More stories

  • in

    China Will Decide Who Wins the Fight: Russia or the West

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    Making Sense of the Political Consequences of the Russia-Ukraine War

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    We must fight powerful bullies, whether they are Putin, Trump, or tech billionaires | Robert Reich

    We must fight powerful bullies, whether they are Putin, Trump, or tech billionairesRobert ReichThroughout history, the central struggle of civilization has been against brutality by the powerful. Civil society doesn’t let might make right I keep running into people who feel overwhelmed by so many seemingly unrelated but terrifying things occurring all at once. “How can all this be happening?” they ask.But these things are connected. They are reinforcing each other. As such, they pose a clear challenge to a decent society.Putin invades Ukraine. Trump refuses to concede and promotes his big lie. Rightwing politicians in America and Europe inflame white Christian nationalism. Television pundits spur bigotry toward immigrants. Politicians target LGBTQ+ youth.Powerful men sexually harass and abuse women. Abortion bans harm women unable to obtain safe abortions. Police kill innocent Black people with impunity.CEOs rake in record profits and compensation but give workers meager wages and fire them for unionizing. The richest men in the world own the most influential media platforms. Billionaires make large campaign donations (read: legal bribes) so lawmakers won’t raise their taxes.What connects these? All are abuses of power. All are occurring at a time when power and wealth are concentrated in few hands.It is important to see the overall pattern because each of these sorts of abuses encourages other abuses. Stopping them – standing up against all forms of bullying and brutality – is essential to preserving a civil society.Throughout history, the central struggle of civilization has been against brutality by the powerful. The state of nature is a continuous war in which only the fittest survive – where lives are “nasty, brutish, and short,” in the words of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes.Without norms, rules, and laws preventing the stronger from attacking or oppressing the weaker, none of us is safe. We all live in fear. Even the most powerful live in fear of being attacked or deposed.Civilization is the opposite of a state of nature. A civil society doesn’t allow the strong to brutalize the weak. The responsibility of all who seek a decent society is to move as far from a state of nature as possible.Certain inequalities of power are expected, even in a civil society. Some people are bigger and stronger than others. Some are quicker of mind and body. Some have more forceful personalities. Some have fewer scruples.Some inequalities of income and wealth may be necessary to encourage hard work and inventiveness, from which everyone benefits.But when inequalities become too wide, they invite abuses. Such abuses invite further abuses until society degenerates into a Hobbesian survival of the most powerful. An entire society – even the world – can descend into chaos.Every time the stronger bully the weaker, the social fabric is tested. If bullying is not contained, the fabric unwinds.Some posit a moral equivalence between those who seek social justice and those who want to protect individual liberty, between “left” and “right.”But there is no moral equivalence between bullies and the bullied, between tyranny and democracy, between brutality and decency – no “balance” between social justice and individual liberty.No individual can be free in a society devoid of justice. There can be no liberty where brutality reigns.The struggle for social justice is the most basic struggle of all because it defines how far a civilization has come from a Hobbesian survival of the most powerful.A civil society stops brutality, holds the powerful accountable, and protects the vulnerable.Putin must be stopped. Trump must be held accountable. Rightwing politicians who encourage white Christian nationalism must be condemned and voted out of office. Celebrity pundits who fuel racism and xenophobia must be denounced and defunded.Powerful men who sexually harass or abuse women must be prosecuted. Women must have safe means of ending pregnancies they don’t want. Police who kill innocent Black people must be brought to justice.CEOs who treat their employees badly must be exposed and penalized. Billionaires who bribe lawmakers to cut their taxes or exempt them from regulations must be sanctioned, as should lawmakers who accept such bribes.This is what civilization demands. This is what the struggle is all about. This is why that struggle is so critical.
    Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
    TopicsUS politicsOpinionDonald TrumpVladimir PutinRoe v WadeThe far rightcommentReuse this content More

  • in

    Cold Warriors Stoke Another War in Ukraine

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    Calls for US to issue visa bans for UK lawyers enabling Russian oligarchs

