#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40009835

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden underscored American support for Ukraine in a call Thursday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as the White House seeks to stave off a feared Russian invasion of Ukraine that could dramatically escalate the conflict there.

The conversation took place roughly 48 hours after Biden spoke on a two-hour video call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, warning the Kremlin leader of severe economic consequences if he once again decides to invade neighboring Ukraine.

For weeks, U.S. officials have been tracking a buildup of Russian forces by the border with Ukraine and warning allies of the possibility of a new offensive. An unclassified U.S. intelligence analysis, reported last week by The Washington Post, found the Kremlin is making plans for an invasion that could come early next year and include as many as 175,000 forces.

The White House believes Putin has not decided yet whether to proceed. The Kremlin has denied any such plans, accusing Washington of fueling a war scare.

“The President of the United States informed me of the content of his negotiations with Putin,” Zelensky said after the conversation ended. “We also discussed possible formats for resolving the conflict in Donbas and touched upon the course of internal reforms in Ukraine.” Donbas is the region in eastern Ukraine where Russian-backed fighters are battling Ukrainian forces.

Biden also held a call Thursday with the “Bucharest Nine” – a group of NATO members on Europe’s eastern flank that includes Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria. Because of their proximity to Russia, those countries are highly sensitive to any sign that Moscow is taking an aggressive posture toward its neighbors.

Thursday’s call between Biden and Zelensky came as top Russian officials issued warnings on Ukraine that further raised tensions in the region and sought to cast Kyiv as an aggressor that Russia had little alternative but to confront – a framing that Ukrainian officials reject.

Russia seized the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014, and since then has provided support to pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine’s eastern region. The United States and Europe have denounced those actions as illegal, but Russia says Ukrainian citizens friendly to Russia are under threat from the government in Kyiv.

Putin told Russia’s Human Rights Council on Thursday that Russophobia is the “first step toward genocide,” reviving the sort of arguments about Russian people in Ukraine that the Kremlin promoted in the run-up to its first invasion in 2014.

“What’s happening now in the Donbas – you and I can see it – we know is very reminiscent of genocide,” Putin said.

Gen. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian military’s general staff, warned the government in Kyiv against using military force to reclaim disputed territory held by Kremlin-backed separatists in the country’s east. Gerasimov said any such actions by Kyiv would be suppressed by Moscow – and warned that deliveries of drones, aircraft and helicopters to Ukraine from the West were “pushing Ukrainian authorities towards abrupt and dangerous steps.”

“Information being spread in the media about Russia allegedly preparing an invasion of Ukraine is a lie,” Gerasimov said during a meeting in Russia with foreign military attaches.

He said NATO countries were paying excessive attention to Russia’s troop movements on its own soil, and described the domestic redeployment of units during combat training as “a routine practice for the armed forces of any state.”

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Ukraine on Thursday of moving heavy weaponry toward the conflict zone in the Donbas region, saying peace talks on the conflict had reached a dead end. Russia’s Federal Security Service also warned that a Ukrainian warship was moving toward the Kerch Strait and not responding to calls by Russia to change course.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday it was abundantly clear that Russia, not Ukraine, was the aggressor in the current situation.

In a statement after his call with Biden, Zelensky said he had thanked the U.S. president for his consistent support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Putin has warned that the military activities of NATO countries in and around Ukraine have crossed Russia’s red lines and has called for a written guarantee that the U.S.-led military alliance will not expand eastward, a request the White House has rejected.

During his call with Putin, Biden agreed to engage in talks on Russia’s security concerns in Europe, including the question of NATO activities.

On Thursday, Biden said the U.S. and Russian teams had been in constant contact since the call and expressed hope that by Friday the White House would announce high-level meetings on the matter between Russia, together with four major NATO allies.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said such talks were necessary. If the United States and its NATO allies continue on their current trajectory and do not come to appreciate Russia’s concerns, he said, it could lead to tension akin to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

“We certainly could suddenly wake up and see something similar to that, given the logic of the unfolding events,” Ryabkov said, according to Russian state news agency RIA Novosti. “That will be a failure of diplomacy. But there is still time to try to come to an agreement on a sensible basis.”

Published : December 10, 2021

By : The Washington Post

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40009834

WASHINGTON – The Senate on Thursday advanced a bipartisan deal that paves the way for lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling, a move that positions Congress to stave off a catastrophic default ahead of a fast-approaching fiscal deadline.

