Latest news with #Russian-leaning
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Taurus missiles, stronger Europe — what can Ukraine hope for after German elections
The victory of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) led by Friedrich Merz was met with relief in Ukraine. The conservative leader has long criticized the supposedly cautious Ukraine strategy of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose government collapsed last November, triggering the snap vote. Merz's likely coalition with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) is sure to maintain Berlin's pro-Kyiv trajectory. And with Scholz leading the SPD into the election, saying that he would not take part in the next government, the two dominant parties would have the potential to push Europe to do more for Ukraine. Such a push would be crucial at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump seems to be sidestepping Kyiv's and Europe's interests to clinch a swift peace deal with Russia. Underscoring this tectonic geopolitical shift, Merz has used his victory speech to call for Europe's strategic "independence" from the U.S. — a tall order amid the continent's lagging defense industry, rising populism, and unrelenting Russian threat. The CDU/CSU secured first place in the elections with 28.5% of the vote, almost eight percentage points ahead of the runner-up AfD. Scholz's SPD, in turn, suffered a historic defeat, coming in third with 16.4% — its worst result since the 1880s. The SPD's former coalition partners fared no better, with the Greens dropping to 11.6% and the centrist Free Democratic Party (FDP) getting booted from the Bundestag. The Left party (Die Linke), which has condemned Russian aggression but opposes military aid to Ukraine, made a surprise comeback with 8.8%, while its Russian-leaning, anti-immigration splinter, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), failed to hit the 5% parliamentary threshold by a razor-thin margin of 0.03%. Overall, despite the far-right surge, the vote ensured that moderate, pro-Ukraine parties now have enough seats to keep the Russian-friendly groups out of government. The conservative leader has already rejected any negotiations with the AfD over its far-right agenda and pro-Moscow stance, aiming instead to hash out a coalition deal with the ostensibly "defeated" SPD by Easter. "The world won't wait for us, it won't wait for long, drawn-out coalition negotiations," Merz said as his party colleagues were celebrating the Sunday victory. The failure of the FDP and the BSW to hit the 5% threshold means a less fractured parliament and allows Merz to seek only a single coalition partner — the SPD — without entering into more complex three-way talks with the Greens. "A possible triple-coalition would risk a less stable government, and that would, logically, benefit the AfD in the opposition," said Zuzana Zavadilova, a Germany researcher at the Prague-based Association for International Affairs think tank. Speaking to the Kyiv Independent, the expert said that the decisively pro-Ukraine Greens may play the role of a "constructive opposition," standing in contrast to the Russian-friendly AfD and Ukraine-skeptic Left. As Scholz has ruled out participating in the CDU/CSU-SPD coalition talks, the question of the next leading figure among the Social Democrats remains. "SPD leader Lars Klingbeil is expected to be elected as the leader of the SPD parliamentary group in the German Bundestag on (Feb. 26). He is already being referred to by many as 'the new powerhouse' of the SPD," said Martin Bialecki, editor-in-chief of the journals Internationale Politik (IP) and Internationale Politik Quarterly (IPQ). "The current defense minister, Boris Pistorius, will also play an important role," Bialecki predicts, referring to the popular politician under whom Germany stood as Ukraine's second-largest military donor. If both Klingbeil and Pistorius "lead the SPD through much-needed reforms while being in government, this could be a net positive for Ukraine as both have been among the most hawkish in support of Kyiv," Jorn Fleck, senior director with the Europe Center at the Atlantic Council, told the Kyiv Independent. Read also: France could send nuclear-armed jets to Germany, Telegraph reports The conservative leader and long-time party rival of ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel has come into the spotlight of Ukraine watchers months before the German elections. Merz has repeatedly lambasted Scholz for his reluctance to provide Ukraine with Taurus missiles, long-range weapons capable of hitting targets 500 kilometers (300 miles) away. However, as Merz's future chancellorship became evident, the CDU chairman began tempering expectations. According to Fleck, Merz has toned down hawkish stances during his campaign to "avoid alienating eastern German voters." The politician later clarified that Taurus deliveries must be coordinated with the U.S. and that the step should be taken only after long-range strikes with already provided arms prove insufficient to force Russia to talks. This would imply that the Trump administration's opposition to strikes inside Russia and its courting of the Kremlin in the name of a quick peace deal might complicate Taurus deliveries. But the events of the past few weeks made Merz, a lifelong Atlanticist, seemingly realize that Europe must forge its own path to ensure security for itself and Ukraine. "My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.," Merz laid out his priorities after the elections. "I never thought I would have to say something like this on a television program. But after Donald Trump's statements last week… it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe." The shock turn came after Trump denounced Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "dictator" and after U.S. Vice President JD Vance delivered a scathing speech against Germany and other European countries during the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 15. Amid the uncertainty of the continued U.S. support, "Merz has clearly positioned himself. He does understand that much more is expected of Europe's largest economy and political power, especially if Washington wavers, or worse," Fleck said. The chancellor-in-waiting has already launched talks with the SPD on 200 billion euros ($210 billion) in a special defense fund and floated the idea of nuclear sharing with France and the U.K. In light of Trump's comments, the German politician warned that NATO might not survive in its current form and that Europe should create its own alternative. As Europe is shaping up to be Kyiv's chief advocate and fears of a possible U.S.