    Calls for US to issue visa bans for UK lawyers enabling Russian oligarchsAnti-corruption campaigner Bill Browder says ‘whole class of British lawyers’ making money out of lawsuits against journalists, dissidents and whistleblowers The anti-corruption campaigner Bill Browder is calling on the US to issue visa bans against British lawyers who he has accused of “enabling” Russian oligarchs.The US-born financier, an outspoken and longtime critic of Russian president Vladimir Putin, has said that installing such a ban would strike at the heart of what he described as a persistent problem of oligarchs using the UK legal system against journalists and whistleblowers, tying them up in expensive lawsuits.Browder suggested sanctions could ultimately be targeted at any legal and financial experts who it could be shown have helped oligarchs hide their assets, but said his initial proposed blacklist was focused on British lawyers involved in libel cases.Russia warns US of repercussions if it sends more arms to Ukraine – reportsRead moreBrowder described “this whole class of British lawyers” instructed by Russians and those with links to Russia to bring “lawsuits against journalists, dissidents and whistleblowers, myself included, and they make money”.“There’s this industry,” Browder said. “It will be pretty hard to legislate away the idea that a plaintiff can hire a lawyer to sue for libel, because how do you define what’s good and what’s bad? But if you identify a lawyer who has been doing this on a regular basis – going after people – the United States does not have to give them a visa to come to this country.”The activist has proven to have influence on Capitol Hill. In a recent statement, US senator Ben Cardin called Browder a “hero” to “many” in the Senate, for his work in passage of the Magnitsky Act, an Obama-era bipartisan bill named after Browder’s former tax lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in police custody in Russia in 2009.The act was designed to allow the US to punish officials linked to Magnitsky’s death, but also authorises the US to sanction human rights offenders and ban them from entering the country.Browder said he was seeking the support of senators and members of Congress to write a letter to the US Department of State with a list of names of specific lawyers, whose visas he felt ought to be taken away. He did not name the lawyers who might appear on the list.Browder also argued that targeting oligarch-enablers such as lawyers and accountants would be an effective way of finding their money, at least half of which he said ultimately finds its way to Putin’s coffers, as part of the Kremlin’s pact with the oligarchs.“There’s going to be a whole lot of smart law enforcement work looking at sanctions evasion now. These people have been running circles around us in the past,” Browder said. “They have set up the most robust asset protection mechanisms with trustees, holding companies, nominees and proxies offshore.”Finding the oligarchs’ money, he said, would be an “almost impossible task”. He said he would like to add an amendment to sanctions law to hold lawyers, accountants, bankers and other financial advisers liable – including possible prison time – if they are found to have created structures to evade sanctions.“Very quickly the whole system would become very transparent,” he said.Browder’s remarks follow his recent testimony before the Helsinki Commission, an independent body that consists of nine members of the US House, nine senators, and one member of the US state, defence and commerce departments. The commission is meant to help formulate policy in connection to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the hearing was focused on western “enablers” of Putin’s regime.Among Browder’s recommendations in his testimony was for the US to create a list of law firms, PR firms and investigative firms involved in “enabling dictatorships and oligarchs to persecute journalists” and prohibiting the US government from doing business with those firms; canceling the visas of “foreign enablers”, enforcing rules in which lawyers and public relations firms are meant to disclose their work for foreign governments; and creating new laws to protect journalists from so-called SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suits that are meant to intimidate the press.TopicsUS newsUS politicsVladimir PutinRussiaUkrainenewsReuse this content More

  • in

    US officials warn Putin may cite Ukraine war to interfere in American politics

    US officials warn Putin may cite Ukraine war to interfere in American politicsIntelligence believes Russia’s president may see US backing of Ukraine as direct affront, giving him further incentive to meddle