Fourteen Republicans joined Democrats in overcoming a key procedural hurdle and setting up a final vote on the unusual arrangement, which does not actually lift the cap – but rather tweaks Senate rules on a one-time basis so lawmakers can tackle the matter more swiftly.

The House adopted the measure on Tuesday. The Senate is expected to hold a final vote to approve it before the end of the week, allowing President Joe Biden to sign a bill that also prevents a series of automatic cuts to Medicare. That could tee up Congress next week to raise the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars, covering federal spending obligations beyond the 2022 midterm elections – and defusing another potential last-minute conflict until after the political fate of the Capitol is decided.

Republicans including Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) backed the compromise, which had been brokered by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

“The nation’s debt has been incurred on a bipartisan basis, so I’m pleased that this responsible action will be taken today to facilitate a process that avoids a default,” Schumer said in a speech that praised McConnell before the vote. “This is the responsible path forward: no brinkmanship, no default on the debt, no risk of another recession.”

But some Republicans still expressed unease with the idea ahead of its passage, arguing they should not have provided any help to Democrats on the matter. “They have been spending money on a partisan basis without input from Republicans,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told reporters before opposing the bill.

The sharpest criticism came from former president Donald Trump, who attacked McConnell earlier this week for negotiating with his political foes – even though Trump himself had to rely on Democratic votes to raise the debt ceiling during his administration.

“The Dems would have folded completely if Mitch properly played his hand,” Trump said.

The bitterly divided Senate reached the compromise earlier this week, resolving a months-long battle between Democrats and Republicans that carried immense financial stakes – threatening, in the case of inaction, to plunge the economy into a recession.

McConnell initially had refused to supply GOP votes for a direct increase in the debt ceiling, which allows the United States to borrow money to pay its bills, as part of the party’s opposition to Biden’s broader spending agenda. Instead, he called on Democrats to address the measure on their own using the same legislative maneuver they intend to invoke to pass a $2 trillion initiative that aims to overhaul federal health care, education, climate and tax laws.

But Schumer refused to take that route, arguing it was too politically risky so close to a deadline. Some Democrats also had hoped to suspend the debt cap, rather than raise it by a specific amount, to dodge political attacks entering the midterm elections. And many blasted Republicans for hypocrisy, since Democrats still aided Trump on the debt ceiling even when the former president pursued policies that his foes did not like.

The political stalemate nearly pushed the country to the fiscal brink in October, raising the potential for a global economic disruption, until McConnell relented and Republicans supplied the necessary handful of votes to adopt a short-term increase. That bought the U.S. government until Dec. 15, at which point Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has predicted the country may not have enough money to cover its financial obligations.

Both sides consequently embraced the new arrangement as a political victory. Republicans won’t have to vote again on an actual, numerical increase to the debt ceiling, and Democrats can say they did so after some measure of bipartisanship and without risk of GOP obstruction. The fast-track procedure guarantees a vote on the increase set at a simple majority, with no opportunity for a filibuster.

Published : December 10, 2021

By : The Washington Post

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40009832

PARIS – If European citizens were asked which country currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union, chances are that many wouldnt be able to name the correct member state. (The answer is Slovenia.)

But when it will be France’s turn to assume the rotating presidency on Jan. 1, French President Emmanuel Macron wants to make sure Europeans know who’s in charge – or perhaps, who would like to be.

He laid out bold ambitions for the presidency on Thursday in a two-hour news conference that touched on nearly every issue central to the future of the 27-nation club and its 440 million residents. His aim, he said, is to transform the bloc into “a Europe that is powerful in the world, fully sovereign, free in its choices and master of its destiny.”

At times, his remarks resembled a reelection pitch aimed at French voters. And it would not have been lost on anyone listening that France’s sixth-month term overlaps with a French presidential election in April.

Macron has not officially declared his reelection bid – and he refused to say anything about it Thursday – but he is widely expected to run. The E.U. presidency could give him a way to present himself as Europe’s de facto leader in the final campaign stretch. It is also possible that he may no longer be the French president by the time the E.U. term ends.

Macron proposed several changes on several topics Thursday – including border security, Europe’s social model, climate action and economic growth. But it remains unclear how far he will get implementing those efforts.

The rotating E.U. presidency does not bring with it much power. To the extent that it raises a country’s profile, that may matter more to places such as tiny Luxembourg, with its 630,000 people, than to France, with its population of 67 million and far greater economic clout.

And while the E.U. presidency enables some agenda-setting, agendas can get quickly bogged down by competing national interests and complex E.U. processes.