-Russia pact grow, Merz has also stressed that Ukraine must be part of any peace talks. But after decades of geopolitical dependence, decoupling from the U.S. is no easy feat. "Even if Europe wants to become 'independent' of the U.S., it will take many, many years. Europe has neither the military, nor the economic, nor the technological means to stand on its own two feet," Bialecki warns. According to Fleck, Merz's success will depend on three variables: "the economy, his own party's stance on the debt break, and his junior coalition partner's disposition." Read also: As Trump and Moscow align their vision, battle to stabilize Donetsk front rests on a knife edge Yet, not all is sunshine in Berlin. While it was effectively cut off from the government talks, the AfD's rise in popularity — especially in Germany's east — presents a stark warning to Ukraine. Gathering votes on economy and immigration issues, the far-right party has advocated for rapprochement with Russia, criticizing military assistance to Ukraine while calling for the lifting of sanctions and resumption of trade with Moscow. Suspicions that the AfD seeks to strengthen ties with autocracies like Russia and China were only reinforced after several top members came under investigation for collusion with Moscow and Beijing. After Trump's victory in the U.S. election, the AfD gained another ally across the Atlantic. The AfD's cause has been openly promoted by Trump's top ally, billionaire Elon Musk, who called the far-right party, whose members are suspected of Nazi sympathies, Germany's "last spark of hope." And while Trump has congratulated the CDU/CSU on its victory, it was AfD chief Alice Weidel who received Vance in Germany after the U.S. vice president denounced the Munich Security Conference for not inviting Russian-friendly radicals to the event. Merz made clear he sees the AfD-Trump alliance as equally concerning as the far-right party's sympathies for Russia. "The interventions from Washington were no less dramatic and drastic and ultimately outrageous than the interventions we have seen from Moscow," he said. Holding one-third of the parliament's seats, the AfD and the Left can still hamper Merz's efforts to ramp up defense spending. For example, they could block key funding decisions requiring two-thirds of the Bundestag's votes unless they are quickly adopted by the current outgoing parliament, Zavadilova notes. "Clearly, the strength of the AfD, the Left, and the BSW should be a concern of all democrats. All three parrot Russian talking points and have at their core anti-American and anti-EU sentiments," Fleck said. "Here, Merz and the next leadership will finally have to engage the German public in a frank conversation about what is at stake in Ukraine and in Europe." Read also: In negotiations with Russia, Trump is repeating his 'complete disaster' peace deal with Taliban Hi, this is Martin Fornusek. I hope you enjoyed this article. If you want to help us provide you with more in-depth pieces on Ukraine's struggle against Russian aggression, European politics, and more, please consider becoming a member of the Kyiv Independent's community. Thank you very much. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
New York Times
25-02-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
America and Russia Are on the Same Side Now
During the Cold War, large and influential Communist parties in Western Europe maintained ties with Moscow, ranging from sympathetic to subservient. The United States kept its distance and in many cases supported their opponents financially and politically. Now Europe is confronted with a loose alliance of Russian-leaning parties, this time on the other end of the spectrum: the far right. And the U.S. government has taken the opposite approach: a warm embrace. By doing so, the United States is condoning Russia's subversion of the postwar Europe that America helped create and secure. The parties Russia favors are hostile to the European Union, opposed to higher military spending and receptive to Russia's arguments about the recklessness of NATO expansion and the need to assert right-wing Christian values. Should these parties and their populist cousins eventually dominate Europe — they are in government in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovakia, and making an impact in France and Germany — they could eviscerate NATO and geopolitically neuter if not subjugate Europe itself. That is certainly Russia's hope. A Europe thus benighted would dash America's post-Cold War vision of a continent 'whole and free' that the European Union and the Atlantic alliance, for all their problems, have done much to advance and which has been an enduring source of geopolitical stability. Of course, the Trump administration has made clear its disdain for those accomplishments. Earlier this month, Vice President JD Vance exhorted European leaders at the Munich Security Conference to stop shunning the extreme parties in their midst. German politicians, he argued, should remove the 'firewall' against working with populist parties, clearly