World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Top Democrat says Trump may seek mineral deal with both Russia and Ukraine

      by

      Donald Trump may be pursuing a mineral rights deal with Vladimir Putin and Russia as well as with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine, a top Senate Democrat has warned, discussing the US president’s demand that Kyiv grant US firms access to 50% of its rare-earth reserves, as a price for helping end the war three years after Russia invaded.“I think anything that helps position Ukraine for any peace negotiations is a positive move,” said Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking Democrat on the Senate foreign relations and armed services committee, who recently visited Ukraine.“Now, what we heard when we were in Ukraine is that 40-50% of those mineral deposits are actually in territory controlled by the Russians. Maybe part of the deal is President Trump is going to get a deal with Vladimir Putin on the mineral rights too. So … that could be a little tricky.”Shaheen was speaking to the One Decision podcast, hosted by the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, the former CIA director Leon Panetta and the reporter Christina Ruffini.Saying Ukraine cannot expect to regain all territory taken by Russia, and rejecting Kyiv’s aim of joining Nato, Trump has demanded a deal with Ukraine as repayment for military support. On Wednesday, Trump said Zelenskyy would visit Washington on Friday to sign a “very big agreement that will be on rare earth and other things”.Trump did not offer details of a deal but said he was “not going to make security guarantees beyond very much,” adding: “We’re going to have Europe do that.”Trump is due to meet Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, on Thursday. Starmer has said the UK is willing to contribute peacekeeping troops.Shaheen said: “I do think there is support to do everything we can to help get a peace in Ukraine. And from my perspective, one of the most important aspects of that is ensuring that the Ukrainians are positioned in the most positive, favorable way for them. If this deal helps with that, and President Zelenskyy is comfortable signing it, then I support that.”Shaheen said her visit to Ukraine, with fellow Democrat Michael Bennet, of Colorado, and Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, proved “compelling, disturbing”.The senators visited Bucha, where Russian troops carried out a massacre in 2022. The town “showed the resilience of the Ukrainian people,” Shaheen said, adding: “They’re willing to resist. And it showed just what a murderous thug Vladimir Putin is.”Shaheen said the senators “met with the mayor of Bucha, we met with the priest. There had been a mass grave of a couple of hundred of the civilians who were killed. There were over 500 killed in Bucha in that 33-day siege [the final toll is unclear]. It was horrific. It was absolutely brutal. Finding the graves, taking the corpses out of the graves.“We met with the investigators who were investigating each murder individually, and they showed us the picture of the Russian commander who had given the order. And it was very clear that the order was to frighten the civilians, to do everything you can to try and reduce any resistance from the civilians. And for me … I thought this was a small village someplace in the hinterlands of Ukraine, but it’s not, it’s a suburb of Kyiv, and the tanks were stopped right there at the suburb.“So it really pointed out the stark contrast between the Russians and the Ukrainians and what’s at stake in this war.”Trump has stirred huge controversy by seeming to favor Putin and Russia in regards to the war in Ukraine, not least by beginning talks for a settlement without including Ukraine or European powers.Asked about Trump’s lie that Zelenskyy was a dictator who started the war, Shaheen said: “It’s very distressing. And the president’s wrong. He’s just wrong … Vladimir Putin is the dictator. President Zelenskiy was duly elected by the people of Ukraine, and he has a higher favorability rating than Donald Trump.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump plans to cut more than 90% of USAid foreign aid contracts

