Thursday, March 12, 2026
Home Blog Page 67

Ann Coulter slams Trump’s crime record

0

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter has denounced former President Donald Trump over his public safety record, claiming that Trump decided to “release all the criminals” following the police murder of George Floyd in 2020.

During a PBD Podcast interview that was released on Thursday, Coulter praised Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Trump’s 2024 presidential election rival, for passing laws “where you can shoot looters” amid the “Black Lives Matter” protests, asserting that Florida offered a rare refuge to “feel safe” in 2020.

In contrast, Coulter argued, Trump’s accomplishments regarding crime prevention and maintaining public safety amounted to little more than sending out all-caps tweets reading “LAW AND ORDER.”

Coulter claimed that the former president was more focused on “releasing criminals” after signing the First Step Act, a 2018 criminal justice reform law that offers a path to early release for some nonviolent drug offenders.

“George Floyd, May 25th, 2020, changed the world,” Coulter said. “Suddenly we have to release all the criminals, among other things … One place you would have been safe in 2020 was in Florida. Thank you, Ron DeSantis, [for] passing law after law where you can shoot looters, anti-rioting laws.”

“What did Trump do? He sent out tweets in all caps, LAW AND ORDER,” she continued. “You know what he said in the first debate with [President] Joe Biden? … ‘You called them super-predators, I’m releasing people from prison.’ … He’s releasing criminals. You want to feel safe? Donald Trump ain’t your guy.”

Newsweek reached out for comment to Trump’s office via email on Thursday evening.

Coulter was once among Trump’s staunchest supporters, authoring the book In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! in 2016. She has since had a dramatic falling out with the former president, becoming one of his fiercest Republican critics.

Trump has participated in an escalating war of words with Coulter for years, most recently referring to her as a “stone cold loser” and “unbearably crazy” in a pair of Truth Social posts last month.

Coulter responded to Trump with a fiery post on X, formerly Twitter, claiming that the ex-president had recently “begged” her to meet with him in Bedminster, New Jersey.

“Trump begged me to come to Bedminster this week, I said only if I could record a substack with him, but the GIGANTIC P**** is too afraid of me, so instead he did this,” Coulter wrote.

In August, Coulter described Trump as “a gigantic baby” who “can barely speak English,” while also praising DeSantis ahead of the first 2024 GOP primary debate, in which Trump declined to participate.

Trump referred to Coulter as a “wacky nut job” when her criticism of his failure to complete a U.S.-Mexico border wall was ramping up in 2019, insisting at the time that he was “winning at the border.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez turns on Joe Biden over border wall

0

President Joe Biden has been denounced by Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for promoting a “cruel policy” by allowing the construction of 20 new miles of former President Donald Trump‘s U.S.-Mexico border wall.

A filing published in the U.S. Federal Registry by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Thursday describes an “acute and immediate need” to construct the physical border barrier while announcing that 26 environmental, public health and cultural preservation laws would be waived to resume the project in Starr County, Texas.

While Biden and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have both since insisted that the president’s policy on the wall has not changed and claimed that the construction was due to a decision made by Trump, the current administration’s waiving of laws to allow construction has been condemned by progressives including Ocasio-Cortez.

“The Biden administration was not required to expand construction of the border wall— and they certainly were not required to waive several environmental laws to expedite the building,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement emailed to Newsweek on Thursday. “The President needs to take responsibility for this decision and reverse course.”

“A wall does nothing to deter people who are fleeing poverty and violence from coming to the United States,” she continued. “Walls only serve to push migrants into more remote areas, increasing their chances of death. It is a cruel policy.”

Newsweek reached out for comment to the White House via email on Thursday night.

When asked whether he thought border walls “work” before a White House meeting earlier in the day, Biden replied, “no.” He argued that his hands were tied on the matter as the money to build the section of wall was appropriated in 2019 and could be used for no other purpose.

“The money was appropriated for the border wall,” said Biden. “I tried to get to them to reappropriate it, to redirect that money. They didn’t. They wouldn’t. And in the meantime, there’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can’t stop that.”