referring to the far-right and anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. Afterward, he met with the AfD leader. Elon Musk, who seems to be acting like President Trump's prime minister, congratulated the party's leader on its second-place showing in Sunday's elections in Germany. Then, further repudiating trans-Atlantic solidarity, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss Ukraine's future, freezing out Ukraine itself, as well as Europe. It seemed clear that the United States intended to pursue a rapprochement with Russia, which would likely mean ending sanctions, cajoling Ukraine into relinquishing occupied Ukrainian territory, and perhaps even guaranteeing Ukraine's perpetual exclusion from NATO. Mr. Trump followed up the conference by ludicrously suggesting to reporters that Ukraine had started the war by refusing to cede territory to Russia. Calling President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine a 'dictator,' he has set the stage for satisfying President Vladimir Putin's ultimate war aim: removing Ukraine's Jewish leader as a prelude to installing a Russian stooge on the pretext of 'denazifying' the country. Moscow could hardly have scripted a result more in line with its dubious argument that NATO enlargement forced it to reclaim its sphere of influence and invade Ukraine. This narrative, largely embraced by Europe's far right, reinforces Russia's threat to NATO's eastern members, starting with the Baltic States, if Ukraine is defeated or forced to capitulate. Mr. Trump and members of his circle have also shown sympathy for and influenced right-wing populist parties in Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. In Britain, Mr. Musk is trying to undermine the Labour Party in favor of the right-wing Reform U.K. party. Mr. Trump and those around him have shown admiration for Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, who has visited Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago several times and provided a veritable blueprint for the president's authoritarian-minded policies. The parallel between Europe's Moscow-leaning parties during the Cold War and the far-right ones of the 21st century is certainly not exact. The far-right parties also show varying degrees of sympathy with Russian interests. Western Communist parties were more formally linked to the Soviet Union than today's far-right European parties are to Mr. Putin's Russia. Before World War II, they belonged to the Communist International directed by Moscow, which Stalin eventually dissolved to placate his new American and British allies during the war. A postwar successor organization, the Cominform, included French and Italian Communists, as well as Eastern European parties directly answerable to Moscow, before it was abolished in 1956. By the 1970s, some Western Communist parties — notably in Italy and Spain — had claimed a degree of independence from the Soviets under the banner of 'Eurocommunism.' The consistent factor, however, has been Moscow's affinity for fifth columns to advance its interests — the Cominform early in the Cold War, an international right-wing grouping today. Today's right-wingers include quasi-fascists and Christian white supremacists whose views bolster and attract Christian nationalist conservatism in the United States; Mr. Putin's nationalist autocracy, safeguarded by the Russian Orthodox Church; and Mr. Orban's 'illiberal democracy.' Moscow is busy in Europe. The Kremlin's political and material support for far-right groups has deepened European social and political divisions, enabling it to keep discrediting Western democracy. Russian interference includes covert influence operations that German officials believe have penetrated Germany's political institutions and the AfD. Last year, German journalists revealed emails and text messages between a Russian intelligence officer and an adviser to an AfD member of the Bundestag to advance the party's attempts to stop Germany's shipment of battle tanks to Ukraine. The officer and adviser have denied involvement. Czech authorities believe Voice of Europe, a Prague-based news website, has funneled money to politicians in at least six European countries as part of what the authorities called a Russian influence operation. Russia has consistently denied involvement in disinformation campaigns against the West. Regardless of Russia's tactics, Europe's extreme-right parties today share the Trump administration's hostility to wokeness and immigration, much as the Western Communist parties of the 20th century advocated causes that Democratic administrations in the Cold War found congenial: social justice, civil rights for African Americans and an anticolonial agenda. Yet Democratic administrations, unlike Mr. Vance now, never suggested that European governments should accommodate them. American administrations back then assessed the Soviet threat as too dangerous to indulge in political experiments. Today, the stakes are at least as high: If a bellicose Russia thoroughly infiltrated European politics, its far-right proxies could undermine the political structures that European nations have painstakingly built to prevent a regional return to authoritarianism. In a mild rebuke to Mr. Trump, Mr. Vance and Mr. Musk, the AfD did not fare as well as some expected in Sunday's elections in Germany. With the far right on the rise, however, European governments today are more vulnerable to them than they were to Communism by the 1960s, when the political center in Europe had stabilized. The Trump administration appears not to care. Mr. Vance made it clear that moderate European leaders cannot rely on American moderation, that Trump administration officials are unlikely to welcome intelligence illuminating the depth and breadth of the Russian threat to Europe and that heedlessness and betrayal have become part of U.S. policy.
