Today’s News? – Page 44 – The Tarbabys Blog

EXPLAINER-What did Trump say about NATO funding and what is Article 5?

Reuters

EXPLAINER-What did Trump say about NATO funding and what is Article 5?

Andrew Gray and Sabine Siebold – February 12, 2024

BRUSSELS, Feb 12 (Reuters) – Former U.S. President Donald Trump raised a storm of criticism from the White House and top Western officials for suggesting he would not defend NATO allies who failed to spend enough on defence and would even encourage Russia to attack them.

Here are the answers to some key questions about NATO, the comments by Trump – who is running for another term in the White House in November and leading President Joe Biden in some polls – and their implications.

WHAT IS NATO? Founded in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union with Cold War tensions rising, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a political and military alliance of countries from North America and Europe.

Enshrined in Article 5 of its founding treaty is the principle of collective defence – the idea that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all of them.

NATO takes decisions by consensus but the political and military strength of the United States means that it is by far the most powerful country in the alliance, with its nuclear arsenal seen as the ultimate security guarantee.

WHICH COUNTRIES ARE IN NATO?

NATO currently has 31 members – most of them European nations, plus the United States and Canada. The newest member is Finland, which joined last April in reaction to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Sweden applied to join along with Finland but is waiting for Hungary to ratify its application as the final major step before membership.

During the Cold War, NATO’s main focus was protecting Western Europe from the Soviet Union. After the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO expanded to take in former communist bloc countries from Central and Eastern Europe.

NATO’s members range from large countries such as Britain, France, Germany and Turkey to small nations such as Iceland and Montenegro.

WHAT DID TRUMP SAY ABOUT NATO?

As U.S. president from 2017-21, Trump often lambasted NATO and members such as Germany, accusing them of not paying enough for their own defence and relying on Washington to protect them. He openly questioned the collective defence principle.

Other U.S. administrations have also accused Europeans of not spending enough on defence, but in less strident terms.

Trump took his criticism to a new level at a campaign rally on Saturday in Conway, South Carolina, when he recounted what he said was a conversation with the “president of a big country”.

“Well sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia – will you protect us?” Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying.

“I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ He said: ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay,” Trump said.

HOW IS NATO FUNDED?

Trump has often accused other NATO members of not paying their dues, giving the impression that the alliance is like a club with membership fees.

But NATO operates differently. It has some common funds, to which all members contribute. But the vast bulk of its strength comes from members’ own national defence spending – to maintain forces and buy arms that can also be used by NATO. However, NATO members have committed to spending at least 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) every year on defence – and most of them did not meet that goal last year.

HOW MANY NATO MEMBERS MEET THE DEFENCE SPENDING TARGET? According to NATO estimates from July last year, 11 members were expected to meet the 2% target in 2023. Those members were Poland, the United States, Greece, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Britain and Slovakia.

Germany, Europe’s economic heavyweight, was estimated at 1.57%. But German officials have said they expect to meet the 2% target this year, partly thanks to a special 1-billion-euro fund established in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The lowest spenders as a share of national GDP were Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg, according to the NATO figures.

NATO is expected to release updated figures in the coming days that will show more allies meeting the 2% target, according to people familiar with the data.

WHAT IS NATO’S ARTICLE 5?

In Article 5 of the founding treaty, NATO members declared that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America “shall be considered an attack against them all”.

They agreed they would “assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”.

However, Article 5 stops short of a commitment to an automatic military response to help an ally under attack. That means the strength of Article 5 depends on clear statements from political leaders that it will be backed up by action. This is one reason Trump’s comments caused such a furore, particularly as they came at a time of heightened alarm in NATO about Russia’s intentions, following its invasion of Ukraine.

By suggesting he would not take military action to defend an ally, Trump undermined the assumptions that give Article 5 its power.

“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Sunday. (Reporting by Andrew Gray and Sabine Siebold; editing by Mark Heinrich)

Carlson interview solidified one thing about Putin — he’s off the rails

Business Insider

Russia historians say the Tucker Carlson interview solidified one thing about Putin — he’s off the rails

Erin Snodgrass and Kelsey Vlamis – February 12, 2024

Vladimir Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson showcased his delusions, two Russia experts said.
Putin attempted to negate Ukraine’s sovereignty through his version of Russian history.
US senators are working to provide aid to Ukraine and Israel, but it may not survive the House.

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a strange performance fueled by Russian propaganda and imperialist posturing in his interview with right-wing media host Tucker Carlson last week.

The two-hour interview revealed little new information about the war in Ukraine — beyond that it is likely to continue — but did manage to highlight Putin’s increasing delusion, according to two Russia historians.

“Putin’s performance was strange,” said Robert English, a professor at the University of Southern California who studies Russia, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe.

For nearly 30 uninterrupted minutes, Putin rattled off his version of Russian history in an apparent attempt to prove that Ukraine is not a sovereign country. Countless historians and analysts have refuted Putin’s sovereignty claims since the war began in February 2022.

The Russian president parroted in great, slogging detail many of the erroneous talking points he’s used over the years to bolster his belief that Ukraine ought to be under Russian control.