Mayorkas also issued a statement insisting that “there is no new Administration policy with respect to border walls,” claiming that “the language in the Federal Register notice is being taken out of context.”

“The construction project reported today was appropriated during the prior administration in 2019 and the law requires the government to use these funds for this purpose, which we announced earlier this year,” Mayorkas said.

“We have repeatedly asked Congress to rescind this money but it has not done so and we are compelled to follow the law,” he added.

Trump chimed in, accusing Biden of breaking “every environmental law in the book” to continue construction on the wall. The ex-president demanded an “apology” from Biden for having previously spoken out against his “beautiful border wall.”

Update 10/05/23, 10:20 p.m. ET: This article has been updated to add context and change the headline to reflect that the border wall was ordered by Trump.

Trump reveals terms for accepting speaker of the House role

0

Former President Donald Trump has laid out the conditions under which he would be willing to assume the House speaker position.

The speakership was vacated after eight Republicans and all House Democrats in attendance supported a motion to vacate on Tuesday, stripping Congressman Kevin McCarthy of House leadership. The chamber is scheduled to meet again Wednesday to begin voting on the next speaker, but with a fractured GOP majority, it remains unlikely that a decision will be made soon.

Speaking with Fox News Digitial, Trump said that he would be willing to take on a short-term position as speaker if Republicans can’t agree on anyone else in the caucus.

“I have been asked to speak as a unifier because I have so many friends in Congress,” Trump told the outlet. “If they don’t get the vote, they have asked me if I would consider taking the speakership until they get somebody longer term, because I am running for president.”

“They have asked me if I would take it for a short period of time for the party, until they come to a conclusion—I’m not doing it because I want to—I will do it if necessary, should they not be able to make their decision,” Trump added.

Newsweek has reached out to Trump’s press team via email for more information on Thursday evening.

Trump’s statement comes at the same time sources close to the former president told the Associated Press that Trump is “in talks” to visit the U.S. Capitol next week as Republicans discuss McCarthy’s potential replacement. Newsweek was unable to independently verify this report.

While the speaker is typically selected from House members, the Constitution does not mandate that the role be filled by a member of Congress. A handful of Republican lawmakers have already indicated their support for Trump taking the position.

Trump told reporters inside the courtroom of his New York civil fraud trial on Wednesday that “a lot of people” had called him about assuming the speakership, adding, “All I can say is we’ll do whatever’s best for the country and for the Republican Party … We have some great, great people.”

The former president’s potential visit to Washington, D.C., would also mark the first time Trump has visited the Capitol since leaving office in January 2021. It would also come as Trump faces four federal felony charges in the Justice Department’s investigation of the January 6 Capitol attack, which was waged by Trump’s supporters.

Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene reiterated her support for Trump as House speaker in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday, writing: “If Trump becomes Speaker of the House, the House chamber will be like a Trump rally everyday!!”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer responded to the post, writing: “No thanks, we’re good. We’ve seen a Trump rally at the Capitol already.”

Newsweek reached out to the White House press team via email Thursday evening for comment.

Update 10/05/23, 6:31 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information and background.

Trump wants Judge Chutkan to throw out Jan. 6 case

0

Former President Donald Trump is seeking to have his federal election subversion case dismissed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, arguing in a motion filed Thursday that his actions included in the indictment “lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as President.”

Trump is facing four criminal counts stemming from the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of the former president’s activities surrounding the January 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol. Special Counsel Jack Smith argues in his 45-page indictment against Trump that the former president repeatedly attempted to remain in power despite losing to President Joe Biden in 2020.

Among Trump’s actions listed in his charges include repeated attempts to spread false statements about the 2020 presidential election, which he claims to this day was stolen from him. In the indictment, the DOJ also accuses the former president in a plan to disrupt Congress‘ electoral certification process in January 2021, as well as in attempts to “oppress, threaten, and intimidate” individuals in their right to vote.