      by

      The Trump administration said it is eliminating more than 90% of the US Agency for International Development’s foreign aid contracts and $60bn in overall US assistance around the world.The cuts detailed by the administration would leave few surviving USAid projects for advocates to try to save in what are current court battles with the administration.The Trump administration outlined its plans in an internal memo obtained by the Associated Press and in filings in one of those federal lawsuits.The supreme court intervened in that case late Wednesday and temporarily blocked a court order requiring the administration to release billions of dollars in foreign aid by midnight.Wednesday’s disclosures also give an idea of the scale of the administration’s retreat from US aid and development assistance overseas, and from decades of US policy that foreign aid helps US interests by stabilizing other countries and economies and building alliances.Donald Trump and ally Elon Musk have hit foreign aid harder and faster than almost any other target in their push to cut the size of the federal government. Both men say USAid projects advance a liberal agenda and are a waste of money.Trump on 20 January ordered what he said would be a 90-day program-by-program review of which foreign assistance programs deserved to continue, and cut off all foreign assistance funds almost overnight. The funding freeze has stopped thousands of US-funded programs abroad, as the administration and Musk’s “department of government efficiency” teams have pulled the majority of USAid staff off the job through forced leave and firings.In the federal court filings on Wednesday, nonprofits owed money on contracts with USAid describe Trump political appointees and members of Musk’s teams terminating USAid’s contracts around the world at breakneck speed, without time for any meaningful review, they say.“’There are MANY more terminations coming, so please gear up!”’ lawyers for the nonprofits wrote, quoting an email sent by a USAid official to staff on Monday.The state department said Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, had reviewed the terminations.In all, the Trump administration said it will eliminate 5,800 of 6,200 multi-year USAid contract awards, for a cut of $54bn. Another 4,100 of 9,100 state department grants were being eliminated, for a cut of $4.4bn.The Washington Free Beacon was the first to report on the memo.The memo described the administration as spurred by a federal court order that gave officials until the end of the day Wednesday to lift the Trump administration’s monthlong block on foreign aid funding.“In response, State and USAid moved rapidly,” targeting USAid and state department foreign aid programs in vast numbers for contract terminations, the memo said.The nonprofits, among thousands of contractors, owed billions of dollars in payment since the freeze began, call the en masse contract terminations a maneuver to get around complying with the order to lift the funding freeze temporarily.Trump administration officials – after repeated warnings from the federal judge in the case – also said on Wednesday they had finally begun paying USAid bills again after the month-long halt on payments, freeing for delivery a few million of billions of dollars owed. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump cabinet flunkies hail wannabe Caesar and Elon, his oligarch pal

      by

      On Tuesday, just over a mile from the White House, the classicist Mary Beard spoke to an audience about Roman emperors. “An autocrat is somebody who kills you when he’s being his most generous,” she remarked. “You go to dinner, you think, wow, this is wonderful! But the generosity of the autocrat is always potentially lethal.”On Wednesday, Donald Trump held his first full cabinet meeting. The mood was warm and convivial and, some might say, generous. Housing secretary Scott Turner offered a prayer that included: “Thank you, God, for President Trump.”Was it just an accident that the TV camera framed the scene as the antithesis of DEI? Viewers could see seven men in suits with Trump in the middle, then another row of seven men in suits sitting behind. Nearly all of them were white. (Yes, there were women and people of colour at the meeting – but not many.)The Vice-president, JD