“Putin seems like a delusional man who has lost touch with reality, yammering on about Rurik and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,” said Simon Miles, an assistant professor at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and a historian of the Soviet Union and US-Soviet relations.

“The first question where Carlson asks about outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine — as if they just spontaneously combusted and Putin didn’t invade, starting the war — really set the tone,” Miles wrote in an email to BI.

The interview, which streamed Thursday on Carlson’s website and X, comes at a key moment in Ukraine’s fight for ongoing US assistance.

Putin could have easily blamed the invasion on Russia’s fear of an expanding NATO presence in the region, English said. If Putin had acquiesced even a bit — hinting at the possibility of eventual reconciliation — he may have been able to turn the tide even further against continued US assistance to Ukraine.

“Instead, he showed that it wasn’t Russian insecurity, but Putin’s personal imperialism, that motivated the war,” English said. “And so those watching in the West may well conclude that he still wants to conquer all of Ukraine, that he will never respect its sovereignty, and so the West must keep the weapons flowing to Kyiv.”

“He could have shown that he is reasonable and open to a fair compromise,” English added. “Instead, he showed that he is both imperious as well as imperialistic, and so compromise with him may be impossible.”

In their read of the interview, the New Yorker’s Masha Gessen noted the danger of Putin’s delusion.

“But the way Putin described the beginning of the Second World War in his interview with Carlson suggests that, although he keeps accusing Ukraine of fostering Nazism, in his mind, he might see himself as Hitler, but perhaps a wilier one, one who can make inroads into the United States and create an alliance with its presumed future President,” Gessen wrote.

Former President Donald Trump made comments over the weekend that added to the potential dangers of Putin’s view. The GOP frontrunner said the US should allow Russia to attack non-paying NATO countries and even “encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”

Meanwhile, US senators are working to advance a bill that would provide aid to Ukraine and Israel, but its prospects in the House remain uncertain.

Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson gave Putin exactly want he wants

Salon – Opinion

Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson gave Putin exactly want he wants

Heather Digby Parton – February 12, 2024

Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images

As we all know, the biggest story in the world is the breaking news that President Joe Biden is old. Sure 9/11 was something of a big deal and the war in Iraq and the global pandemic required all of our attention for a time, but this is the most important news of our lifetime, maybe anyone’s lifetime and there’s no telling when, or if, the nation will ever recover. Still, it’s probably important to at least pay a tiny bit of attention to other things happening in the world just in case they might also be affected by Biden’s age in some way.

In fact, we probably should be just a little bit curious about what former Fox News celebrity Tucker Carlson was doing in Moscow last week interviewing Russian president Vladimir Putin. Carlson has demonstrated his affinity for Putin for years now and is commonly extolled on the Russian state television channels as a model American with all the right ideas. Back in March of 2022, Mother Jones obtained a copy of a Kremlin memo with talking points for the media:

“It is essential to use as much as possible fragments of broadcasts of the popular Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who sharply criticizes the actions of the United States [and] NATO, their negative role in unleashing the conflict in Ukraine, [and] the defiantly provocative behavior from the leadership of the Western countries and NATO towards the Russian Federation and towards President Putin, personally,” advises the 12-page document written in Russian. It sums up Carlson’s position: “Russia is only protecting its interests and security.” The memo includes a quote from Carlson: “And how would the US behave if such a situation developed in neighboring Mexico or Canada?”

(People like Carlson used to be called “useful idiots.”) Russian state media has followed those instructions and for the past two years has featured Carlson’s commentary regularly. It’s therefore not all that surprising that he would be granted the coveted interview with Putin.

As it turns out the interview ended up mostly being a twisted history lesson from Putin with Carlson sitting there like a potted plant with a feigned fascinated expression on his face. The point of Putin’s tutorial was to explain why Russia has every right to invade Ukraine and anywhere else he might fancy. Putin went to great pains to explain why it was the victims of WWII who made Hitler do what he did, specifically the people of Poland, whom Putin blamed for balking at Hitler’s invasion of its country. The entire thrust of the conversation was a very thinly veiled threat to invade Poland. The Polish government certainly heard it that way. The foreign minister posted this on Friday:

He’s right. It isn’t the first time. Putin been saying it for years now and it’s one reason why the NATO alliance has not only been more unified than ever, but they’ve also welcomed Finland — another country that shares a border with Russia and is definitely on Putin’s wish list. Sweden has also applied for membership but is still being held up by Russia-friendly Hungary under the leadership of authoritarian dreamboat, Viktor Orban. (There is some hope that this last impediment will be lifted in the near future.) These are countries that had long resisted joining the alliance but moved quickly to do it when Putin expanded his invasion of Ukraine in 2022. They see the writing on the wall.