The former president’s attorneys argue that such actions fall under the scope of his presidency, and Trump therefore should be granted “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.” His defense team also claims that he cannot be charged because he was acquitted in his second impeachment trial, which was related to January 6.

“Breaking 234 years of precedent, the incumbent administration has charged President Trump for acts that lie not just within the ‘outer perimeter,’ but at the heart of his official responsibilities as President,” the motion reads.

“In doing so, the prosecution does not, and cannot, argue that President Trump’s efforts to ensure election integrity, and to advocate for the same, were outside the scope of his duties,” Trump’s attorneys continued. “Instead, the prosecution falsely claims that President Trump’s motives were impure—that he purportedly ‘knew’ that the widespread reports of fraud and election irregularities were untrue but sought to address them anyway.”

“But as the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear, the President’s motivations are not for the prosecution or this Court to decide,” the defense team wrote. “Rather, where, as here, the President’s actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution.”

A spokesperson for Smith’s office declined comment on Trump’s request.

Chutkan, the Washington, D.C., district judge presiding over the case, has already handed Trump several legal losses ahead of the trial. Last month, the former president’s request to have Chutkan recuse herself from the case was rejected, and she has set a trial date for March 4—over two years earlier than the April 2026 date requested by Trump’s team.

Trump also could face a gag order in the January 6 case. Federal prosecutors have argued that the former president’s repeated attacks against those related to the investigation warrant limiting what Trump can say about his criminal case in public. Trump’s defense team has argued for the gag order to be dismissed, and a hearing on the DOJ’s request is scheduled for October 16.

In total, the former president is facing 91 criminal counts across four different indictments filed since April. He also faces a civil business fraud suit in New York, which could threaten his control over several of his properties, as well as a defamation suit filed by journalist E. Jean Carroll.

Update 10/05/23, 6:35 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Smith’s office.

Who is Anthony Pratt? Trump may have spilled nuclear sub secrets to tycoon

0

Former President Donald Trump allegedly shared potentially classified information regarding U.S. nuclear submarines with Australian businessman Anthony Pratt, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke with ABC News and The New York Times.

The sources told ABC News—which was first to break the story—that Trump purportedly shared the information several months after leaving the White House in 2021 during a conversation at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Pratt, a billionaire and owner of the U.S.-based cardboard company Pratt Industries, is reportedly a member of Trump’s luxury club in Palm Beach, Florida.

After discovering this information, federal prosecutors investigating Trump’s handling of classified documents interviewed Pratt about the conversation, read the reports. The former president has been charged with 40 felony counts, including willful retention of national defense information, in connection to the Justice Department’s investigation of the classified documents discovered at his Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022.

Newsweek could not independently verify the reports. An email has been sent to Trump’s press team and Pratt Industries seeking comment on Thursday night.

Sources close to the matter told ABC News that Pratt has been interviewed at least twice this year about his supposed conversation with Trump. The discussion reportedly arose after Pratt mentioned the American submarine fleet, read the report.

According to sources who spoke with the Times, Pratt also allegedly shared the sensitive information with several others, potentially endangering the U.S. nuclear fleet. ABC News claimed that Pratt “described Trump’s remarks” to at least 45 other people.

The report could play a key role in the Justice Department’s case against Trump, which is scheduled to head to trial in May. Pratt’s name and the alleged conversation are not mentioned in the criminal indictment that was released in June.

Prosecutors did describe other supposed conversations Trump had in the months following his presidency as part of their 49-page indictment, including an instance caught on tape between Trump and several guests at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. During the discussion, Trump reportedly shared a “highly confidential” Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran with individuals who did not have security clearance.

Trump denies any wrongdoing in the federal charges against him, and has pleaded not guilty to all 40 counts stemming from the classified-documents case. Walt Nauta, Trump’s personal aide, and Carlos De Oliveira, property manager at Mar-a-Lago, were also charged in the investigation, with both pleading not guilty in August.

The former president is also facing federal charges in efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election, a racketeering case in Georgia, business fraud allegations in Manhattan and a $250M civil fraud lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Trump has maintained his innocence in all investigations.

