Latest news with #McCainInstitute
Bloomberg
27-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Time Not on Russia's Side: Farkas on Trump, Putin
Evelyn Farkas, Executive Director at Arizona State University's McCain Institute, weighs in on President Trump's most recent words blasting President Vladimir Putin and warning Putin of playing with fire. She also talks about whether or not the US will sanction Russia further and if these additional sanctions will pressure President Putin to comprise with President Trump on ending the war in Ukraine. Evelyn speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on the late edition of Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ukraine 'not yet in worst-case scenario,' McCain Institute head says
In October of last year, just days before the U.S. presidential election, Head of the McCain Institute Evelyn Farkas told the Kyiv Independent that a Donald Trump victory would be the "worst-case scenario" for Ukraine. In the months since, a victorious Trump has taken office, dismantled the global post-World War II security architecture, blamed President Volodymyr Zelensky for starting Russia's full-scale invasion, and left Ukraine in limbo, all without securing a peace deal. The Kyiv Independent sat down with Farkas at the Kyiv Security Forum on May 8 to ask her if that worst-case scenario had come true, or if there was still some hope left for Ukraine. The Kyiv Independent: When we last spoke, you said a Trump election victory was the "worst-case scenario" for Ukraine — are we now in it? Evelyn Farkas: I imagined an administration that turned its back on Ukraine. And we aren't there yet. It remains to be seen ultimately what position the United States takes. Our government has not clearly delineated — aside from saying that we want to make peace — what our position is on the definition of peace. It seems to me it's part of a negotiating strategy — where you don't tell anyone what you really want and you confuse everyone. It's not a negotiation strategy that I would employ (but) it could potentially work. But it does, of course, make people nervous about what the ultimate objective is because it hasn't been clarified. If the ultimate objective is not to support Ukraine, then that is the worst-case scenario because it means that Russia will not be stopped. Russia will then turn its aggressive attention to other neighboring states — first the ones that used to be part of the Soviet empire, and then it will threaten Europe, and ultimately the United States. The Kyiv Independent: Have you noticed a shift in rhetoric from the White House in recent weeks towards Russia? Evelyn Farkas: As I've said all along, my view is to stay open-minded and give the administration the benefit of the doubt until they make some definitive statement one way or the other. Then we can judge it. Vladimir Putin doesn't want an end to the war because it will likely mean the end of his political existence, if not his actual existence. But right now, I am encouraged by the fact that the vice president and even the president have indicated impatience with Putin. And maybe there's a dawning realization that in this world that Vladimir Putin is not stronger after Prigozhin marched on Moscow, and he's weaker economically, politically, militarily, and heavily dependent on China. In this world, Vladimir Putin doesn't want an end to the war because it will likely mean the end of his political existence, if not his actual existence, because there will be a lot of angry veterans running around Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Kyiv Independent: Why do you think it has taken the White House so long to realize this? Evelyn Farkas: Probably because there are competing interests. There are those who really want to bring the war to an end and do it in a way that's sustainable, that looks like a victory for the president, not a defeat. Because there are some versions of a peace agreement that would look like a defeat for President Trump and for the United States. And then there are others who are interested in making deals with the Russian elites, Putin and his oligarchs. And the people interested in making deals probably have the upper hand. And so initially, at least, I think the impatience and the overwhelming desire to make business deals were impacting their diplomacy more in the beginning. And now it seems that the reality is becoming understood — you can't just go and make business deals. You can't just quickly make peace so you can make business deals. That's not going to work. The Kyiv Independent: How much has this peace process been driven by people's personal interests rather than America's interests? Evelyn Farkas: It's hard to say from the outside, but it is disconcerting to see a lack of a clear separation between the governance, the business of the American people, and the special interests of people working in the administration. The Kyiv Independent: What do you think of U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff's performance? Evelyn Farkas: I think he was a peculiar choice because he's not a seasoned diplomat, and I don't really know whether he's a seasoned business deal broker either. And so he seems to have been enlisted to try to maybe charm Putin and entice him with some offers, perhaps business offers. But that hasn't worked. The Kyiv Independent: Do you think that Witkoff was the one who was charmed? Evelyn Farkas: I can't say, I don't know him. Of course, he was repeating things the Kremlin told him, and we know that the Kremlin sells a bunch of propaganda and lies. So he was either charmed by them, or for some other reason, he felt like he needed to repeat their propaganda and really omit some of the truth when he spoke publicly. The Kyiv Independent: Here in Ukraine, at some