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - How do we end the war without ending Ukraine itself?
Let us assume that President Donald Trump is correct and that the war, killing and carnage arising from the war in Ukraine must be stopped. The question is, at what cost and to whom? Russia occupied Crimea in 2014 and controls about 20 percent of Ukraine covering Donbass and Donetsk. These three regions have substantial Russian-leaning populations. The hard fact is that Russia is the clear aggressor. It and President Vladimir Putin could argue that Ukraine's entry into the European Union and especially NATO was a direct threat to Russia. Putin made his complaints about NATO's threat to Russia and its ignoring of Moscow's interests known in his 2007 Munich Security Conference remarks. Yet, Putin's arguments rest in the notion that Russia is Ukraine and Ukraine is Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia will never be whole. Trump recognizes this view. In October, he said Ukraine was always 'the apple' in Putin's eye. Sometimes the human element is never understood despite facts and reality. Putin may reflect this vis a vis Ukraine. Trump too has idiosyncratic views that clash with reality. His obsession with tariffs to cope with the deficits in the U.S. trade balance is one. Trump believes that tariffs will build down debt and deficits. Reality defies that. Trump also ignores that accounting has two balances: the trade and capital accounts. Trade is the balance of all goods and services consumed by a country. Here the U.S. has large deficits. However, in the capital account, the U.S. has over $1 trillion surplus. That is financing U.S. debt and deficits. But Trump does not seem to recognize this. Trump asserts, some would say hyperbolically, that had he been president in 2022, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine. This is unprovable. But assuming Trump is correct, he has a clear hold over Putin. Is this because both are like-minded and Putin will accept Trump's arguments? Does Trump have special leverage over Putin either in terms of willpower or perhaps sufficiently damning intelligence no one else does? But to be objective, this war must end. The damage being done to both sides is absurd in a rational world. Trump is right. So how does this war end? Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tipped the administration's negotiating hand at the Munich Defense Conference in Germany. Ukraine will not join NATO. And there will be no territorial concessions. The White House tried to soften those comments and merely added to the confusion. Those are not unrealistic terms. The question is what are the quid pro quos to provide to Ukraine if not? As Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky asserted, he and Ukraine will not accept dictated terms for peace. Neville Chamberlain and Munich's peace in our time are applied to Trump. If peace is so important, will it come at Ukraine's expense? Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain's wingman, is taking a tough stand on not abandoning Ukraine. Winston Churchill, he is not. But will he have any influence? Trump's response is that Europe must assume the responsibility and burden for Ukraine's security and support, not the United States. At face value, this is not unreasonable. However, there is no Europe. There are states in Europe. France and Germany are in political difficulty without strong leadership. How much money could Europe raise for Ukraine — the hundreds of billions to sustain the military and rebuild a devastated country? The United Kingdom is not part of the European Union. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has inferred Britain could deploy troops to Ukraine. But he has a problem. The U.K. musters an army of 74,000 with cuts possible. Press reports show how the force has been 'hollowed out' and lacks capability to fight effectively. Whether correct or not, at most the U.K. could deploy a force of thousands, at best, which will be insufficient. And there is a larger and possibly untenable matter of NATO and its Article 5 in which 'an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.' Would that apply if war broke out between European NATO states in Ukraine and Russia? That of course raises the question of escalation even if Trump prevails and the agreement makes no concessions on territory or NATO membership. And suppose Europe is not keen to take on this responsibility it cannot afford or risk expanding the conflict? If he is to succeed, the great dealmaker better have many aces up his sleeve. Harlan Ullman Ph.D. is United Press International's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior advisor at Washington D.C.'s Atlantic Council, chairman of two private companies and principal author of the shock and awe military doctrine. His next book, due in 2025, is 'The Great Paradox: Strategic Thinking in an Unstrategic World.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
24-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
How do we end the war without ending Ukraine itself?