    Ukraine crisis – live coverage
    Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in American politics, US intelligence officials have assessed. Understanding Vladimir Putin, the man who fooled the world Read moreIntelligence agencies have not found any evidence Putin has authorized measures like the ones Russia is believed to have undertaken in the 2016 and 2020 elections in support of Donald Trump, according to several people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity. But given Putin’s antipathy toward the west and his repeated denunciations of Ukraine, officials believe he may see the US backing of Ukraine’s resistance as a direct affront, giving him further incentive to target another US election, the people said. It is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use. The assessment comes with the US electoral system under pressure. The US public remains sharply divided over the last election and the insurrection that followed at the US Capitol, when supporters of Trump tried to stop the certification of his loss to Joe Biden. Trump has repeatedly assailed intelligence officials and claimed investigations of Russian influence on his campaigns to be political vendettas. Tensions between Washington and Moscow have reached levels not seen since the end of the cold war. The White House has increased military support for Ukraine, which has mounted a robust resistance against Russian forces accused of committing war crimes, and helped impose global sanctions that have crippled Russia’s economy. There is no sign the war will end soon, which some experts say could delay Moscow from pursuing retaliation while its resources are mired in Ukraine. But “it’s almost certain that a depleted Russian military after Ukraine is going to again double down on hybrid tactics to wreak havoc against us and other allied countries”, said David Salvo, deputy director of the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy. In Ukraine and in past campaigns, Russia has been accused of trying to spread disinformation, amplifying pro-Kremlin voices and using cyberattacks to disrupt governments. Top US intelligence officials are still working on plans for a new center authorized by Congress focusing on foreign influence campaigns by Russia, China and other adversaries. Avril Haines, the US director of national intelligence, recently appointed a career CIA officer, Jeffrey Wichman, to the position of election threats executive several months after the departure of the previous executive, Shelby Pierson. “Our Election Threats Executive continues to lead the intelligence community’s efforts against foreign threats to US elections,“ said Nicole de Haay, a spokesperson for Haines. “We’re also continuing to work to deliver on the legislative requirement to create a center to integrate intelligence on foreign malign influence.” De Haay declined to comment on what intelligence officials think of Putin’s intentions. Russia’s embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. Foreign adversaries have long looked to interfere in US politics. The US has accused Putin of ordering influence operations to try to help Trump in 2020. A bipartisan Senate investigation of the 2016 election confirmed intelligence findings that Russia used cyber-espionage and information efforts to boost Trump and disparage his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s near-two-year investigation found no conclusive evidence the Trump campaign conspired with Russia, but Mueller declined to pass judgment on whether Trump obstructed justice. Trump continues to falsely insist the election he lost to Biden was stolen, with Republicans following his lead and opposing election security measures. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies continuously investigate foreign influence efforts. The US justice department last month charged five men with acting on behalf of China to harass Chinese dissidents in the US and derail a little-known congressional candidate. Experts say the proposed Foreign Malign Influence Center would bring much-needed direction to efforts across government studying adversaries. Congress provided partial funding for the center in the budget passed last month. The center has been delayed over questions within the intelligence director’s office and on Capitol Hill about its structure and size and whether it would unnecessarily duplicate efforts that already exist. Congress last month required the director’s office to complete within six months a report on the “future structure, responsibilities, and organizational placement” of the center. Mike Turner of Ohio, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, said the committee was closely watching “the malign activities of our adversaries” and the proposed center could be one way to help. “As Russia continues to use disinformation campaigns in Ukraine, we are reminded to be strategic in our response to countering their tactics,” Turner said. “It is no secret that our adversaries use disinformation to undermine the national security interests of the US, so we must take into account all viable options to protect our democracy.”TopicsUS politicsRussiaVladimir PutinEuropenewsReuse this content More

  • in

    What Is Vladimir Putin’s Endgame?

    After a series of horrific events, I am sat wearing four layers of clothing while penning this piece. Other than at the time I was writing the article, “Is Moscow Turning Off the Gas Tap?” — when the heating was coincidently not working at my office — I decided to turn off my radiator on purpose.

    Ending the War in Ukraine

    READ MORE

    Ridiculous as it might sound, it is my tiny attempt to act against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to somehow fight this sense of helplessness, being forced to watch the events unfold, without being able to do much.

    Building Up to War in Ukraine

    It all started a couple of days before February 24, which is when Russia invaded Ukraine. I was preparing for a trip to Kyiv to check on my friends in the Ukrainian capital. Following the latest developments, I tried to find any information that would confirm what the Russian ambassador to the EU had stated on February 16. Vladimir Chizhov said there would “be no escalation in the coming week, or in the week after that, or in the coming month.” Saying one thing and doing another has long been part of the Russian political playbook. Yet the cynicism in saying that wars in Europe “rarely start on a Wednesday” — in reference to US intelligence reports — just to actually invade eight days later is unacceptable.

    On Sunday, February 20 at around 10 pm, I ultimately decided not to set the alarm for later that night in order to arrive at the airport on time. I went to bed with a heavy heart and a sense of cowardice: I decided not to travel to Kyiv. I felt as if I had betrayed the Ukrainian people, especially my friend, who assured me that everything was fine and everyone was calm. Over the next few days, I tried to drown out the voice in the back of my head saying, “You should have gone” by repeating this mantra to myself: If you bring an umbrella, it will not rain.

    Embed from Getty Images

    And then we all heard the news. I can only imagine how it must have felt to be actually woken up by air raid sirens — it’s unfathomable. I saw a map of Ukraine showing where the Russian bombs hit. I reached out to friends and colleagues in these places. So far, they are fortunately all fine. I admire their strength and bravery for remaining in Ukraine.

    Back in the office in Vienna, I sat with my colleagues. While we tried to at least grasp what this meant for all of us, we began to realize that this was not just another crisis; this was a decisive development in history. This is war in Europe. It is not the first conflict in Europe since the end of World War II. It is not even the first in Ukraine; the country has been at war since 2014. Back then, during the Revolution of Dignity, the Euromaidan, Ukrainians gave their lives for democracy, our democracy.