moments during Trump's term, it has seemed like the U.S. might not only abandon Ukraine, but outright betray it by giving Russia everything that it wants — was that felt by Ukraine supporters in the U.S.? Evelyn Farkas: I think for pro-Ukraine people in the United States, there was a lot of concern around statements like 'Ukraine can't ever become part of NATO', that 'Crimea was always Russian.' Those kinds of statements are a betrayal of Ukraine and its interests. And frankly, they are a betrayal of our interests, because our interest is in stopping Putin's neo-imperial aggression, and getting a just, lasting peace for Ukraine. "The American people feel very clearly that Ukraine was and is the victim, and Russia was and is the aggressor. And that is not articulated clearly from the White House." So, yes, we were alarmed by those statements because they seemed to indicate that that was the private negotiating position of the administration. Again, not a lot has been made public. And of course, when the issue of the Coalition of the Willing was raised by the Europeans, led by U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the reaction from the White House was non-committal. And that's also disturbing because you can't have a deterrence of Putin, and that is to say, a lasting peace for Ukraine, without the United States military to back it up. The Kyiv Independent: Do you think Trump and Zelensky's relationship is OK now, or could we see it revert to a time similar to the infamous Oval Office showdown? Evelyn Farkas: You can't rule it out. I was shocked by the treatment of President Zelensky in the White House. It was appalling. I think a lot of it is tactics, although, of course, Trump (does) seem to have this preference for Russia over Ukraine that goes all the way back to the 80s when he visited Moscow. The Kyiv Independent: What can Democrats do, if anything, right now to help Ukraine? Evelyn Farkas: Continue to work with Republicans who want to support Ukraine. (Republican Senator) Lindsey Graham has a sanctions bill that has a veto-proof majority. There should be more efforts like that, more bipartisan legislation. The Democrats... I wish sometimes they would be more honest about things that we did wrong, things that we might have done better, in order to actually give the Republicans an incentive to do more right now in Ukraine. Politicians rarely do that, though. And the last thing that they can do is continue to speak to their constituents. And then listen to their constituents, because there are a lot of constituents who care and who want America to do the right thing when it comes to Ukraine and other places in the world. The Kyiv Independent: Do you get the sense that American public opinion differs very wildly from the opinions that we get out of the White House on Ukraine? Evelyn Farkas: Yes. The polls show that there's still a majority of Americans in favor of supporting Ukraine. But in the White House, it's unclear. And I think the American people feel very clearly that Ukraine was and is the victim, and Russia was and is the aggressor. That is not articulated clearly from the White House. Read also: Investigation: Uncovering the secret Russian FSB operation to loot Ukraine's museums We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Epoch Times
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Sen. Kelly Says CCP Still Has Access to US Telecom Networks
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) told attendees of the McCain Institute's Sedona Forum on May 3 that the Chinese communist regime still has access to the nine U.S. telecommunication companies hacked into in December 2024 during the Salt Typhoon cyber intrusion coordinated by the Chinese Ministry of State Security. 'They did it in such a way that it was very hard for us to detect that they were there and not done through the typical way that you would do something with malware,' he explained to the panel moderator. 'It was done through access to routers and using a lot of sophisticated techniques, and it was the, as you mentioned, the Chinese Ministry of State Security that coordinated this operation. They're still there, and we have yet to figure out a way to kick them off.' The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) identified the hacks in October of 2024 and began an investigation. In a joint statement issued on Nov. 13, 2024, the agencies revealed that the hackers compromised the networks of multiple telecom companies and stole customer call records and private communications from 'a limited number of individuals who are primarily involved in government or political activity.' CISA Executive Assistant Director for Cybersecurity Jeff Greene 'It would be impossible for us to predict when we'll have full eviction,' Greene said at the time. On Dec. 4, 2024, the Biden administration Related Stories 3/14/2025 3/5/2025 By Dec. 27, the number of compromised telecommunication companies had increased to nine. Kelly sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and told the audience that rebuilding the United States' telecom infrastructure in order to prevent hackers from gaining access continues to be a topic of conversation among his fellow committee members. One of the issues with the nation's current telecommunication infrastructure is how organically it developed over time. 'Somebody built a system, somebody improved that system,' Kelly said. 