France will assume the presidency at a time when the E.U. faces numerous challenges. The coronavirus pandemic has deflated member states’ budgets and continues to take a heavy toll, particularly in Europe’s least vaccinated countries, where death rates have spiked again. Meanwhile, tensions with Russia and China could force the E.U. to toughen its foreign policy, which has often been a careful balancing act between economic interests and human rights concerns.

Macron’s proposed a reaction force that would assist E.U. nations in migration emergencies – something that has gained some traction since Belarus opened routes for migrants to reach E.U. borders in retaliation for European sanctions. Macron also wants to revisit the Schengen system, which enables Europeans to cross borders without checks.

Those proposals were probably aimed at migration-skeptical nations, largely in the E.U.’s east, as well as a domestic audience.

The presidential candidates polling second and third behind Macron – Marine Le Pen and Éric Zemmour – both represent France’s far right and are running on anti-immigration platforms. Many on the right see Macron as having been too soft on migration, even though left-wing critics say his government’s crackdowns on migrants have gone too far.

Macron weighed in on a range of other issues that have captured the French public’s attention in recent months, including the country’s numerous disputes with post-Brexit Britain.

“I love Great Britain. I love its people,” Macron said. “I really crave a government that just wants to work in good faith with us.”

He also indicated an interest in expanding pandemic-related economic stimulus measures. A number of countries, including neighboring Germany, have been skeptical of such measures.

On Friday, Macron will meet in Paris with new German chancellor Olaf Scholz, Angela Merkel’s successor.

Merkel long dominated European politics. Macron’s hopes to lead the E.U. into a new chapter may now also rise, or fall, depending on her successor’s ambitions and sway.

Published : December 10, 2021

By : The Washington Post

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40009830

Mayor Muriel Bowser on Thursday announced that D.C. will bolster its violence prevention and mitigation strategies after city homicides surpassed 200 for the first time since 2003.

As part of the new effort, Bowser – a Democrat who declared gun violence a “public health crisis” earlier this year – said D.C.’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE) will drastically expand its fleet of violence interrupters, who are tasked with ingratiating themselves into “priority” D.C. neighborhoods to defuse potentially violent conflicts. Officials said the number of interrupters will swell from 30 to 80, and their work will expand into three new communities for a total of 25 city neighborhoods.

ONSE Director Del McFadden said the new neighborhoods were selected based on crime data, community insight and peace negotiation strategies. In addition to increasing the number of interrupters in already prioritized neighborhoods, McFadden said the office will also launch a “floating” violence intervention team next year to respond to violent incidents.

There have been at least 211 homicides in the District this year, an 11% increase over this time in 2020 and the most since 2003. Bowser said the new intervention efforts were made possible through federal funding in her fiscal 2022 budget, including $9.6 million to expand and intensify violence intervention and protection work at ONSE. The city will also use $4.5 million in federal funds to expand the office’s Pathways Program to 130 participants. The transitional employment program aims to keep residents out of the criminal justice system and away from violent crime through education and building job skills.

Later this month, Bowser said, the city will award $1.1 million in grants to community-based and nonprofit organizations working to reduce gun violence.

The investments build upon the city’s overall approach to violence prevention: Last month, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, a Democrat, announced an expansion to his office’s Cure the Streets program, which uses similar violence-intervention strategies in an effort to keep neighborhoods safe. Thanks to a boost in funding from the D.C. Council, the effort will operate in four new areas with high levels of gun violence.

At Thursday’s news conference, McFadden acknowledged that it is challenging to measure the impact of intervention work, namely quantifying the number of crimes averted. But he said there was a decrease in gun crimes and gun homicides last year in the priority communities of focus for ONSE – a trend he says has continued this year. McFadden said this data will be posted for each community this month and will be updated quarterly.

Charles King, a violence interrupter with ONSE who works in multiple D.C. neighborhoods, agreed that he and his colleagues’ impact can be tricky to measure.

But King, 40, said he was able to recently quash a conflict between individuals in two locations because of connections he had made with some of their family members.

“I was able to say reach back to the other side and say listen, this situation is not going to be a problem moving forward, and it was defused,” he said. “Everything is based on relationships in our line of work.”

Published : December 10, 2021

By : The Washington Post

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40009829

A federal appeals court on Thursday resoundingly rejected former president Donald Trumps bid to keep his White House documents secret from a congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, setting up an emergency Supreme Court review.

Athree-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court’s opinion, which said that in a dispute between a current and past president over whether to release White House records, the sitting president must prevail.