There’s been a ton written about the right’s attraction to Putin for reasons that range from affinity with his macho whiteness and adherence to “traditional values” (homophobia and misogyny) to an appreciation of his willingness to crack down on dissent. He’s their kind of guy. And we know that the man who leads their party, Donald Trump, admires him greatly because he says so all the time. When Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump was very impressed:

Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, ‘I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent’ – he used the word ‘independent’ – ‘and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”

He pays lip service to the idea that Putin is so afraid of Trump that he would never make a move without his permission but the truth is that Trump not only doesn’t care that Putin invaded a sovereign country, he is actively hostile to Ukraine, which he has been persuaded to hate for a variety of reasons many of which were likely put in his head by Putin himself. And he’s been opposed to the NATO alliance for years, mainly because he never understood what it does and why the U.S. should be a part of it. He even admitted it on the trail once back in 2016, saying “I said here’s the problem with NATO: it’s obsolete. Big statement to make when you don’t know that much about it, but I learn quickly.”

Whatever Trump may have learned came up against his unwillingness to ever admit he was wrong so he transformed his critique to the only thing he understands: money. He has repeatedly threatened to pull out of NATO because the other countries aren’t “making their payments” as if they’re members of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago beach club in arrears on their membership dues rather than a mutual defense alliance in which each country has agreed to spend a certain amount on its national defense.

Over the weekend he went further, however, and said something truly dangerous and unhinged:

This kind of loose talk is dangerous and stupid coming from a man who was once president of the United States and is running again. People believe him when he says something like that, not because they can’t take a joke or don’t know that he’s full of hot air, but because it’s entirely believable that he would do exactly that. Everyone knows he doesn’t care about America’s allies and he has made it clear over and over again that he sees no real benefit to them beyond a possible payout. He posted this on Sunday:

That’s a meaningless demand indicating that even after four years as president, Trump is still as shallow and vacuous as he was the day he was inaugurated. It’s no doubt a coincidence that he made these comments within days of the Carlson interview with Putin. I find it hard to believe that Trump slogged through that tedious conversation or understood what Putin was talking about. But you can bet that Putin heard Trump and rubbed his hands together with glee. If only the American people heard him just as clearly.

Tucker Carlson Defends Putin, Says ‘Leadership Requires Killing’ | Video

The Wrap

Tucker Carlson Defends Putin, Says ‘Leadership Requires Killing’ | Video

Sharon Knolle – February 12, 2024

Tucker Carlson had a curious defense of Vladimir Putin in his first interview since interviewing the Russian autocrat, saying “Every leader kills people, leadership requires killing.”

Carlson’s remarks were made at the 2024 World Government Summit in Dubai, where he was interviewed by Egyptian journalist Emad Eldin Adeeb.

Adeeb asked Carlson why he neglected to ask Putin about such pressing topics as the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. “I’m not going to lecture you, but you should challenge some ideas,” said Adeeb. “You did not talk about freedom of speech, you did not talk about Navlny…”

Carlson replied that other journalists had already posed such questions to Putin, adding, essentially, that it’s not news that Putin has ordered hits on his enemies. “Every leader kills people, leadership requires killing,” said the former Fox News anchor. (Carlson’s comments that “leadership requires killing” appear about 17 minutes into the 26-minute segment.)

Although Carlson did ask Putin about the potential release of detained Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich during the interview that took place in Moscow, he told Adeeb that his primary goal was to “let Putin talk” and “hear his thoughts.” Carlson said that positioning himself as the “good guy” to Putin’s “bad guy” would “not be fruitful.”

When Adeeb asked about Carlson’s response to the criticism leveled at him over his Putin interview, Carlson responded,”I don’t like the internet and I haven’t seen any of the reactions.” Adeeb asked specifically if Carlson had heard Hillary Clinton’s summation that he had proved “a useful idiot” to the Russian dictator and he claimed not to have heard about it.https://www.youtube.com/embed/mMXikZM_O80?feature=oembed

“She’s a child, I don’t listen to her,” he said of the former Secretary of State.

While Carlson insisted several times that he is “not flakking for Putin,” he did praise Moscow for being better than any current U.S. city. “Moscow is so much nicer than any city in my country, cleaner and safer and prettier. I grew up in a country that had cities like Moscow and Abu Dhabi, and Singapore and Tokyo, and we no longer have them.”

Decrying the “filth and graffiti” found in American cities and people “begging for drugs” in London, Carlson seemed to be saying that if he were in charge, those kinds of things would not happen: “My children don’t smoke marijuana at the breakfast table because I don’t allow them.”

Carlson also has a long history of supporting pro-Putin and pro-Russia talking points on issues like the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine or U.S.-Russia relations, and criticizing Putin’s enemies and people arrested and imprisoned by Russia.

Reagan’s daughter says he wouldn’t want to be in GOP today

The Hill

Reagan’s daughter says he wouldn’t want to be in GOP today

Elizabeth Crisp – February 12, 2024

Patti Davis, the daughter of former President Reagan, says her late father would be “appalled” by the state of politics today, and she doubts he would want to be associated with the Republican Party.

“I don’t see how he would want to be in it,” Davis told CNN’s Jim Acosta in an interview Sunday. “It’s so diametrically opposed to what he believed and to the dignity that he felt that people in government should have.”

It’s not the first time Davis, an actress and author who was estranged from her father for several years but reconciled before his death in 2004, has spoken unfavorably about the modern GOP.