Vance, was in attendance but there was no doubt whom this emperor had appointed as consul. Trump invited Elon Musk, the tech billionaire running the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), to speak before any of his cabinet secretaries after claiming that everyone present was supportive.Wearing a black “Make America great again” cap, Musk jokingly referred to himself as “humble tech support” – people laughed dutifully – and claimed that his haphazard efforts to take a chainsaw to the federal government can save a trillion dollars and dig the country out of debt. “It’s not an optional thing, it’s an essential thing,” he said. “If we don’t do this, America will go bankrupt.”It sounds fine in theory. But Doge, mostly consisting of young male software engineers fuelled by pizza and Red Bull, has been a disaster. It fired the people who oversee the nuclear weapons stockpile then hastily tried to rehire them, only to find they were hard to contact because they could not access their work email accounts. It claimed to have saved $8bn on a terminated contract that was actually worth only $8m. Musk falsely stated that the US spent $50m on condoms for Gazans. And it emerged this week Doge quietly deleted the top five items from its public ledger of alleged savings after they turned out to be nothing of the sort.Musk – who brought similar unholy chaos to Twitter when he bought it – admitted to the cabinet that Doge will make mistakes, but said it will fix them quickly. “So, for example, with USAid, one of the things we accidentally canceled briefly was Ebola prevention. So we restored the Ebola prevention immediately, and there was no interruption.”Not reassuring.Then came the most autocratic episode of the meeting. Trump, both generous and lethal, asked his cabinet: “Is anybody unhappy with Elon? If you are, we’ll throw him out of here.”To the crocodiles? Or as his pal Vladimir Putin favours, from a high window? From this assembly of fawners, flatterers and flunkies, there was nervous laughter and applause.Triumphant, the president assured reporters: “They have a lot of respect for Elon, that he’s doing this, and some disagree a little bit but I will tell you for the most part I think everyone’s not only happy – they’re thrilled.”Game respects game. Musk, a fan boy of far-right movements all over Europe, showed an impressively instinctive feel for totalitarianism.He said: “President Trump has put together I think the best cabinet ever, literally, and I do not give false praise. This is an incredible group of people. I don’t think such a talented team has ever been assembled. I think it’s literally the best cabinet the country’s ever had … ”Then came a telling slip from the world’s richest man: “I think the company [sic] should be incredibly appreciative of the people in this room.”The cabinet on which Musk lavished such praise includes Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host accused of sexual assault and alcohol abuse, and Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine conspiracy theorist who once dumped a dead bear cub in New York’s Central Park. Less Marvel’s Avengers than Star Wars cantina.Kennedy was asked by reporters about a measles outbreak in Texas in which a child reportedly died, the first measles fatality in the US for a decade. His lackluster response: “It’s not unusual. We have measles outbreaks every year.”The whole meeting was yet another sorry exercise in worshipping an authoritarian and normalising a bully. Musk tried to defend the emails he sent to government employees, asking what they did last week, as not a “performance review” but a “pulse check review” because some people on the government payroll are dead.Trump rounded off the meeting by observing: “The country’s got bloated and fat and disgusting and incompetently run.”Yet as Jon Stewart noted this week on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Doge will not touch the $3bn in subsidies given to oil and gas companies, a hedge fund loophole worth $1.3bn a year, or the $2tn given to defence contractors to build a fighter jet that will soon be obsolete. “This is where the real money is,” Stewart said.Not even a functioning democracy ever did much about those. So hopes for a country run by a wannabe Caesar and his oligarch pal are not high. More