Putin has a "bizarre explanation" for Yevgeny Prigozhin’s death: ISW

0

Russian President Vladimir Putin has given a new “bizarre explanation” for Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin‘s death, which pins the blame on Prigozhin himself, reported the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

According to a report by the Russian daily newspaper Kommersant, Putin said that the head of the Russian Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, told him that grenade fragments were found in the bodies of victims on board Prigozhin’s plane, which crashed in August after taking off from Moscow. Russian officials previously confirmed that all 10 on board, which included Prigozhin and his Wagner mercenary group lieutenant Dmitry Utkin, were killed.

Putin, who was speaking during a press conference at the Valdai Discussion Club Thursday, also claimed that there were no external factors that caused the plane to crash, according to the investigative committee’s examination. He also suggested that, while there has been no proof that alcohol or drugs were on board the aircraft when it crashed, tests should be conducted on the victims’ bodies to determine if they were under the influence.

“Unfortunately, no examination was carried out to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs in the blood of the victims. Although we know that after the famous events in the company in St. Petersburg, the [Russian Security Service] discovered not only 10 billion [rubles] in cash, but also 5 kg of cocaine,” Putin said, referring to the public raid of Wagner’s mansion in July after the Wagner Group’s failed rebellion against Moscow. “In my opinion, this examination should have been carried out.”

The ISW called Putin’s explanation for Prigozhin’s death “bizarre” in its latest assessment of the war in Ukraine, noting that the Kremlin leader seemed to be suggesting that a grenade could have detonated inside the plane before it crashed.

“Putin’s bizarre explanation of the plane crash is likely an attempt to blame Prigozhin for his own and his comrades’ deaths and further disgrace him among his remaining supporters,” the ISW added.

Putin was particularly quiet in the days following Prigozhin’s death, and the ISW previously assessed that the Kremlin was “almost certainly” to blame. Wagner-associated Telegram channels also claimed that Prigozhin’s plane had been hit by Russian anti-air defenses.

Since the death of their chief, Wagner troops have been spotted rampaging in Russia as some of the private mercenaries move out of Ukraine. Prigozhin’s son, Pavel, has also reportedly taken over Wagner’s elite unit, which is expected to return to the front lines amid Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive.

The Kremlin has maintained that the private military company was absorbed by the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) after Prigozhin’s failed rebellion, and Putin also told reporters Thursday that Wagner no longer existed in Russia, according to Russian state-run news agency TASS.

“It was a journalistic name—a private military company,” Putin said, referring to the Wagner Group. “There are no private military companies in Russia, because there is no law on private military companies. In our country, they do not exist and never existed.”

Putin added that Wagner’s fight alongside Russian troops in Ukraine was “clumsy because it was not based on law,” but added he did not object to the private mercenaries signing contracts with the MoD “because the people acted voluntarily, and we saw that we fought heroically.”

Newsweek reached out to the Russian Defense Ministry for comment via email on Thursday night.

Russian official proposes invading five NATO countries

0

An official in the Ukrainian region which Moscow claims to have annexed has said Russia should try to take territory that was formerly part of the Russian Empire “through the might” of weapons.

In September 2022, Zaporizhzhia was one of four Ukrainian regions that Vladimir Putin claimed to have annexed, the others being Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk, although Moscow does not fully control any of them.

But the top Kremlin-installed official in the oblast, Yevgeny Balitsky, said Russia should also have its eye on the Baltic states, as well as Poland and Finland, all five of which are NATO countries.

In April, Finland became NATO’s 31st member, joining Poland and the Baltic states in the 31-member alliance, whose fifth article says that an attack on one state is an attack on all.

In the interview shared by Russia watcher Julia Davis, Balitsky seemed ready to take on the alliance as he spoke of how the Russian Empire that ended with the 1917 revolution had “lost its footing” as well as “great numbers of people.”

“I’m not even talking about territories. I understand that it includes Warsaw, Helsinki, also known as Helsingfors,” he said.