She penned an open letter to Republicans in 2019, arguing they had disparaged her father to pump up former President Trump.

“You have claimed [my father’s] legacy, exalted him as an icon of conservatism and used the quotes of his that serve your purpose at any given moment,” Davis wrote. “Yet at this moment in America’s history when the democracy to which my father pledged himself and the Constitution that he swore to uphold, and did faithfully uphold, are being degraded and chipped away at by a sneering, irreverent man who traffics in bullying and dishonesty, you stay silent.”

During the CNN interview over the weekend, she said she believes her father would be saddened by the state of the nation.

“I think that he would be heartbroken and horrified about where America is and how mired we are in anger, in violence, in disrespect for one another,” she said. “I think he would heartbroken, and I think he would be scared.”

Feeling betrayed, Trump wants a second administration stocked with loyalists

NBC News

Feeling betrayed, Trump wants a second administration stocked with loyalists

Katherine Doyle, Jonathan Allen and Peter Nicholas – February 12, 2024

WASHINGTON — Sitting in the Oval Office in the infancy of his presidency in 2017, Donald Trump found himself surrounded by new aides who had worked for other prominent Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, his most bitter rival from the previous year’s primaries.

The “America First” president evidently worried that they wouldn’t now put the American president first.

Trump went around the room, inquisition-style, asking each aide to declare allegiance, according to a person who was present.

“He was quizzing people in the Oval if they were loyal to him or previous bosses,” the source recalled seven years later.

But no matter how much emphasis Trump put on loyalty in his first term, he found himself disappointed and frustrated when people he had hired chose other considerations over his instructions — their own reputations, future ambitions and even the Constitution.

During one meeting three years into his term, the president sat with his third defense secretary, Mark Esper, a top aide who had been tasked with installing loyalists in the administration and other senior advisers. The aides wondered aloud how they had kept missing the mark and choosing people who weren’t loyal enough.

“Trump said, ‘We can’t let that happen again,’” according to a source familiar with the conversation.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, left, President Donald Trump, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, right, wait for a meeting with senior military leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Oct. 7, 2019. (Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images file)

From Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ allowing for the appointment of the Russia probe special counsel Robert Mueller to Attorney General William Barr’s refusing to declare the 2020 election invalid and Vice President Mike Pence’s declining to reject electors, Trump felt he had been betrayed by the very officials who owed him the most.

Esper, too, would later be unceremoniously cast out after being at odds with Trump on a number of issues.

Now, as he contemplates a second stint in the Oval Office, his fixation on fealty appears to be growing, and some people who have spent time close to the former president say they believe it will be the singular criterion for potential appointees if voters give him what he wants.

Trump has repeatedly brought up the issue of loyalty in his public remarks, as well. On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, he emphasized that point at a rally. He went after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, his competitors who were once his allies. And as a contrast, he stood with his onetime rival Doug Burgum as the governor of North Dakota offered him an endorsement.

“There’s something about the lack of loyalty in politics,” Trump said.

Trump’s success in a second term will hinge on bringing in people committed to his agenda, top appointees from his first term say. Trump and his allies have big plans for a second term — and still-fresh memories of a drawn-out four-year battle against a hostile administrative state. But without committed allies in key roles, ambitions to gut the federal bureaucracy, overhaul rulemaking and slash budgets could wither and die.

“They have to be resolute with their commitment to the president’s vision,” a top Trump official said of those who could find themselves tapped for plum roles. “You weren’t elected; you’re a Cabinet person as part of the executive branch, and your job is to understand and execute.”

“The headwinds will be significant,” he added.

Finding the ‘shock troops’

Allies of Trump, who is term-limited if re-elected, are aware of the need for a slate of officials willing to execute his vision and prepared to quickly kick into gear.

“You have four years. You have three or four major things you can accomplish — major things — and you have to have the full support of a team that’s loyal,” an outside adviser to Trump said. “I think the president is going to have that.”

A former White House official, speaking about the plans to send in loyalists who are better prepared to execute Trump’s agenda, said: “We’re not going to sit around and wait for the Senate, which is very, very divided and not even in the hands of conservatives, to get things done. Things will be happening, even before Inauguration Day.”

Already, conservatives are laying the groundwork for “shock troops” to take administration posts in a second Trump term, with one group, the Association of Republican Presidential Appointees, hosting a two-day “presidential appointee boot camp” Feb. 19 and 20 in the Washington suburbs.

The boot camp promises to give would-be appointees insight into “the operating context in which appointees work to implement the president’s agenda” and “tactics appointees can use to help the president gain control over the levers of power and thwart a hostile bureaucracy.”

And yet, Trump’s campaign team has tried to put a lid on a constellation of outside groups that are dreaming up wish lists of appointees and an agenda for a prospective next term.

“The efforts by various non-profit groups are certainly appreciated and can be enormously helpful,” Trump campaign senior advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a statement in November. “However, none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign. We will have an official transition effort to be announced at a later date.”

Wiles and LaCivita declined requests to comment for this article.

Refusing to take any chances in the vetting process, allies are promising to help “weed out those that would employ subterfuge” in a bid to thwart Trump from inside, the former official said.