    • 288 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Friedrich Merz was the most pro-US politician in Germany – his shift could be historic for Europe | Jörg Lau for Europe |

      by

      It is hard to overstate the importance of Friedrich Merz’s urgent message to the nation after his win in the German elections. This, after all, is the beginning of a new, dangerous era in European security. It would be his “absolute priority”, Merz said, immediately after victory for the CDU/CSU was confirmed, to create unity in Europe as quickly as possible, “so that, step by step, we can achieve independence from the US”. He added: “I never thought I would have to say something like this on a television programme.”Indeed. For the leader of the conservative CDU, a lifelong believer in the transatlantic security alliance, this is a significant reversal. And it is highly personal for Merz: there is hardly a more pro-American politician in Germany than the man who worked for the investment company BlackRock and was the long-serving chairman of the influential lobbying group Atlantik-Brücke (Atlantic Bridge).That makes the unfavourable things the chancellor-elect had to say about the US government all the more remarkable. The interference from Washington in the German election campaign had been “no less dramatic and drastic and ultimately outrageous than the interventions we have seen from Moscow”, Merz said, referring to Elon Musk’s ever more frenzied support for the far-right AfD, and to the polemics of the US vice-president, JD Vance, against the CDU’s “firewall” policy, which excludes cooperating with the Putin-friendly party.Germany was under “massive pressure from two sides”, and Donald Trump’s government was “largely indifferent to the fate of Europe”, Merz said, warning that it was unclear whether, by the Nato summit in June, “we will still be talking about Nato in its current form or whether we will have to establish an independent European defence capability much more quickly”.The unusual frankness of his remarks reflects a deep frustration that has built up in traditionally pro-US conservative circles in Germany, particularly over interference led by Musk and Vance. Their coordinated campaign sought to undercut the centre-right Christian Democrats in favour of the far right in the run-up to the vote. Musk posted a barrage of tweets on his X platform, including some on election day. He has also tweeted his support for one of the most extreme proponents of the AfD, Björn Höcke – a man twice convicted for using Nazi slogans.Even more intrusive were Vance’s repeated statements linking the CDU’s firewall policy, which keeps the AfD out of power, with the US security guarantee for Europe. The vice-president’s menacing message to Germany was: if you continue to exclude the far right from power, the US cannot do much for you.It was heartening to hear the chancellor-elect refute this unprecedented meddling in Germany’s affairs. He must know that the vindictive Trump administration will most likely want to make him regret his choice of words.There is an irony here in that Merz had tried his own brand of Trumpism just weeks ago, when he reacted to a string of violent attacks in Germany with the announcement of a tough migration policy that he would enact “on day one” of his chancellorship. He put pressure on the centre-left parties, the Social Democrats and the Greens. If they refused to support him, he would have no choice but to accept the votes of the far right for his proposals. To the shock of many, Merz’s non-binding motion (which included controversial measures such as pushing back all asylum seekers at the border) was passed with the votes of the AfD.That left Merz with a mixed message for the rest of the campaign: he promised radical change but continued to vow non-cooperation with his far-right competition. Mainstream voters who wanted a more restrictive migration policy, but not with the help of the extreme right, were left with doubts: how trustworthy was Merz? Would he do it again? The conservatives’ underwhelming result in the election is testimony to his miscalculation.To make matters worse, Merz had opened himself to AfD goading that he lacked the stamina to follow through and form a rightwing majority coalition. Our hand remains outstretched, the AfD co-leader, Alice Weidel, has repeated maliciously since election day, but if you keep shutting us out, we will crush you next time.Expect to hear this tune a lot in the coming weeks. Merz’s gambit backfired. His only option now is coalition talks with the diminished Social Democrats. If both parties manage to form a government, it can hardly be called a “grand coalition” any more. The two “people’s parties” barely add up to a majority in parliament.Yet there is an opportunity that arises from these pressures. The Social Democrats may find it easier to compromise on migration policy when in coalition with the conservatives. The next government urgently needs to exert more control on the border to counter the far-right narrative.Merz’s blunt assessment of an emerging post-transatlantic order opens a long overdue debate in Germany. It is, indeed, a head-spinning moment for the country’s strategic defence community, a reversal of core beliefs that have guided Germany for the past 80 years.It was the CDU that tied Germany irreversibly to the western alliance. This was a major historical achievement, because it was not at all popular at the time, especially among German conservatives who had habitually been anti-US. Konrad Adenauer, the first postwar chancellor, risked all the political capital he had when he steered a fiercely anti-western and pacifist Germany towards rearmament and Nato membership in 1955. What’s more, he rejected the alternative path suggested by the French president, Charles de Gaulle, to opt for a European defence community.Trump has now turned Germany’s conviction on its head. All German governments from Adenauer onwards, irrespective of left or right leanings, had argued against the French project of “European strategic autonomy” for fear that it would weaken Nato. A security partnership with the US was the indispensable guarantee of peace on the continent, the thinking went. But now the US government is calling Nato into question, thereby making a more independent Europe a necessity.The consequences are not confined to the continent. Merz wants to explore closer security cooperation with London, and he already has his eye on the UK’s nuclear arsenal, as well as France’s. What a turnaround: Germany, once proud of phasing out nuclear energy, is shopping for a new nuclear umbrella.Ironically, these worrying turns might help Merz succeed in forming a coalition with the Social Democrats. Reforming the strict fiscal regime known as the Schuldenbremse, or “debt brake”, has always been a source of friction between them. No more. The rigid limit on borrowing, enshrined in the German constitution, must go. Everybody knows this: there is no way to replace US security protection while upholding a balanced budget.Changing the constitutional debt brake requires a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag, which leads to the final irony: Merz will have to make a deal with the parties on the left to win their support for loosening spending. More borrowing for defence, but also for infrastructure investments. Only a conservative could do this, like only Richard Nixon could go to China.There is quite a measure of poetic justice in this development. Merz has gone from flirting with Trumpism to easing Germany’s austerity policies in just a matter of weeks.

      Jörg Lau is an international correspondent for the German weekly Die Zeit More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s ‘Gulf of America’ debacle is no joke – this is how authoritarians get started

