Biden accuses Trump of appeasement of Russia
The former president said anyone who thinks President Vladimir Putin is going to stop taking land is 'just foolish'. (EPA Images pic)
LONDON : Former US president Joe Biden said his successor Donald Trump's pressure on Ukraine to give up territory to Russia is a form of 'modern-day appeasement' that will never satisfy Moscow.
Speaking to the BBC in what the broadcaster said was his first interview since leaving the White House, Biden said Russian President Vladimir Putin believes Ukraine is part of 'mother Russia' and 'anybody who thinks he's going to stop is just foolish'.
'I just don't understand how people think that if we allow a dictator, a thug, to decide he's going to take significant portions of land that aren't his, that that's going to satisfy him,' Biden said in the interview, which was broadcast on Wednesday and the BBC said was recorded on Monday.
Trump has changed US policy toward the war in Ukraine, pressing Kyiv to agree to a ceasefire while easing pressure on Russia, which launched a full-scale invasion of its neighbour in 2022. Trump has said he wants to stop the killing.
In the interview, Biden expressed concern that 'Europe is going to lose confidence in the certainty of America and the leadership of America'.
Europe's leaders were 'wondering, well, what do I do now?… Can I rely on the US? Are they going to be there?' he said.
The former president said he was dismayed by the explosive meeting in February in the White House between Trump, his top officials and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
'I found it sort of beneath America in the way that took place,' Biden said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
30 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Trump flexes strongman instincts over Los Angeles protests
DONALD Trump likes to show off his strongman credentials at cage fights and military parades – and over the weekend, the US president did it by sending troops into Los Angeles. The move once again showed Trump pushing presidential power to its limits, at the start of a second term that has begun with what critics say is a distinctly authoritarian edge. Trump deployed the National Guard after clashes sparked by immigration raids, marking the first time since 1965 that a president has done so without a request by a state governor. His administration said Monday it was also sending 700 active-duty Marines to America's second largest city. The Republican has warned that troops could be sent "everywhere" – sparking fears that he will send the military out into the streets across America to crack down on protests and dissent. "It's a slippery slope," William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, told AFP. "If the president tries to do more, he's cutting against the grain in the United States of a long history of leaving law enforcement to civilians." The protests in Los Angeles are in many ways the showdown that Trump has been waiting for. Trump has been spoiling for a fight against California's Democratic governor Gavin Newsom, and he is now doing so on his signature issue of immigration. Newsom has bitterly accused the "dictatorial" president of manufacturing the crisis for political gain – while Trump suggested the governor, a potential 2028 presidential contender, could be arrested. Democratic California senator Alex Padilla slammed what he called "the behaviour of an authoritarian government." Rights groups have also opposed it. Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement that Trump's response was "unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power." Trump said Monday that he does not "want a civil war" – but the situation is a golden opportunity to appear tough to his base. Indeed, Trump has long cultivated a strongman image and has previously expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders like Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping. This weekend, Trump will spend his 79th birthday watching tanks rumble through Washington at a parade to mark the 250th anniversary of the US army. And the order to send the National Guard into Los Angeles came shortly before Trump attended a UFC fight in New Jersey – a sport he has used frequently to appeal to macho voters. Critics however fear that Trump's actions in Los Angeles are not just for show. Since returning to office, Trump has repeatedly pushed the boundaries of presidential power to target the US bureaucracy, universities, law firms, cultural institutions and anywhere else he believes liberal ideologies linger. Trump seemed to hint at what could come next when he pinned the blame for the Los Angeles unrest – without evidence – on "insurrectionists." It appeared to be a clear reference to the Insurrection Act, which would allow the military to be used as a domestic police force. "Trump is pretty free and loose when it comes to the use of force," Todd Belt, a political science professor at George Washington University, told AFP. "He knows it is popular with his base, and he always likes to look strong in their eyes." Trump has talked for years about using the military against protests. Although he did not do so during his first term, his former defence secretary Mark Esper said Trump asked why Black Lives Matter protesters could not be shot in the legs. Conversely, Trump made no move to bring in the military when his own supporters attacked the US Capitol in a bid to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Trump would not say if he would invoke the Insurrection Act when asked by reporters on Monday, but he and his advisors have been framing the issue in increasingly apocalyptic terms. His top migration advisor Stephen Miller has explicitly framed the Los Angeles protests as a battle for the future of Western civilisation against an "invasion" of migrants. "The 'war' and 'invasion' framing have helped the administration make the case for the domestic use of these laws that are normally used to put down rebellions or invasions," said Belt.