“This is a sharp-elbowed sport, and we know that there will be people that want to undermine the president,” the person added.

A political strategist with ties to a Republican who has been floated in the media as a potential running mate for Trump said, “If you’re Trump, you value loyalty above all else, particularly because he sees Mike Pence as having made a fatal sin.”

It’s exactly that thinking that has given rise to concerns about who might be prepared to staff a future Trump administration, with those at odds with him fearing a worst-case scenario that imperils the sanctity of the republic.

“The starting point for a second Trump term will be the last year of his first term. … Loyalty will be the attribute Trump will be seeking above all else,” said Esper, whose tenure as defense secretary was cut short as Trump struggled to come to terms with the 2020 election results. “He won’t pick people like Jim Mattis or me who will push back on him. So the question becomes: What harm might occur over four years?”

‘It reminds me of “Game of Thrones”‘

As Trump’s lead in the Republican primary campaign becomes more solid, ritual demonstrations of loyalty, particularly from Republicans with stronger ties to a political establishment that was once foreign to him, show his tightening grip.

After Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina — who challenged Trump for the Republican nomination before he dropped out in November — said he would support Trump over Haley, Trump gave little pause before he dug the knife in as the two appeared together in New Hampshire last month.

“You must really hate her,” Trump said of Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, who appointed Scott to his seat in the Senate.

Scott could only manage to utter words that are music to Trump’s ears: “I just love you,” Scott said.

Yet, it’s not just Trump demanding fealty as he mounts his comeback campaign. Voters, too, feel a sense of allegiance, with Republicans today less likely than they were two years ago to believe Joe Biden was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, according to a recent University of Maryland-Washington Post poll.

Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, a onetime Trump critic, defended those concerns in an interview with ABC News this month, echoing other allies for whom Trump’s election loss in 2020 still looms over his comeback campaign.

Vance, who has been floated as a possible vice presidential pick, said the results of the 2020 presidential race should have been handled differently for a “legitimate” outcome, with Congress considering multiple slates of electors.

It isn’t only potential running mates or political appointees who are taking stock of the price of disloyalty; so are operatives at every juncture of the Republican machine.

“It reminds me of ‘Game of Thrones,’” a former adviser said. “They want you to bend the knee. And if you don’t bend the knee, they take your property. They take your title. They take your reputation, and they throw you into the gulag.”

The demand has settled like a fog over the Republican Party, seeping into its crevices and stifling dissent, an outcome that gives credence to Trump’s fiercest critics, this person argued.

“What I fear is this idea of loyalty means ‘stop questioning,’” the former adviser said. “There will be consequences if you do, and that’s why I think there’s some credence to the idea that he’s a so-called authoritarian. I don’t think he is authoritarian, but he’s opening himself up to this criticism.”

This person added, “His idea of loyalty is one-way.”

Others said that while Trump is susceptible to displays of fealty, he is looking to nab top talent.

“He wants the ‘best available,’” another former White House official said. “Loyalty is important to him, but I don’t know that it’s as much of a litmus test as that.”

History shows that even a promise of excommunication from Trump can run its course. Those who have climbed back in from the cold include Steve Bannon, Trump’s ousted former chief strategist, and conservative media figure Tucker Carlson, who endorsed Trump in November but earlier wrote that he hated him “passionately” in a text message revealed in a lawsuit.

“There are plenty of people that he once viewed as, in his mind, disloyal, who he then relishes bringing back on board,” said Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff. “Trump loves nothing more than a public reconciliation.”

Russians construct massive 30 km ‘Tsar Train’ in Donetsk oblast using looted railcars

The New Voice of Ukraine

Russians construct massive 30 km ‘Tsar Train’ in Donetsk oblast using looted railcars

The New Voice of Ukraine – February 12, 2024

The Russians ‘built’ a train cars centipede from Olenivka to Volnovakha to impede future advancement of Ukrainian Armed Forces

Russians have put together a gargantuan train stretching 30 kilometers, comprised of approximately 2,100 various types of railcars, all purportedly pilfered from areas in Donetsk Oblast under temporary occupation, DeepState military monitoring project reported on Feb. 11.

Spanning from the Olenivka railway station to Volnovakha, this enormous chain of freight cars, dubbed the ‘Tsar Train,’ started taking shape in July 2023. “The train, a continuous line of freight cars of different types, was apparently assembled using rolling stock taken from temporarily occupied regions,” the analytical group explained.

DeepState analysts describe the ‘Tsar Train’ as a unique engineering feat whose practicality is yet to be determined. “The concept behind this enormous structure is to create a formidable barrier against the advancement of the Defense Forces,” DeepState noted. “Given its sheer size and robustness, the ‘Tsar Train’ essentially acts as a distinct line of defense. Damaging, moving, or destroying such a colossal metal mass is an incredible challenge, making it virtually impossible for equipment to cross without establishing a breach.”

The existence and construction of this behemoth have been confirmed by DeepState through analysis of imagery captured at various times.