      by

      Last week, the Associated Press sued White House officials for violating its free press rights by punishing the organization for defying Donald Trump’s executive order to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”. Unfortunately, on Monday, a federal judge refused to immediately strike down the White House’s retaliatory treatment of the AP. But the case is far from over.Granting access to the White House on the suppressive conditions set by the Trump administration is a blow to the first amendment and the free press. If the retaliation against the AP is allowed to stand, more restrictions on the press are certain to follow, creating Kremlin-like conditions that will affect all Americans who might question, or be suspected of questioning, the Trump party line.This is why a seemingly trivial issue – what to call the Gulf – is freighted with importance. Trump’s renaming of the Gulf unmistakably delivers his “America first” message. He has every right to his message. But he doesn’t have the right to turn the press into his messenger.The controversy began on Trump’s first day back in office, when he issued a unilateral order that an international sea, known for centuries as the Gulf of Mexico, henceforth be named the Gulf of America. Certain organizations, such as Google, immediately complied by changing the Gulf’s name on Google Maps and redirecting searches for “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America”.However, the AP, along with several other news organizations, resisted. Noting that the Trump order had no effect outside the US, the AP made an editorial judgment that its status as an international reporting agency was best served by continuing to refer to the Gulf by the name known to global readers.The Trump administration retaliated by barring AP reporters from the press pool that covers media events at the White House or on Air Force One, and on Tuesday it went further, announcing it would determine which organizations had access to the pool – traditionally the job of the White House Correspondents’ Association. While limited seating capacity may give the White House some discretion about who gets to be in the press pool, the first amendment does not permit that discretion to be used to punish the press or to limit access to outlets favorable to Trump. As the AP stated in its complaint: “The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government. The Constitution does not allow the government to control speech” by controlling access.As tempting as it is to follow Shakespeare in shrugging the shoulders at “what’s in a name,” we should turn to history to learn what follows when authoritarian leaders start out with seemingly harmless verbal imperialisms. One of the first actions Hitler took after seizing power in 1933 was to scrub streets and public spaces of names that reflected Jewish influence or Weimar republicanism in favor of tributes to National Socialism. Stalin celebrated his own greatness by changing Tsaritsyn, now Volgograd, to “Stalingrad”. Before Stalingrad, there was the switch from Petrograd to Leningrad. In today’s China, the name “Tibet” has disappeared from Chinese maps in favor of the Mandarin name, “Xizang”.It is hard to know how seriously to take Trump’s flagging of territorial, as well as verbal, imperialism. He has suggested the US reclaim the Panama Canal Zone, buy Greenland from Denmark, incorporate Canada as a 51st state, and take over the Gaza Strip for resort real estate development. Even if these are mere paper ambitions, the disdain Trump shows for international law is already doing irreparable harm.Appealing to his Maga base with the “America first” rhetoric in the Gulf, he is selling out Ukraine to Putin’s Russia in ways reminiscent of the British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous appeasement of Hitler in 1938 by ceding parts of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. Ignoring this lesson of history – in Munich of all places – this month, JD Vance stopped short of endorsing the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany party by name, but made clear that the Trump administration would be happy if Europe adopted the same anti-immigrant policies that Trump’s renaming of the Gulf signaled.The ripple effect of Trump commandeering global waters reaches beyond the sea to all Americans. His actions must be considered alongside his other executive orders on his first day back in office, declaring the arrival of immigrants at the southern border an “invasion” and suspending grants of asylum, no matter how dire the situation of refugees. When we let Trump scapegoat vulnerable immigrants for this country’s – and the world’s – problems, we are in fascist territory. That is why Trump’s renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America is no laughing matter. It expresses a level of disrespect for Mexico that could well be a precursor for how strongmen treat peoples whom they first strip of dignity. Substitute Jew, Catholic, Turk, Armenian, Arab, gay or transgender for Trump’s talk of an invasion of aliens across the Gulf, and you get the point.What the Gulf needs is not more nationalistic power grabs but international cooperation to tackle its most pressing problems – worsening pollution, rising sea levels from the climate crisis, intensifying hurricanes, crumbling infrastructure, and loss of shoreline and habitat. Far from squabbling over what to call the Gulf, the US and Mexico should recognize that no one owns the Gulf; it belongs to nature.In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet made her “what’s in a name” speech to declare love for Romeo even though he bore the family name of her family’s blood enemy. It didn’t turn out well for Juliet, and it won’t turn out well for us if we let Trump intimidate the AP because its editors had the courage to stand up to his bullying.

      Jeffrey Abramson is author of Minerva’s Owl: The Tradition of Western Political Thought. Jack E Davis is the author of The Gulf: The Making of An American Sea, awarded the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2018. More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Starmer’s aid cuts: they won’t buy security, but they will undermine it | Editorial