Free Malaysia Today
34 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
BlackRock, other funds clash with Republican states over climate-investing evidence
The antitrust case claims fund firms, like BlackRock, violated the law through climate activism that reduced coal production and boosted energy prices. (EPA Images pic) WASHINGTON : A lawyer for BlackRock stated yesterday that the Republican states' claim that asset managers had violated antitrust law through their work with industry climate groups was not 'plausible,' as several firms pressed to have the case dismissed. However, a lawyer for the states, which include Texas and 12 others, told the US district judge Jeremy Kernodle that even calling attention to environmental matters, such as by signing on to industry agreements, could have an impact. BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, Vanguard and State Street are seeking to dismiss the claims in the closely watched antitrust case. The case, filed last November, claims the firms violated antitrust law through climate activism that reduced coal production and boosted energy prices. In pressing for dismissal, Gregg Costa, an attorney for BlackRock, said yesterday that, among other things, the fund firms never voted against the same coal company directors during the years in question, weakening the case. Nor did the plaintiffs bring forward any material such as from a whistleblower showing direct talks among the companies to coordinate their activities. 'It's hard to see how this alleged conspiracy is even possible, let alone plausible,' Costa said. Robert Wick, an attorney for Vanguard, said while the firm held discussions with coal companies, that was only in line with its role as an asset manager. There were no allegations 'that Vanguard ever used its shares to coerce or pressure a coal company to cut its production,' Wick said. Speaking for the states, Cooper & Kirk attorney Brian Barnes said the firms' actions could still have a market impact. 'Jawboning by these defendants as to decisions about market strategy just very clearly has the potential to influence output decisions at the coal company,' Barnes said. The outcome of the lawsuit could have major implications for how the companies, which together manage some US$27 trillion, manage their holdings and passive funds. One possible remedy sought by the plaintiffs would be for the fund firms to divest holdings in coal companies, which BlackRock has said would harm the companies' access to capital and likely raise energy prices. Kernodle, of the US district court for the Eastern District of Texas, said he would take the matter under advisement. He also said that like many Americans he owns shares in various index funds from the firms, including the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and the BlackRock iShares Core S&P Small Cap fund. While the ownership would not seem to require his recusal, Kernodle said parties who disagree should file their objections within two weeks.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
YouTube loosens rules guiding the moderation of videos
SAN FRANCISCO: For years, YouTube has removed videos with derogatory slurs, misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines and election falsehoods, saying the content violated the platform's rules. But since US President Donald Trump's return to the White House, YouTube has encouraged its content moderators to leave up videos with content that may break the platform's rules rather than remove them, as long as the videos are considered to be in the public interest. Those would include discussions of political, social and cultural issues. The policy shift, which hasn't been publicly disclosed, made YouTube the latest social media platform to back off efforts to police online speech in the wake of Republican pressure to stop moderating content. In January, Meta made a similar move, ending a fact-checking program on social media posts. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, followed in the footsteps of X, Elon Musk's social platform, and turned responsibility for policing content over to users. But unlike Meta and X, YouTube has not made public statements about relaxing its content moderation. The online video service introduced its new policy in mid-December in training material that was reviewed by The New York Times . For videos considered to be in the public interest, YouTube raised the threshold for the amount of offending content permitted to half a video, from a quarter of a video. The platform also encouraged moderators to leave up those videos, which would include City Council meetings, campaign rallies and political conversations. The policy distances the platform from some of its pandemic practices, such as when it removed videos of local council meetings and a discussion between Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, and a panel of scientists, citing medical misinformation. The expanded exemptions could benefit political commentators whose lengthy videos blend news coverage with opinions and claims on a variety of topics, particularly as YouTube takes on a more prominent role as a leading distributor of podcasts. The policy also helps the video platform avoid attacks by politicians and activists frustrated by its treatment of content about the origins of Covid, the 2020 election and Hunter Biden, former President Joe Biden's son. YouTube continuously updates its guidance for content moderators on topics surfacing in the public discourse, said Nicole Bell, a company spokesperson. It retires policies that no longer make sense, as it did in 2023 for some Covid misinformation, and strengthens policies when warranted, as it did this year to prohibit content directing people to gambling websites, according to Bell. In the first three months of this year, YouTube removed 192,586 videos because of hateful and abusive content, a 22% increase from a year earlier. 