ISW: Russian forces building 30-km wall of freight cars in occupied Donetsk Oblast

The Kyiv Independent

ISW: Russian forces building 30-km wall of freight cars in occupied Donetsk Oblast

Abbey Fenbert – February 11, 2024

Russian forces in occupied Donetsk Oblast are assembling a barrier of train cars that stretches 30 kilometers long, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) wrote in its Feb. 11 report, citing satellite imagery and Ukrainian Telegram channels.

The barrier, nicknamed the “tsar train,” may be intended to serve as another defensive line against advancing Ukrainian troops.

Satellite images show the line of train cars stretching from Olenivka, south of the city of Donetsk, to Volnovakha, north of Mariupol. The barrier is reportedly constructed from over 2,100 freight cars.

The train barrier is about six kilometers from the current frontline at Novomykhailivka, the ISW said. Analysts said the line “is in an area of the front that was relatively inactive when Russian forces reportedly began construction,” though Russian troops have made “marginal” advancements in the area more recently.

The barrier appears to be a new Russian defensive line, but the ISW said occupying forces could have “other purposes” in mind for the structure.

Russia’s lines of defense in the occupied regions have proved difficult to penetrate, stalling the Ukrainian military’s counteroffensive operations on the eastern and southern fronts.

Ukrainian troops are now also on the defensive in Donetsk Oblast, fighting off the Russian assault on the city of Avdiivka, whick lies kilometers away from occupied Donetsk. The military reported Feb. 11 that Russia has been deploying more armored groups in its attempt to overwhelm the city.

In Tucker Carlson interview, Putin’s plans for Ukraine appear to echo Trump’s

USA Today

In Tucker Carlson interview, Putin’s plans for Ukraine appear to echo Trump’s

Kim Hjelmgaard and Rachel Barber – February 9, 2024

Former Fox News host and divisive conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson on Thursday released a lengthy and carefully stage-managed interview with President Vladimir Putin − the first Western media figure to do so since Russia invaded Ukraine nearly two years ago.

Carlson published the video interview on his personal website. It was also posted on his X social account. The interview took place in a gilded hall at the Kremlin palace in Moscow.

It covered a variety topics from the war in Ukraine to President Joe Biden, from the fate of detained Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich to Elon Musk. The interview did not break meaningful new ground. Carlson has consistently spread misinformation and conspiracy theories. He’s also been a strident critic of Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and U.S. conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson.

“If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons,” Putin said when asked by Carlson about the prospect for peace in Ukraine, referring to Western aid. “It will be over within a few weeks. That’s it.”

Putin said he didn’t see a point in calling Biden, whom he had not spoken to since before the invasion. Biden has refused to speak to the Russian leader unless genuine conditions for negotiating a peace deal are put forward.

Instead, Putin’s answers about the fighting in Ukraine seemed to echo with the U.S. president he said he had a positive relationship with: Donald Trump.

Putin called on the U.S. to “make an agreement” to end the war, likely involving Ukraine ceding territory to Russia.

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” Trump said at a Manchester, New Hampshire, rally last month.

Trump has not explained how he would achieve this.

The interview comes as momentum on the battlefield appears to have swung in Russia’s favor while fresh U.S. aid for Ukraine remains uncertain in Congress. Polls show the majority of Americans believe the U.S. should be supporting Ukraine, but many are concerned it may be doing too much at the expense of domestic priorities. Republicans are far more skeptical than Democrats over the utility of sending Ukraine more wartime aid.

Ukraine is running out of weapons: Is it also running low on the time-tested coping mechanism of humor?

At times, the interview, which lasted more than two hours, became somewhat confrontational. However, Carslon did not explicitly challenge Putin’s many false assertions, nor did he push Russia’s leader on his military’s alleged war crimes in Ukraine or political repressions at home.

When Putin said he believed Russia and the U.S. could potentially reach a deal to free Gershkovich, an American journalist Russia detained last year, Carlson pressed him: “This guy’s obviously not a spy. He’s a kid, and maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he’s not a super spy, and everybody knows that.”

Putin’s government has been holding Gershkovich for more than a year for reporting on the invasion. Gershkovich has been charged with espionage, an allegation he and the U.S. State Department deny. The U.S. government has determined that Gershkovich is being wrongfully detained.

The U.S. made an offer late last year to secure Gershkovich’s release but said Moscow rejected it. Putin appeared to indicate Thursday that he would consider swapping Gershkovich for Vadim Krasikov, a Russian assassin who killed a Georgian-born dissident in a park in Berlin in 2019. Krasikov followed his victim to the park on a bicycle. He’s serving a jail sentence in Germany.

Putin dominated the conversation. He also appeared to occasionally joke and snarl at Carlson’s expense.

“Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?” Putin said in response to a question about why he had previously said he believed the U.S. could, via NATO, launch a “surprise attack” on Russia.

“Your basic education is in history, as far as I understand,” Putin added. “So if you don’t mind, I will take only 30 seconds or one minute to give you a short reference to history to give you a little historical background.”

Putin then went on to speak for more than 20 minutes about the history of Eastern Europe, including references to Catherine the Great, the 18th century empress of Russia.