      by

      Politics is about choices. Some are forced on governments by circumstance. Others are self‑imposed. Labour’s decision to cut the aid budget to “pay” for increased defence spending is firmly in the latter category. It is also wrong – forcing the world’s poor to pay for Britain’s safety. This is a false economy. Cutting aid will make the world more unstable, not less. The very crises that fuel conflict – poverty, failed states, climate disasters and mass displacement – will only worsen with less development funding. Labour’s logic is self‑defeating: diverting money from aid to defence does not buy security; it undermines it.The numbers tell the story. Despite government attempts to inflate the amounts involved, the extra £5bn‑£6bn for defence is tiny relative to Britain’s GDP. The UK could easily absorb this through borrowing – especially in a global financial system where sterling is heavily traded – or, if the government prefers, through a modest wealth tax. Yet Sir Keir Starmer has chosen to frame this as a zero-sum game, where aid must give way to security. Why? Because this is not about economic necessity – it’s about political positioning. Labour wants to prove that it can be fiscally disciplined even when the numbers don’t demand it. It wants to neutralise Tory attacks, even when the real battle is over priorities, not affordability.It is also a move that aligns with Donald Trump’s worldview. The US president wants to close down the US government’s main overseas aid agency, treating it as an expensive indulgence rather than a pillar of foreign policy. Sir Keir is set to go to Washington this week. A UK prime minister that echoes Mr Trump’s “America first” instincts on defence and aid may find the meeting more congenial. If so, Sir Keir may be taking the idea that “the meek shall inherit the earth” a little too literally.Labour doesn’t just believe in fiscal discipline, it believes that it must believe in fiscal discipline and it constructs a justification for that belief. The problem is this: by accepting Conservative trade‑offs, Labour locks itself into an orthodoxy that it may later need to break. In a volatile world, Britain – outside the EU – must boost high-value exports and cut reliance on fragile supply chains. Even under Joe Biden, the UK was kept out of the US-EU Trade and Technology Council, which strengthened transatlantic industrial policy. Yet when does Downing Street admit Britain’s real limit is productive capacity – not budget deficits?Britain’s fiscal constraint is artificial, but its resource constraints are real. Energy, food and manufacturing are matters of national security, not just market functions. Without investment, dependence on key imports makes Britain vulnerable to supply-chain shocks and price inflation. That should make the announcements by Labour’s Ed Miliband and Steve Reed matter. If every pound spent requires a cut elsewhere, neither would have had much to say.Sir Keir often presents himself as a pragmatist rather than an ideologue – claiming to be adapting to circumstances rather than adhering to dogma. But such pragmatism is itself a belief system, one that treats capitalism’s rules as unchangeable, markets as beyond politics, and history as a one‑way street where past mistakes justify permanent, crippling caution. In doing so, he isn’t just rejecting alternatives – he’s rewriting history to suggest they were never an option to begin with.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Trump’s realignment: the geopolitical plates are moving. Brace for further shocks | Editorial