'Recognising that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today,' Bell said in a statement. She added, 'Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm.' Critics say the changes by social media platforms have contributed to the rapid spread of false assertions and have the potential to increase digital hate speech. Last year on X, a post inaccurately said, 'Welfare offices in 49 states are handing out voter registration applications to illegal aliens,' according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which studies misinformation and hate speech. The post, which would have been removed before recent policy changes, was seen 74.8 million times. For years, Meta has removed about 277 million pieces of content annually, but under the new policies, much of that content could stay up, including comments like 'Black people are more violent than whites,' said Imran Ahmed, the center's CEO. 'What we're seeing is a rapid race to the bottom,' he said. The changes benefit the companies by reducing the costs of content moderation, while keeping more content online for user engagement, he added. 'This is not about free speech. It's about advertising, amplification and ultimately profits.' YouTube has in the past put a priority on policing content to keep the platform safe for advertisers. It has long forbidden nudity, graphic violence and hate speech. But the company has always given itself latitude for interpreting the rules. The policies allow videos that violate YouTube's rules, generally a small set, to remain on the platform if there is sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic merit. The new policies, which were outlined in the training materials, are an expansion of YouTube's exceptions. They build on changes made before the 2024 election, when the company began permitting clips of electoral candidates on the platform even if the candidates violated its policies, the training material said. Previously, YouTube removed a so-called public interest video if a quarter of the content broke the platform's rules. As of Dec. 18, YouTube's trust and safety officials told content moderators that half a video could break YouTube's rules and stay online. Other content that mentions political, social and cultural issues has also been exempted from YouTube's usual content guidelines. The platform determined that videos are in the public interest if creators discuss or debate elections, ideologies, movements, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, censorship and other issues. Megan A. Brown, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan who researches the online information ecosystem, said YouTube's looser policies were a reversal from a time when it and other platforms 'decided people could share political speech but they would maintain some decorum'. She fears that YouTube's new policy 'is not a way to achieve that'. During training on the new policy, the trust and safety team said content moderators should err against restricting content when 'freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk.' If employees had doubts about a video's suitability, they were encouraged to take it to their superiors rather than remove it. YouTube employees were presented with real examples of how the new policies had already been applied. The platform gave a pass to a user-created video titled, 'RFK Jr. Delivers SLEDGEHAMMER Blows to Gene-Altering JABS,' which violated YouTube's policy against medical misinformation by incorrectly claiming that Covid vaccines alter people's genes. The company's trust and safety team decided the video shouldn't be removed because public interest in the video 'outweighs the harm risk,' the training material said. The video was deemed newsworthy because it presented contemporary news coverage of recent actions on Covid vaccines by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The video also mentioned political figures such as Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk and Megyn Kelly, boosting its 'newsworthiness.' The video's creator also discussed a university medical study and presented news headlines about people experiencing adverse effects from Covid vaccines, 'signaling this is a highly debated topic (and a sensitive political topic),' according to the materials. Because the creator didn't explicitly recommend against vaccination, YouTube decided that the video had a low risk of harm. Currently, the video is no longer available on YouTube. It is unclear why. Another video shared with the staff contained a slur about a transgender person. YouTube's trust and safety team said the 43-minute video, which discussed hearings for Trump administration Cabinet appointees, should stay online because the description had only a single violation of the platform's harassment rule forbidding a 'malicious expression against an identifiable individual.' A video from South Korea featured two commentators talking about the country's former President Yoon Suk Yeol. About halfway through the more-than-three-hour video, one of the commentators said he imagined seeing Yoon turned upside down in a guillotine so that the politician 'can see the knife is going down.' The video was approved because most of it discussed Yoon's impeachment and arrest. In its training material, YouTube said it had also considered the risk for harm low because 'the wish for execution by guillotine is not feasible.' – ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