Let us assume that President Donald Trump is correct and that the war, killing and carnage arising from the war in Ukraine must be stopped. The question is, at what cost and to whom? Russia occupied Crimea in 2014 and controls about 20 percent of Ukraine covering Donbass and Donetsk. These three regions have substantial Russian-leaning populations. The hard fact is that Russia is the clear aggressor. It and President Vladimir Putin could argue that Ukraine's entry into the European Union and especially NATO was a direct threat to Russia. Putin made his complaints about NATO's threat to Russia and its ignoring of Moscow's interests known in his 2007 Munich Security Conference remarks. Yet, Putin's arguments rest in the notion that Russia is Ukraine and Ukraine is Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia will never be whole. Trump recognizes this view. In October, he said Ukraine was always ' the apple ' in Putin's eye. Sometimes the human element is never understood despite facts and reality. Putin may reflect this vis a vis Ukraine. Trump too has idiosyncratic views that clash with reality. His obsession with tariffs to cope with the deficits in the U.S. trade balance is one. Trump believes that tariffs will build down debt and deficits. Reality defies that. Trump also ignores that accounting has two balances: the trade and capital accounts. Trade is the balance of all goods and services consumed by a country. Here the U.S. has large deficits. However, in the capital account, the U.S. has over $1 trillion surplus. That is financing U.S. debt and deficits. But Trump does not seem to recognize this. Trump asserts, some would say hyperbolically, that had he been president in 2022, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine. This is unprovable. But assuming Trump is correct, he has a clear hold over Putin. Is this because both are like-minded and Putin will accept Trump's arguments? Does Trump have special leverage over Putin either in terms of willpower or perhaps sufficiently damning intelligence no one else does? But to be objective, this war must end. The damage being done to both sides is absurd in a rational world. Trump is right. So how does this war end? Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tipped the administration's negotiating hand at the Munich Defense Conference in Germany. Ukraine will not join NATO. And there will be no territorial concessions. The White House tried to soften those comments and merely added to the confusion. Those are not unrealistic terms. The question is what are the quid pro quos to provide to Ukraine if not? As Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky asserted, he and Ukraine will not accept dictated terms for peace. Neville Chamberlain and Munich's peace in our time are applied to Trump. If peace is so important, will it come at Ukraine's expense? Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain's wingman, is taking a tough stand on not abandoning Ukraine. Winston Churchill, he is not. But will he have any influence? Trump's response is that Europe must assume the responsibility and burden for Ukraine's security and support, not the United States. At face value, this is not unreasonable. However, there is no Europe. There are states in Europe. France and Germany are in political difficulty without strong leadership. How much money could Europe raise for Ukraine — the hundreds of billions to sustain the military and rebuild a devastated country? The United Kingdom is not part of the European Union. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has inferred Britain could deploy troops to Ukraine. But he has a problem. The U.K. musters an army of 74,000 with cuts possible. Press reports show how the force has been ' hollowed out ' and lacks capability to fight effectively. Whether correct or not, at most the U.K. could deploy a force of thousands, at best, which will be insufficient. And there is a larger and possibly untenable matter of NATO and its Article 5 in which 'an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.' Would that apply if war broke out between European NATO states in Ukraine and Russia? That of course raises the question of escalation even if Trump prevails and the agreement makes no concessions on territory or NATO membership. And suppose Europe is not keen to take on this responsibility it cannot afford or risk expanding the conflict? If he is to succeed, the great dealmaker better have many aces up his sleeve. Harlan Ullman Ph.D. is United Press International's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior advisor at Washington D.C.'s Atlantic Council, chairman of two private companies and principal author of the shock and awe military doctrine. His next book, due in 2025, is 'The Great Paradox: Strategic Thinking in an Unstrategic World.'
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Zelensky sanctions former Ukrainian President Porosenko, others
Feb. 13 (UPI) -- President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday signed off on sanctions against former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and other prominent Russia-leaning officials. Zelensky signed the sanctions against Poroshenko, who was sanctioned on suspicion of "high treason" and assisting a terrorist organization, after approval from his National Security and Defense Council. Sanctions were also imposed against some of the wealthiest men in Ukraine, including Ihor Kolomoisky, Konstanin Zhevago, and Hennadiy Boholyubov, the former co-owner of PrivateBank. Another former Russian-leaning lawmaker, Viktor Medvedchuk, was also sanctioned on accusations of treason. Kolomoisky already faces fraud and money laundering accusations in Ukraine, while Boholyubov is accused of embezzlement. Zhevago, a billionaire and former lawmaker, is blamed for actions that led to the collapse of Finance and Credit Bank in 2015. Poroshenko, who has called the charges against him a "politically motivated" witch hunt, said Zelensky was causing divisions within Ukraine with the sanctions. "Today, Zelensky has dealt a huge blow to the internal unity that our team has been strictly adhering to since February 2022 and which is our main weapon in the fight against the aggressor," Poroshenko said. Poroshenko, who has shared in 19 companies, was facing multiple investigations on criminal wrongdoing but those trials were put on hold during Russia's invasion. He is a member of Ukraine's European Solidarity Party.