Carlson struggled to interrupt Putin during his personal overview of Russian history.

At one point, the conversation took a turn to discussing the U.S. reputation in the international community. Putin claimed the U.S. is more afraid of a “strong China” than it is of a “strong Russia.”

Putin repeated false claims Russia did not attack Ukraine. He addressed his relationships with past U.S. presidents, saying he had a “very good” one with George W. Bush.

And he lavished praise on Tesla’s founder, who also owns X.

“I think there’s no stopping Elon Musk,” he said.

In a social media monologue prior to releasing the interview, Carlson said he wanted to sit down with Putin because “most Americans are not informed” on how the war in Ukraine is “reshaping the world.” He blamed U.S. mainstream media for this, alleging that “no one has told them the truth.” He has previously claimed, without providing evidence, that the U.S. government has thwarted his attempts to sit down with Putin.

Carlson said Western journalists have, by contrast, interviewed Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy many times. He described these interviews as “fawning pep sessions” aimed at amplifying Ukraine’s need for more U.S. weapons and ultimately directed at getting the U.S. more involved in the war.

There was no immediate official reaction to Carslon’s interview with Putin from Ukraine’s government.

Ukraine shake-up: Volodymyr Zelenskyy removes his top general Valery Zaluzhny

International media outlets have sat down with Zelenskyy dozens of times since the war’s start. However, there is little merit to Carlson’s other claims. Journalists in Russia face extreme reporting restrictions. They can be arrested for labeling Russia’s invasion a “war”; instead, they have to call it a “special military operation.”

Russia’s crackdown on free speech extends to regular citizens as well as journalists. They can be arrested or fined for criticizing the war in Ukraine. Carlson promotes his show on social media platform X as a defender of free speech. The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, has issued an arrest warrant for Putin. It accused him of war crimes in Ukraine including deporting children from Ukraine to Russia.

War crimes allegations in Ukraine: They may be unprecedented. So is the country’s push for swift justice

Russians escape Putin’s war on Ukraine: They find a new home – and a moral dilemma

Since news of the interview broke, many Western journalists have been posting on social media how they have repeatedly attempted to secure interviews with Putin over the last two years. The last time Putin was interviewed by an American journalist was in June 2021 with NBC’s Keir Simmons.

“Does Tucker really think we journalists haven’t been trying to interview President Putin every day since his full scale invasion of Ukraine?” CNN’s Christiane Amanpour wrote on X. She called his claim “absurd.”

Putin himself has made many speeches and public appearances during which he’s commented at length on the war in Ukraine and his “objectives.” At various times, he’s described these as “denazification, demilitarization and its neutral status.” There is no evidence to indicate that Ukraine has a systemic problem with neo-Nazis. Putin has long been vehemently opposed to Ukraine and other neighboring nations joining NATO.

Putin has said that Western countries have been “stupefied” by anti-Russian propaganda.

Before the interview ran, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters that Americans shouldn’t believe anything Putin said in the interview.

“Anybody (who) watches that interview you need to make sure to remember that you are listening to Vladimir Putin. You shouldn’t take at face value anything he has to say.”

As the host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News, Carlson was one of the network’s biggest stars. The show was canceled last year following a series of controversies. Carlson drove ratings at the network but, his critics say he pushed extreme right-wing views and trafficked in racist and misogynistic themes and conspiracy theories.

“Tucker Carlson isn’t a journalist, he’s a propagandist,” wrote Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, a global political risk consultancy, on X.

A timeline: Tucker Carlson and his Russia obsession

Carlson has been a longtime defender of Putin and he has consistently questioned U.S. support for Ukraine.

“It may be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious, what is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much?” he said as Russia’s leader amassed troops on Ukraine’s border, ready to invade, in February 2022.

“Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is: ‘No.’ Vladimir Putin didn’t do any of that.” Carlson described Ukraine as a “a pure client state of the United States State Department” and the then looming war as a “border issue.”

Prior to his interview with Putin, one of the topics Carlson addressed on his X account, which posts material from his subscription streaming service, was about male-pattern baldness.

Contributing: Francesca Chambers

Abandoned by his colleagues after negotiating a border compromise, GOP senator faces backlash alone

Associated Press

Abandoned by his colleagues after negotiating a border compromise, GOP senator faces backlash alone

Mary Clare Jalonick and Stephen Groves – February 7, 2024

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., left, the lead GOP negotiator on a border-foreign aid package, holds hands with his wife Cindy Lankford, center, joined at right by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., who has been central to Senate border security talks, during procedural votes, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2024. Senate Republicans have blocked the bipartisan border package, scuttling months of negotiations between the two parties on legislation intended to cut down record numbers of illegal border crossings. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., the lead GOP negotiator on the Senate border and foreign aid package, does a TV news interview at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Feb. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Just before the Senate voted Wednesday to kill the border deal he spent the last four months negotiating, Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford climbed a set of marble stairs outside the chamber and joined his wife in the visitors’ gallery.