The Russian Empire, which existed between 1721 and 1917, covered a vast territory. Finland was part of Russia’s empire until it declared its independence after the Russian Revolution. The 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk saw revolutionary Russia renounce its claims on Polish territories.

Balitsky described how “all of the Baltics” were “all our lands, and our people live there,” noting the Russian-speaking population in those countries.

“They were turned into a voiceless heard, they became trembling beasts,” he said. “We have to correct this…through the might of Russian weapons.

“I don’t believe in any diplomacy in this instance. Of course diplomacy always has to be present but I believe we can get it back only with the might of Russian weapons.”

He said that Russia can “get our people back, the former subjects of the Russian Empire” so that the “whole world does not turn into Sodom and Gomorrah like it is happening in Europe.”

Moscow has justified its full-scale invasion of Ukraine as a bid to curb the expansion of NATO and “denazify.” But there is rhetoric from Kremlin propagandists about restoring the Russian Empire, with many Western analysts framing the war within the context of Putin’s imperial ambitions.

After Russian marked the first anniversary of the so-called annexation of the four Ukrainian territories on September 30, propagandist Sergey Mardan spoke about the new holiday as marking Russia’s supposed journey to restoring itself into an empire.

He said on his show Mardan Live that “the restoration of the Russian Empire” was what the celebration on September 30 “is all about.”

Newsweek has emailed the Russian foreign ministry for comment.

Putin allies attack each other as "nuke Siberia" backlash grows

0

A nuclear missile strike on the West may be a common theme when Kremlin propagandist Margarita Simonyan is a guest on Russian TV shows, but her apparent call for atomic weapon use in Russia has sparked consternation as well as legal action.

The editor-in-chief of Kremlin mouthpiece RT sparked an outcry when she said that Russia could “conduct a thermonuclear explosion hundreds of kilometers above our own territory somewhere in Siberia” to rattle the West and its support for Ukraine in the war Moscow started.

The ally of Vladimir Putin was citing the suggestion of a scientist that such a blast would send a strong message to Russian adversaries without consequences on the ground. It would disable radio electronics allowing a return to 1993, which in her view was a time when “we lived wonderfully.”

But Anatoly Lokot, the mayor of Siberia’s largest city, Novosibirsk, begged to differ, saying with a degree of understatement “there is nothing good about thermonuclear explosions.” Lokot pointed to his credentials as a trained physicist in saying that the consequences of such blasts be last “not just hundreds of years but millennia.”

Other scientific voices agreed, with the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences telling Siberian news outlet NGS that a thermonuclear explosion would have catastrophic consequences and millions could die.

A physicist from Novosibirsk State Technical University, Valery Khristoforov, said that even if a nuclear bomb exploded at altitude and “won’t immediately kill people en masse, still the radioactive fallout will move around the Earth in the atmosphere.”

The condemnation of Simonyan extended to political circles. State Duma defense committee member Viktor Sobolev told the outlet the Daily Storm that “there is no need for Russia to come out with such statements.”

Meanwhile, the State Duma deputy Maria Prusakova, a lawmaker from Siberia’s Altai Territory, gave a direct video address to Simonyan in which she said her words had been taken by Siberians “as a deep insult.”

“I would like to remind you that it was thanks to the Siberians that the Soviet people defeated fascism in the Great Patriotic War,” she said, “therefore, at a minimum, you must apologize to the residents of all of Siberia.”

Some pro-Russian and pro-war bloggers and Telegram channels also condemned the comments, such as MIG Russia. The Kremlin distanced itself from Simonyan’s comments, with Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov telling reporters that her non-governmental role meant that “her words do not always reflect the official position.”

However, Nikolai Korolev, assistant to Moscow City Duma deputy, Evgeniy Stupin, said he had referred Simonyan’s comments to Russia’s Investigative Committee and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, demanding she face charges.

“Such statements are a violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation,” he wrote on Telegram, as he disparaged the “wildness and absurdity” of her views.