'They added technology to it, and today we have this collaged together systems of multiple companies using different kinds of equipment that are easily accessible from our adversaries, and they're able to, if they know who you are, know your phone number, and they want to get access to some of your information, they today can probably do that, including voice calls.' Meanwhile, the Volt Typhoon threat group had been targeting U.S. critical infrastructure since 2021, and CISA confirmed that hackers had Volt Typhoon was reported to be dismantled in January 2024 but Kelly said the CCP's Ministry of State Security 'still have access into some of these systems,' and emphasized that the security risks such infiltration poses to the nation's ability to mobilize against communist China. He and his fellow panelists, Sue Gordon, former principal deputy director of national intelligence, and Frances Fragos Townsend, former counterterrorism and homeland security advisor, stressed the need for the federal government to lead the way in developing the necessary cybersecurity. They also stated that there is still no clear definition of when a cyberattack is considered an act of war. In the meantime, the senator advised the crowd on how to proceed with their telecommunications. 'If you're in any kind of sensitive position, just be aware that there are folks that are gathering information on you that want to know who all your connections are, that in a lot of cases, there are probably people in this room that foreign adversaries have access to your cell phone and you do not know it,' he said. 'There are ways to kick them off. The easiest way is [by] keeping your software up to date and turning the phone off.' Frank Fang contributed to this report.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Secretary of defense has massive responsibilities for troops, weapons, advising the president and working with Congress
After weeks of controversy amid accusations of sharing sensitive information about military operations in unsecured chats with unauthorized recipients, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reportedly under pressure from within the Trump administration, which may seek to replace him. Being secretary of defense is a massive job, broadly affecting Americans' security at home and abroad and overseeing huge numbers of people and immense amounts of money. The Conversation U.S. asked Evelyn Farkas, a longtime Defense Department leader who is now executive director of the McCain Institute at Arizona State University, to explain what the secretary of defense's job entails and what makes a person effective at that job. During the Obama administration, Farkas was a deputy assistant secretary of defense with a focus on Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. Prior to that, she was a civilian adviser to the top military officer in NATO, and earlier still she was a senior staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversees the military. She also served as a professor at the U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College. They're responsible for about 3.4 million people, including 1.2 million active duty service members and 1.3 million reservists, as well as about 900,000 civilian employees. The secretary is responsible for making sure those people are able to do their jobs – which, collectively, is to defend the United States, the American people and U.S. interests. They're responsible for defense policy, spending and operations, which includes the people, property and equipment at about 500 military bases across all 50 states and another 750 or so bases in 80 countries around the world. They're responsible for budgeting and spending almost US$2 trillion a year in federal funds, which is about 16% of the overall federal budget. The president is the commander in chief and decides when and how to use the military. But the president's decision to use force relies on advice and recommendations from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president orders the secretary to carry out military operations, and the orders pass down from the secretary to the relevant commanders from there. The secretary sets the vision and tone for the Department of Defense and helps the president develop his or her defense strategy, and then implements that strategy. The secretary also designs and implements policies to advance the strategy and the overall national security objectives of the president. The Defense Department's responsibility is focused on the use of the military, whether it's to deter attacks or defend American interests. The secretary must make sure the military is equipped and trained – ready – to fight and win the nation's wars and to conduct any other operations, such as humanitarian, counterterrorism or peace operations. The secretary sets priorities, which are reflected in the department's budget. The budget has to be negotiated with Congress, of course. Day to day, the secretary is holding meetings with people who are charged with managing different aspects of the department's activity. This happens regularly in the Pentagon or when the secretary visits military units and installations in the U.S. or around the world. There are undersecretaries for policy and the budget and other functions such as personnel and readiness. Then there are service secretaries, who look at all of those issues but only for one specific service – the Army, the Navy, which includes the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, which includes the Space Force. It depends on the president. Most presidents have regular meetings with their top officials as a Cabinet, as a group, and then, of course, individually. Some presidents will have a standing lunch with their Cabinet members, or just a formal meeting. Generally speaking, most presidents would seek to have a meeting at least once a week that involves their secretary of defense. There's a lot going on in the world, and most of the events or crises involve some decision about the use of military force or some effect on defense capabilities. The secretary's involvement in a decision to use nuclear weapons would certainly affect