In blunt and at times blistering language, Judges Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins and Ketanji Brown Jackson denied Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the National Archives and Records Administration from releasing the first roughly 800 pages of disputed Trump papers after President Joe Biden declined to assert executive privilege as requested by his predecessor, setting up the first of its kind constitutional controversy.

“Lives were lost, blood was shed; portions of the Capitol building were badly damaged; and the lives of members of the House and Senate, as well as aides, staffers, and others who were working in the building, were endangered,” the court said of the riots that stalled Congress’s confirmation of the 2020 election results, adding, “There is a direct linkage between the former President and the events of the day.”

At the same time, the 68-page opinion continued, “Former President Trump has given this court no legal reason to cast aside President Biden’s assessment of the Executive Branch interests at stake, or to create a separation of powers conflict that the Political Branches have avoided.”

Writing for the court, Millett concluded, “Benjamin Franklin said, at the founding, that we have ‘[a] Republic – if [we] can keep it.’ The events of January 6th exposed the fragility of those democratic institutions and traditions that we had perhaps come to take for granted. In response, the President of the United States and Congress have each made the judgment that access to this subset of presidential communication records is necessary to address a matter of great constitutional moment for the Republic.”

Trump spokeswoman Liz Harrington said the former president would ask the Supreme Court to intervene. The D.C. Circuit gave his lawyers 14 days to do so, which means the records will not immediately be turned over to Congress.

“Regardless of today’s decision by the appeals court, this case was always destined for the Supreme Court,” Harrington posted on Twitter. “President Trump’s duty to defend the Constitution and the Office of the Presidency continues, and he will keep fighting for every American and every future Administration.”

The House Investigative Committee in August requested Trump’s official communications and activities leading up to lawmakers’ confirmation of the electoral college results on the day that a riot by Trump supporters – angered by his unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen – forced the evacuation of the Capitol.

Trump sued, demanding that hundreds of pages of his White House call and visitor logs, emails, draft speeches and notes be kept secret. He argued he had residual rights to executive privilege as former president even though Biden agreed to the release of the material.

Trump’s attorneys asked the appeals court to block release of the documents and to reverse a Nov. 9 lower-court ruling against him by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Trump attorney Justin Clark said that former presidents retain the right to object and that such disputes should be settled in court.

Trump filed suit on Oct. 18, naming as defendants Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, and National Archivist David Ferriero.

In expedited oral arguments Nov. 30, Millett noted that past Supreme Court decisions give more deference to the determinations of the sitting president.

“We have one president at a time under our Constitution,” Millett said.

But she also expressed concern that future presidents could be hobbled if the confidentiality of their deliberations were to expire the minute they leave office. Facing a first-of-its-kind dispute between Trump and Biden, she and the other judges struggled to come up with what rules to apply.

“Whatever the incumbent president says, goes?” Judge Wilkins asked the lawyer for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “We don’t just flip a coin.”

In rejecting Trump’s request Thursday, the court acknowledged the need for confidentiality when it comes to presidential communications and said, “We do not come to that conclusion lightly.”

But the judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, said national interests override Trump’s assertion of executive privilege in this instance. Trump is asking the court to invalidate the judgments of both the president and Congress, and “to delay the Committee’s work, and derail the negotiations and accommodations that the Political Branches have made,” the opinion said.

“A former President must meet the same legal standards for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief as everyone else,” the opinion states. “And former President Trump has failed that task.”

The opinion credits Biden’s rationale for not asserting executive privilege, saying that “the scales tilt even more firmly against the contrary views of the former president.” Courts should not “second guess the expert judgment of the sitting president about the current needs of the Executive Branch and the best interests of the United States on matters of such gravity and so squarely within the president’s” discretion.

Millett wrote that Trump provided no basis for judges to override Biden’s “judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents.” Both the White House and Congress agreed there was “a unique legislative need” for the records that they were directly relevant to an attack on Congress and “its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power.”

The court cited several reasons for why Trump’s novel legal claims were unlikely to prevail. The opinion said Biden gave “carefully reasoned and cabined determination” that secrecy was not in the national interest and Congress had a “uniquely vital interest” in studying the Jan. 6 attack. The documents are relevant and would be unavailable elsewhere, the court said.

“Former President Trump likewise has failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of interests and equities weigh decisively in favor of disclosure,” the judges wrote.

Information from within the White House, the opinion states, is also critical to understanding “what intelligence failures led the government to be underprepared for such a violent attack, and what can be done to expedite the mobilization of law enforcement forces in a crisis on Capitol Hill going forward.”

