be met with severe and coordinated economic response.” https://t.co/aWy2ej1jCo pic.twitter.com/Z5d2pDVEnw

      January 20, 2022

      Biden’s comments come one day after he seemed to imply that Nato was at odds over how to respond to Russian aggression depending upon the type of attack that was launched against Ukraine.
      “I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades,” Biden said at his press conference yesterday.
      “And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.”
      That comment required a coordinated clean-up effort from Biden administration officials, with Kamala Harris and Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, seeking to clarify that the US and its allies are united in responding to Russian aggression.

      4.42pm EST

      16:42

      A spokesperson for Ivanka Trump seemed to suggest that she did not have any relevant information to share with the House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection.
      “As the Committee already knows, Ivanka did not speak at the January 6 rally,” the spokesperson said in a statement provided to CBS News.
      “As she publicly stated that day at 3:15 pm, ‘any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful.’”

      Fin Gómez
      (@finnygo)
      New- Statement from @IvankaTrump Spokesperson to @CBSNews on January 6th committee request to cooperate w/its inquiry. pic.twitter.com/rSGG2EpgMn

      January 20, 2022

      However, in his letter to Ivanka Trump, committee chairman Bennie Thompson specifically said the panel is interested in any conversations she had with Donald Trump about efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
      So even though Ivanka Trump did not speak at the January 6 rally that preceded the insurrection, it is still quite likely that she has relevant information for the investigation.
      The statement makes it seem even less likely that Ivanka Trump will voluntarily agree to cooperate with the select committee.

      4.23pm EST

      16:23

      Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection, said Ivanka Trump could be a “material fact witness” for the panel’s inquiry.
      “If the former president has no executive privilege to hide evidence of an attempted coup or insurrection, neither do his family or friends,” the Maryland congressman said on Twitter.
      “If Ivanka Trump was with Donald Trump as the attack unfolded, she is a material fact witness. I look forward to her testimony.”

      Rep. Jamie Raskin
      (@RepRaskin)
      If the former president has no executive privilege to hide evidence of an attempted coup or insurrection, neither do his family or friends. If Ivanka Trump was with Donald Trump as the attack unfolded, she is a material fact witness. I look forward to her testimony.

      January 20, 2022

      According to the letter that committee chairman Bennie Thompson sent to Ivanka Trump, the panel is seeking information she may have about Trump’s efforts to pressure Mike Pence to attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
      “As January 6th approached, President Trump attempted on multiple occasions to persuade Vice President Pence to participate in his plan,” Thompson said in the letter.
      “One of the President’s discussions with the Vice President occurred by phone on the morning of January 6th. You were present in the Oval Office and observed at least one side of that telephone conversation.”
      Thompson also requested information from Ivanka Trump on “any other conversations you may have witnessed or participated in regarding the President’s plan to obstruct or impede the counting of electoral votes”.

      3.59pm EST

      15:59

      Ivanka Trump asked to cooperate with Capitol attack committee

      Hugo Lowell

      The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack is asking Ivanka Trump, the daughter of the former president, to appear for a voluntary deposition to answer questions about Donald Trump’s efforts to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.
      The move by the panel marks an aggressive new phase in its inquiry into the 6 January insurrection, as House investigators seek for the first time testimony from a member of the Trump family about potential criminality on the part of the former president.

      January 6th Committee
      (@January6thCmte)
      The Select Committee is requesting that Ivanka Trump provide information for the committee’s investigation.In a letter to Ms. Trump seeking a voluntary interview, Chair @BennieGThompson underscored evidence that Trump was in direct contact with the former President on Jan 6th.

      January 20, 2022

      Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chair of the select committee, said in an 11-page letter to Ivanka Trump that the panel wanted to ask about Trump’s plan to stop the certification, and his response to the Capitol attack, including delays to deploying the national guard.
      The questions to Ivanka appear directed at a key issue: whether her father oversaw a criminal conspiracy on 6 January that also involved obstructing a congressional proceeding – a crime.
      The letter said that the panel first wanted to question Ivanka Trump about what she recalled of a heated Oval Office meeting on the morning of the 6 January insurrection when the former president was trying to co-opt Mike Pence into rejecting Biden’s win.
      Read the Guardian’s full report:

      3.31pm EST

      15:31

      Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, pointed to the Treasury Department’s newly announced sanctions against four Ukrainian officials as an example of how the US is proactively responding to Russian aggression.
      “We are not waiting to take action to counter Russia. We see what they’re doing. We’re disrupting it,” Psaki said at her daily briefing this afternoon.
      “And these actions are also of course separate and distinct from the broad range of high-impact, severe measures we and our allies are prepared to impose in order to inflict significant costs should they invade.”

      Bloomberg Quicktake
      (@Quicktake)
      Psaki says the U.S. is not waiting to take action against Russia over troop buildup on the Ukraine border after the Treasury Department announced sanctions against supposed Russian spies https://t.co/676DFgKgHT pic.twitter.com/X0J53QwFM9

      January 20, 2022

      3.11pm EST

      15:11

      US accuses Russia of conspiring to take over Ukraine government

      The Guardian’s Julian Borger, Luke Harding and Andrew Roth report:
      The US has alleged that Russian intelligence is recruiting current and former Ukrainian government officials to take over the government in Kyiv and cooperate with a Russian occupying force.
      The US Treasury on Thursday imposed sanctions on two Ukrainian members of parliament and two former officials it said were involved in the alleged conspiracy, which involved discrediting the current government of the president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
      “Russia has directed its intelligence services to recruit current and former Ukrainian government officials to prepare to take over the government of Ukraine and to control Ukraine’s critical infrastructure with an occupying Russian force,” the Treasury statement accompanying the sanctions said.
      The claims suggest US intelligence fears Russia is preparing a full-scale invasion and not the “minor incursion” that Joe Biden referred to as a possibility in remarks on Wednesday that triggered alarm in Kyiv.
      Online researchers have identified Russian troops and military vehicles within just ten miles of Ukraine’s borders, increasing the risk that Vladimir Putin could launch a military offensive on short notice.