almost every American. So that's one way, and any decisions involving war could potentially affect any given American. Short of that, the economic ripple effects of decisions the secretary makes could be national. The defense budget is large, but not enough to affect everyone all at the same time. But for example, if the secretary of defense decides to close a base, that would have impact on most people in that community, if not all of them, at least indirectly. Businesses would have to adjust or close, and the military personnel and their families would have to move. And the political leadership of the community would be empowered to make decisions about the civilian use of properties previously owned by the Department of Defense. Almost every kind of company does business with the Department of Defense, either directly or indirectly. The commissaries stock food and medicine and all sorts of regular items that the military buys, in addition to equipment for fighting. And then there's research and development. Historically, the Defense Department has put a lot of money into those efforts, which has had a lot of effect on consumers' lives. It's not just the internet, although that's one example of something that was invented for military purposes and then translated into civilian use. A lot of smaller developments happen, too, because when a lot of money is being poured into innovation, they discover things along the way that can be commercialized. Nowadays the civilian sector has outpaced the Defense Department in terms of research and development and innovation, but the defense dollars still make a big difference. I worked for four of them, three directly. Robert Gates had a high sense of empathy and lots of prior government experience. Leon Panetta had an acute sense of humor and a direct but funny way of interacting. He also had the advantage of having held multiple high-level jobs in other parts of the government. Chuck Hagel had a direct line to the Senate, and Ashton Carter was a hard-driven expert. The most useful attributes include honesty, empathy, a sense of humor, a sharp intellect, the ability to learn quickly and the skill to determine what is important quickly. Of course, prior government experience working with the department is invaluable. It's helpful to have an understanding of how the Defense Department works, with all its components, and its strengths and weaknesses, before you get into the job. The department has a military and civilian bureaucracy, and it takes some savvy work to get it to move quickly to implement the president's strategy. During the confirmation process, like all nominees, the secretary is required to attest in writing and sometimes verbally that they will provide truthful answers to Congress and that they will be responsive when Congress has questions. Different secretaries do a better job at that than others. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld often would annoy members of Congress because he knew there was a time limit on his ability to speak and on each senator's ability to speak. So he would just speak until the clock ran out, and that made them mad. He wouldn't always answer questions directly and sometimes came off as arrogant. The interactions with Congress are this delicate dance, because a secretary wants to protect the prerogatives of the president and the executive branch. But Congress pays the bills, provides any new authorities the secretary might be seeking and can curtail both the authority and the budget. A secretary wants to defend the policies, the budget and the actions of the Department of Defense. But they also want to be respectful of Congress' role and responsibilities and the individual members of Congress. Sometimes that balance is hard to strike. They're in a really demanding job, and they get called to testify in front of Congress, usually with the TV cameras on. Members of Congress aren't always polite, so it takes a lot of patience and self control on the part of the secretary of defense to successfully maintain good relations, public and private, with members of Congress. The secretary should be someone who will stand up for the military and civilians in the department and demand from the president and Congress the resources needed to execute their mission and to provide for the well-being of the personnel, who are, after all, Americans. I would also say a secretary should interact with the media in a way that strikes the right balance between informing the American public about what the department and the military are doing in the name of the American people and protecting national security secrets. At the end of the day, the secretary of defense is working for the American people in their interest and that of the nation. This article was updated on April 22, 2025, to reflect reports about the controversies involving Pete Hegseth. This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Evelyn Farkas, Arizona State University Read more: How the EPA administrator protects public health, air, water and the environment What does the US attorney general actually do? A law professor explains Interior secretary manages vast lands that all Americans share − and can sway the balance between conservation and development Evelyn Farkas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Bloomberg
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Farkas: 'Political Solution' Needed To End War In Gaza
Evelyn Farkas, Executive Director of Arizona State University's McCain Institute, discusses Israel's decision to resume airstrikes on Gaza. Farkas says additional attacks further jeopardize the lives of the hostages still in Gaza, and that an ultimate 'political solution' is needed to end the war. She speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)