Published : December 10, 2021

By : The Washington Post

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40009821

The number of Covid-19 cases crossed 14.31 million across Southeast Asia, with 28,034 new cases reported on Thursday (December 9). New deaths are at 536, bringing accumulated Covid-19 deaths in Asean to 296,066.

Brunei reported 39 new confirmed cases of Covid-19 on Thursday, bringing the total tally to 15,283 with 100 deaths. The country’s Minister of Health said earlier that the Sinopharm vaccine of China and other Covid-19 vaccines approved by his ministry and the World Health Organization have proved effective in containing the spread of Covid-19 in the country. The minister also said it is expected that the effectiveness of the vaccines in the body will reduce over time and “that is why we have implemented the Booster Program in the country”.

Meanwhile, Singapore’s Ministry of Health reported that two Covid-19 cases who tested preliminarily positive for the Omicron variant have been detected. One of them is a front-line worker at Changi Airport- the first local case – and the other is an imported case. Both cases are fully vaccinated and have received their booster shots. One is asymptomatic while the other has mild symptoms.
 

Published : December 10, 2021

By : THE NATION

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40009797

“Merkel sort of created the role after a few years as chancellor, and nobody could have predicted that would happen at the start. It may be that were back in that situation at this moment.”

After Angela Merkel formally handed over the control of the German chancellery to successor Olaf Scholz, analysts say it will take months before it becomes clear who will replace Merkel in her other leadership role — that of the informal leader of the European Union (EU).

Merkel served as chancellor of Europe’s largest economy for 16 years before stepping down on Wednesday. She was also the de facto leader of the 27-nation European Union, helping shape European policy on an array of issues ranging from economic bailouts and efforts to create a pan-European tax policy to refugee policies and confronting the coronavirus pandemic.

“She didn’t weigh in on every European issue, but there’s no doubt that during most of her tenure as chancellor, Merkel provided a recognizable and predictable leadership role on a European level,” Jon Worth, an author, commentator, and professor at the College of Europe in Belgium focusing on EU issues, told Xinhua.

Angela Merkel arrives for the Group of Twenty (G20) Leaders

Related Stories

• Olaf Scholz becomes chancellor as Germany faces Covid, Russia risks
• Omicron raises vaccine questions a year after first Pfizer shot
• Biden weighs Russian bank sanctions if Putin invades Ukraine

“There is no automatic replacement for her in that role,” Worth said.

Over time, Worth and other analysts said, someone else could grow into this role.

Will it be Scholz, who, like Merkel, will have Europe’s largest economy behind him? Could it be France’s Emmanuel Macron, head of the government in the EU’s second-largest economy since 2017?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (R) talks with German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz before her speech in the Bundestag in Berlin, Germany, Aug. 25, 2021. (Xinhua/Shan Yuqi)

Or might Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, highly respected as the head of the European Central Bank from 2011 to 2019, fill the role? Could the vacuum left by Merkel’s departure expand the role of the president of the European Commission, currently held by former German Minister of Defense Ursula von der Leyen?

According to Worth, Macron and Draghi are the most likely candidates. Scholz, he said, could increase his role if he first proves to be an effective German leader heading a stable coalition.

According to Raffaele Marchetti, an international relations professor at Rome’s LUISS University, none of the likely candidates fit Merkel’s European role easily.

Scholz is too new on the scene, he said, and Macron faces an uncertain future with national elections coming up in France in April 2022.

Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi (R) shakes hand with French President Emmanuel Macron in Rome, Italy, on Nov. 25, 2021. (Str/Xinhua)

A similar point could be made for Draghi, who might step down as prime minister to replace Sergio Mattarella as president (Mattarella’s term will conclude in late January).

Meanwhile, many analysts argue that as president of the European Commission, von der Leyen has too low a profile and has too many technical and bureaucratic obligations to assert the kind of informal authority Merkel had.

Brussels, Belgium, on Dec. 11, 2020. (European Union/Handout via Xinhua)

Gian Franco Gallo, a political affairs analyst working with ABS Securities in Milan and Paris, said Europe may have to move forward for a while without a figure with Merkel’s gravitas.

“There’s no official need for an informal leader of the European Union,” Gallo told Xinhua.

“Merkel sort of created the role after a few years as chancellor, and nobody could have predicted that would happen at the start. It may be that we’re back in that situation at this moment.” 

European Council President Charles Michel, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Angela Merkel (L to R) are seen after the EU summit in Brussels, Belgium, on Dec. 11, 2020. (European Union/Handout via Xinhua)

Published : December 09, 2021

By : Xinhua