      by

      The rumblings prompted by Donald Trump’s re-election soon gathered force. First came tariffs and threats of territorial annexation; then the greater shocks of JD Vance’s Valentine’s Day massacre of European values and Mr Trump’s enthusiastic amplification of Kremlin lines on Ukraine.On Monday came another seismic moment. For more than a decade, the UN security council has been largely paralysed by the split between the five permanent members – Russia and China on one side; the US, France and Britain on the other. This time, when the US brought a resolution calling for an end to the war in Ukraine on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion, it did not criticise Moscow, demand its withdrawal or back Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The result was that China and Russia backed the resolution – while the UK and France, having failed to temper it, abstained.Earlier, even Beijing had chosen to abstain rather than reject a UN general assembly resolution condemning Moscow as the aggressor in Ukraine. It was passed overwhelmingly, with the backing of 93 states. Yet the US joined Russia in voting against it – along with Belarus, North Korea, Syria and a handful of others. “These are not our friends,” the Republican senator John Curtis wrote on X.The post-1945 order is beyond repair while Mr Trump occupies the White House. Emmanuel Macron’s charm and deftness papered over the problems somewhat when he became the first European leader to meet the US president since his re-election. (Sir Keir Starmer, not noted for his nimbleness or charisma, is likely to find the task somewhat harder this week.) The French president was adroit in flattering Mr Trump even as he told the truth. But it is not surprising that he failed to make any real progress in closing the gap. These are not cracks in the transatlantic relationship, but a chasm.A committed Atlanticist such as Friedrich Merz, on course to shortly become the German chancellor, is compelled to urge independence from the US because “the Americans, at any case the Americans in this administration, do not care much about the fate of Europe”. He warned that European leaders might not be able to talk about Nato in its current form by June. The problem is not only what Mr Trump may do but what he may not. Nato is built on the conviction that countries will stand by the commitments they make. That confidence cannot exist while Mr Trump is president.When Sir Keir told MPs on Tuesday that “Here we are, in a world where everything has changed”, he was commenting on Russian aggression, but everyone understood the real shift underlying his remarks. To note, as he did, that the US-British alliance has survived countless external challenges was not quite a vote of confidence. It tacitly acknowledged that the threat this time is internal.The ground is rocking beneath Europe’s feet. It must brace itself for further shocks. In place of the post-second world war order, Mr Trump envisages a world where alliances are no more than empty words and great powers bluff and bully their way through. Bilateral meetings have their purpose – they may offer minimal respite and buy a little time – but it will require common will to defend the interests of European states. The Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, suggested that European leaders would be meeting in London at the weekend to discuss security. Their best hope of standing firm is by standing together.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 313 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Is a Trump backlash on its way? Well, eggs are as expensive as ever – and you can’t eat the culture wars | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Each new morn, new widows howl, new orphans cry and Donald Trump passes a wild executive order. To liberally paraphrase Macbeth, every day seems to bring some new reason to scream into the void. The good news, however, is that even diehard Trumpers seem to be getting sick of all the chaos. A month into Trump’s second act, there are signs that the honeymoon is over and a backlash may be brewing. For certain Republican voters, regret may be setting in.First, the polling. A Harvard CAPS/Harris survey published on Monday gave Trump a 52% approval rating. Meanwhile, three national polls show a decline in support for the president, with most Americans saying he hasn’t done enough to lower prices and has overstepped his presidential powers. A CNN poll published on Thursday found that 47% of Americans approve of Trump’s performance while 52% disapprove – and the numbers are trending downwards.There are also signs of growing disillusionment at town halls across the country. Various outlets have reported recently that Republicans holding community events are facing hostile crowds, angry about the mass firing of government workers that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is carrying out. Disgruntled voters are also venting online: social media is full of viral posts from Trumpers who have been caught in Musk’s bloodbath or whose family members have been fired. These posts haven’t garnered much sympathy, I should add. Rather, there have been a lot of references to the Leopards Eating People’s Faces party meme.Is Trump in trouble? Judging by the number of headlines centred on the president’s problems – along with the plummeting popularity rates of his mate Musk – a lot of people sure hope so. Some Democrats are already rubbing their hands together in glee and prophesying that the Trump ship is about to go down. On Sunday, for example, the Democratic strategist James Carville, who helped Bill Clinton win in 1992, told Mediaite that he reckons the Trump White House will suffer a “massive collapse” in “less than 30 days”.While this is certainly a tantalising prospect – and one that has had a lot of airtime on liberal cable news – I wouldn’t get too excited. These days, being a “Democratic strategist” tends to mean that everything you say will immediately be proved dramatically wrong. In fact, it’s probably best not to get too excited by any of the chatter around the Trump slump. As we all know, the 78-year-old president is the ultimate comeback kid. A few middling poll numbers and angry town halls are nothing for a guy who has shrugged off being found liable for sexual abuse and who was charged with 88 felony counts across four criminal cases.Trump is certainly taking all this bad press in his stride – by which I mean he has been busy posting on social media that he is the best president the world has ever seen and everyone loves him. On Friday, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he has “the best polling numbers I’ve ever had”. He added: “The Democrats, run by broken down losers like James Carville, whose [sic] weak of mind and body, are going crazy, and just don’t know what to do. They have lost their confidence and spirit – They have lost their minds!”Trump isn’t entirely wrong. Along with many other people, I am losing my mind – at the constant stream of inanity, cruelty and straight-up illegal nonsense coming out of Washington. One of the latest examples is Trump referring to himself as a “king” and boasting that he might stay in the Oval Office after his second term ends in 2028. There is a reason so many people are hyping up reports that Trump is losing popularity: I think it’s what the extremely online call “copium” and what others call “desperately clutching at straws”.Still, here is a straw for us all to clutch: while Trump may have an uncanny ability to bounce back from scandals and bad press, he is not a king and he is certainly not a god. He is still a mere mortal – and he is digging himself into a hole out of which even he may not be able to clamber. Consumer sentiment has slumped while prices continue to rise. Trump campaigned relentlessly on the cost of living and made a big (and unrealistic) promise to bring down food prices on day one of his term. Now, it’s clear he has no realistic plan to lower the cost of groceries; eventually, even his most devoted followers are going to figure out that you can’t eat the culture wars. To riff on Macbeth again: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten the astronomical price of eggs. More