    That is precisely why it is only logical for Ukraine to apply for membership in the European Union. Although there is no shortcut to joining the EU, under certain circumstances, it can become possible. Membership in the union should not only remain symbolic. I have written more about this here. In fact, I have been arguing with colleagues about granting such rights to all eastern partnership target countries since 2009. This would, of course, not have prevented anything today. Other actions might have, such as reducing the import dependency on natural resources after the Russia–Ukraine gas crisis of the same year.

    But there is no use in dwelling on the past. Instead, I want to think about the future. Therefore, I have compiled five different scenarios about how the situation in Ukraine could develop. None of them must become a reality, and some of them, hopefully, will not.

    1: All-out (Nuclear) War

    Nuclear war is certainly the worst-case scenario for all sides. An increasingly frustrated and isolated Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, decides to use tactical nuclear weapons to submerge the Ukrainian resistance. Even if it will “only” involve non-nuclear attacks continuing the obliteration of whole cities and committing war crimes, the democratic international community seriously asks themselves if they can allow this to happen.

    Even if they do, the probability that Putin will stop at the border with Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Baltics or Finland is delusional. Consequently, NATO, sooner or later, has to get involved, resulting in World War III.

    I believe that we are actually already at war since February 24 but haven’t realized it yet. It might also continue as a war of attrition and continue indefinitely.

    2: Novorossiya

    This second scenario refers to what Putin himself mentioned in one of his infamous television Q&As in 2014. It has been used in various contexts, with reference to Alexander Dugin, but also as an idea raised by the so-called People’s Republics in Donetsk and Luhansk of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. The planned confederation was ultimately not implemented.

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

    The reference dates back to a more or less geographically same area referred to as “New Russia” during the Soviet era until the turn of the century. In any case, Putin mentioned the cities of Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Odessa — essentially the whole Black Sea coast of Ukraine, linking up the Russian Federation with Transnistria. Since the Transnistria War in 1992, Russian troops have been stationed in the breakaway territory, which is officially part of Moldova.

    This scenario involves the creation of many more “people’s republics,” which are under the influence — politically and economically — of the Kremlin and dependent on it. Recognition of such republics by Moscow or even integration into the Russian Federation is also a possibility.

    Further separatist regions beyond Ukraine are also declared, expanding Russian influence even more. This takes place mostly in the Caucasus, but also in the direction of the former spheres of influence of the Soviet Union.

    3: Fragmentation

    In a more hopeful scenario, Putin’s aggression leads to destabilization within the Russian Federation. While having to devote a majority of the country’s military capacities but also attention and political capital toward Ukraine, old separatist attempts resurface.

    The control over Chechnya is substantially weakened due to the de-facto defeat of Ramzan Kadyrov’s forces. But also further disintegration occurs. Not necessarily violently, but more economic-based toward dependence of Siberia on China or Vladivostok on Japan. The resulting fragmentation and volatility have major consequences for the whole neighborhood but also geopolitically.

    4: Coup d’état

    There have been (too optimistic) rumors about a possible coup being planned by the Federal Security Service (FSB) of Russia. Leaks from the “Wind of Change” lead to an ousting of Putin and his closest circle.

    While it cannot be ruled out, there should not be any false hope. If the security forces and/or the military carry out a coup d’état, we will not see any democratic regime change.

    Most likely, the people belonging to the closest circle of power are replaced, but the mafia system continues with a new godfather who ends the war but distributes the spoils. It is also possible that we will see a military hard-liner taking charge, which could then end in scenario one.

    5: Democratic Revolution

    The most optimistic, but unfortunately most unlikely, scenario would foresee the sanctions against Russia and the isolation of the federation as leading to the people bringing regime change and possibly democratization.

    Embed from Getty Images

    In a Maidan-style occupation of the Red Square, Putin is unable to suppress the opposition any longer. It takes a lot of time to account for past actions, reconciliation and anti-corruption measures, but the missed opportunity of the 1990s is finally taken up. Coupled with the enlarged EU economic and security cooperation, there is now a counterpart to the geopolitical volatility caused by China’s ambitions and the political instability of the United States.

    The Outlook

    Regardless of which direction the situation takes (although I most certainly have a preference), it is necessary to be prepared for all eventualities. It is a good sign that there has been enough awareness for Ukraine as well as the necessity to think about the economic requirements to rebuild after the war.

    Nevertheless, it is possible to achieve peace, especially with regard to the importing of oil and gas from Russia. Far too often, we are focused on the immediate costs and do not look at the possibilities. A transition to renewable energy is more necessary than ever, but the hesitancy has kept us dependent on Moscow. Just imagine what the situation would have looked like if a transition had been sped up in 2009.

    Hopefully, we have finally learned the lesson. After all, the price we pay is just money. Ukraine is paying with its life, its infrastructure and, ultimately, its future.

    *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe.]

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