As the Republican quietly watched from a floor above, briefly the outsider after defending his legislation in a last Senate floor speech, fellow negotiator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona was down on the floor excoriating the Republicans who had abandoned Lankford, one by one, after insisting on a border deal and asking him to negotiate a compromise on one of the country’s most intractable issues.

“Less than 24 hours after we released the bill, my Republican colleagues changed their minds,” said Sinema, a former Democrat turned Independent. “Turns out they want all talk and no action. It turns out border security is not a risk to our national security. It’s just a talking point for the election.”

Walking out of the gallery with his wife close by his side, Lankford was asked by a waiting reporter if he felt betrayed by his party. He sighed, deeply, and waited a few beats.

“I’m disappointed we didn’t get it done,” Lankford said, diplomatically. “I don’t know if I feel betrayed, because the issue is still there. It’s not solved.”

He then walked back down the stairs with his wife and Sinema, who had come up to greet them after her speech, and walked into the chamber to watch the bill’s defeat.

In the end, all but four Republicans voted against moving forward on the legislation — including Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who had delegated Lankford to negotiate the bill combining Ukraine aid and border security and had been closely involved in the negotiations.

A former youth minister in the Baptist church, Lankford, 55, is known as one of the most sincere and well-liked members of the Senate. He’s a conservative who rarely votes against his party, has long championed stricter measures at the border and has been supportive of former President Donald Trump. So his colleagues’ swift and outright rejection of the deal he has spent weeks and months negotiating — and their willingness to completely abandon Lankford in the process, after many of them indicated they were supportive of the direction of the talks — is all the more remarkable.

“They reacted to it like it was a poison,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the third negotiator with Lankford and Sinema, of Senate Republicans who had previously signaled they were supportive. “I think it’s unforgiveable what they did to James.”

“They really threw the man overboard,” President Joe Biden said of Lankford at a fundraiser Wednesday evening.

While some Republicans were always going to vote against the compromise, arguing that no policy is better than what they saw as weak policy, others made clear they were encouraged by the talks as Lankford briefed them on the emerging details. But his colleagues’ eventual, quick rejection of the bill highlights the deep divides in the GOP as Trump, the party’s front-runner for the 2024 presidential nomination, has made immigration a top issue. Some senators who had previously been open to a deal became more skeptical after Trump made his opposition clear.

It is also a sign of dysfunction and paralysis in the Senate as its traditionally bipartisan image fades in favor of more partisan, House-like battles.

When he took on the job negotiating a border compromise, Lankford laughed that “he drew the short straw.” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., joked later that if Lankford can’t get a deal done: “Moses couldn’t get a deal done. He’s one of the most kindest, compassionate people I’ve met in my lifetime.”

His fellow negotiators described him as an earnest, smart legislator who was willing to spend long hours digging into the intricacies of immigration law — and spent weeks away from his family in the process. Murphy said senators often negotiate the broad policies and let staff do the “dirty work” of putting the ideas into legislative text.

“James does both,” Murphy said. “It’s a sign of how sincere he is and how in the weeds he is on policy. But it probably means he’s maybe a little less attuned to the politics.”

The Oklahoma Republican has spent the last three days desperately trying to explain the bill after many of his colleagues put out statements opposing it without even reading the full text. Some Republicans put out misleading statements about what it would do, claiming it was designed to let more people into the country. Trump, who has strongly opposed the bill and said he doesn’t want to give Democrats a win on the issue, gleefully bragged that he helped kill it.

“I think this is a very bad bill for his career, and especially in Oklahoma,” Trump said of Lankford on a radio show earlier this week.

The bipartisan compromise would overhaul the asylum system at the border with faster and tougher enforcement, as well as give presidents new powers to immediately expel migrants if authorities become overwhelmed with the number of people applying for asylum, among other measures to reduce the record numbers of migrants crossing the border. It would also send billions to Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Asia-Pacific.

Lankford’s work on the issue could have lasting political consequences. A group of about 100 people within the Oklahoma GOP put out a statement condemning him for crafting the bill even before it had been released. And in his Senate floor speech Wednesday, Lankford spoke of an unidentified “popular commentator” who told him that if he tries to move a bill to solve the border crisis, “I will do whatever I can to destroy you, because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election.”

Even more stunning was how quickly his Senate colleagues turned against it.

As the bill was released late Sunday night, Lankford was on an airplane flying to Washington. By the time he landed, an onslaught of criticism from conservatives was already underway. He was on a call with reporters, trying to explain the details of the bill, when House Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X that the bill would be “ dead on arrival ” in his chamber.

Lankford’s frustration was palpable as he responded, listing off how the bill would accomplish several conservative goals like building more border wall, hiring more Border Patrol agents, expanding detention capacity and speeding deportations.

“We’ve got to be able to find a way to stop the chaos at the border,” Lankford said.

Almost no Republicans endorsed it, save McConnell. And by Monday night, seeing the writing on the wall, McConnell told the conference it was OK to vote against it.

“I feel like the guy standing in the middle of a field in a thunderstorm holding up the metal stick,” Lankford told reporters shortly ahead of the bill release. “This is a really intense thing. It’s been divisive.”

Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim, Will Weissert, Jill Colvin and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.