      2.54pm EST

      14:54

      As she wrapped up her daily briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked whether Joe Biden plans to do more press conferences in the future.
      “Stay tuned,” Psaki replied. “Buckle up, bring snacks next time.”
      Biden’s press conference yesterday lasted nearly two hours, after the president decided to extend the event by calling on reporters who were not on the original list provided to him by his staff.
      After taking questions for about an hour and a half, Biden looked at his watch and decided to keep talking for another 20 minutes — likely to the chagrin of his press staff.

      2.41pm EST

      14:41

      A reporter asked Jen Psaki for further clarification on Joe Biden’s comments about the possibility of Russia executing a “minor incursion” into Ukraine.
      The president has since sought to clear up those comments, saying this morning, “I’ve been absolutely clear with President Putin. He has no misunderstanding. If any — any — assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion.”
      Psaki said Biden was making the point yesterday that the US and its allies have “a range of tools” to respond to Russian aggression, which may take the form of paramilitary tactics like cyberattacks.
      The press secretary also addressed Biden’s comment that there are “differences in Nato as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happens”.
      “We have been focused on ensuring that we remain united with Nato,” Psaki said. “Now united doesn’t mean that everything will be identical, right? It means we’re united in taking actions should they decide to invade. And we are united.”

      2.23pm EST

      14:23

      A reporter pressed Jen Psaki again on Joe Biden’s comments yesterday about the legitimacy of the upcoming 2022 elections in the face of new voting restrictions in many states.
      The reporter, Peter Alexander of NBC News, noted that Biden said yesterday, “I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit. The increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed.”

      ABC News Politics
      (@ABCPolitics)
      Asked if Pres. Biden is confident that the midterm elections will be legitimate even if federal voting rights legislation doesn’t pass Congress, White House press sec. Jen Psaki says “yes.” https://t.co/Y5SVieyPLg pic.twitter.com/zsZXFgD41T

      January 20, 2022

      Alexander asked Psaki, “Yes or no: does the president believe, if all remains as it is right now, that the elections this fall will be legitimate?”
      Psaki replied, “Yes, but the point that he was making was that, as recently as 2020 as we know, the former president was trying to work with local officials to overturn the vote count and not have ballots counted. And we have to be very eyes wide open about that and clear-eyed that that is the intention potentially of him and certainly of members of his party.”
      Alexander then asked for clarification that Biden is confident in the legitimacy of the upcoming elections if no changes are made in voting rights legislation moving forward.
      “Yes,” Psaki responded.

      2.08pm EST

      14:08

      The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, is now holding her daily briefing, and she is continuing her efforts to clean up some of Joe Biden’s comments from his press conference yesterday.
      A reporter asked Psaki whether Biden has confidence in the legitimacy of the 2022 elections, as Democrats struggle to pass their voting rights bill.
      During his press conference, Biden was asked whether he had faith in the legitimacy of the upcoming midterm elections if Democrats are unable to pass their bill.
      Biden responded, “It all depends on whether or not we’re able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election.”
      Psaki reiterated that Biden was not intending to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the 2022 election but was instead making a point about how the 2020 election would have been illegitimate if election officials had cooperated with Donald Trump’s demands to overturn the results in battleground states.
      The press secretary made the same point over Twitter this morning:

      Jen Psaki
      (@PressSec)
      Lets be clear: @potus was not casting doubt on the legitimacy of the 2022 election. He was making the opposite point: In 2020, a record number of voters turned out in the face of a pandemic, and election officials made sure they could vote and have those votes counted.

      January 20, 2022

      1.56pm EST

      13:56

      Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell is attracting intense criticism for his comments about Black voters, which he made last night after Republican senators blocked Democrats’ voting rights bill (again).
      Speaking to reporters after the bill failed and the Senate rejected a change to the filibuster, McConnell was asked for his message to minority voters who are concerned that they will not be able to vote unless the Democratic bill is enacted.
      “The concern is misplaced, because if you look at the statistics, African-American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans,” McConnell said.

      BG
      (@TheBGates)
      .@LeaderMcConnell: “The concern is misplaced, because if you look at the statistics, African-American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as American.”Yikes. pic.twitter.com/WXR1WCZh5T

      January 20, 2022

      That comment sparked a lot of confusion among those who pointed out that African American voters are, in fact, Americans.
      Democratic congressman Bobby Rush called out McConnell’s comment, saying in a tweet, “African Americans ARE Americans. #MitchPlease”
      It’s also worth noting that studies indicate the voting restrictions enacted by 19 states in the past year will disproportionately impact voters of color.

      Bobby L. Rush
      (@RepBobbyRush)
      African Americans ARE Americans. #MitchPlease https://t.co/N3dSsQ9Jqn pic.twitter.com/SRnTTVJdJ4

      January 20, 2022

      Updated
      at 1.57pm EST

      1.29pm EST

      13:29

      Congressman Jamaal Bowman arrested outside Capitol amid voting rights protests – report

      Joanna Walters

      Demonstrators are right now outside the US Capitol demanding action to protect voting rights and election integrity in the US, following the Senate’s resounding refusal, once again, to pass legislation on this issue last night. More