In response, Simonyan said she made a police complaint against Korolev insisting that she had not proposed such a “heresy” as to call for a nuclear strike on Russian territory.

“Such a monstrous accusation discredits my reputation and causes me all sorts of damage and suffering,” she said, without clarifying in what way her comments had been taken out of context. Newsweek has contacted the Kremlin by email for comment.

Ukraine is losing ground in the crucial battle for US hearts and minds

0

As the political debate intensifies over the future of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine in the midst of its efforts to resist Russian forces, Kyiv faces a potential double-edged sword of scaled-down aid and a grueling stalemate on the battlefield.

With only limited gains won so far in a months-long Ukrainian counteroffensive, worsening Western fatigue could further undermine Ukraine’s momentum and present new opportunities for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The military risks the Ukrainians face are obvious—what’s ahead of them will be difficult and costly but can be made easier with more—and more capable—weapons,” Stephen Sestanovich, who previously served as U.S. ambassador-at-large for the countries of the former Soviet Union, told Newsweek.

“What the Ukrainians don’t know how to calculate is the political risk—the possibility that somehow, Western governments after much help and much supportive rhetoric, will decide it’s actually better to let Putin have much of what he wants,” he added. “A year ago, that idea would have seemed incomprehensible to most Western leaders, but now?”

Drama on the Hill

While skeptical voices have existed in the U.S. since the beginning of the conflict in February 2022, the core consensus in support of arming Ukraine has increasingly begun to splinter to dramatic effect in Washington.

A government shutdown was only narrowly avoided over the weekend with a last-minute spending bill that omitted aid to Ukraine amid Republican pressure. Days later, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted in a historic vote amid accusations from fellow Republican Representative Matt Gaetz that McCarthy had cut a secret deal with President Joe Biden to maintain military assistance to Ukraine.

Even as the White House vowed to press on with its support for Kyiv, Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, lashed out on social media Wednesday against “Western conservative elites” for questioning military aid to Ukraine.

Tensions are likely to further escalate as the U.S. enters into what’s expected to be a particularly contentious election season.

“I suspect that already the election campaign in the U.S. may have an impact on the Biden Administration’s Ukraine policy, especially if public opinion in the U.S. tilts against continued strong support for Ukraine,” said Helmut W. Ganser, a retired German brigadier general who previously served as deputy head of the German Defense Ministry’s military policy department and an adviser to Germany’s ambassadors to NATO and the United Nations.

“Biden will then have to weigh and navigate between conflicting goals, winning the election and continued high level of support for Ukraine,” Ganser told Newsweek. “On the other hand, Putin may be betting that U.S. support for Ukraine will wane over time, and that he just needs to sustain the war, at least throughout 2024—not good prospects for the end of this war.”

Popular Support Wanes

Already, popular support in the U.S. appears to be slipping. A poll published last week by ABC News and The Washington Post showed that those in the U.S. who believe that the Biden administration is doing “too much” to support Ukraine has risen to 41 percent, up from 33 percent in February 2023 and just 16 percent in April 2022, two months after the conflict erupted.

Another survey published last month by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found 45 percent of respondents in the U.S. believed that their nation’s military aid to Ukraine was “not worth the cost.” The accompanying report linked the decline in U.S. support to other findings, including the prevailing perception that Ukraine’s counteroffensive has not achieved sufficient success, a decline in interest in news about the war, a reduced sense of Russia being a critical threat, and waning favorability ratings for Zelensky.

Public opinion in Europe is also shifting. An EU-affiliated Eurobarometer survey conducted in August showed 34 percent disagreed with the European Union financing the purchase and supply of military equipment and training to Ukraine, up from 26 percent in April 2022.

Elections on the continent could also take a toll on aid to Ukraine, as Slovakian populist Robert Fico came out ahead in last week’s vote, priming him to make good on his promise to eliminate military assistance to the neighboring country. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán, meanwhile, has threatened to hold up an EU consensus needed to allocate roughly $55 billion in aid to Ukraine through 2027, despite the budget receiving approval from the European Parliament.

Newsweek has reached out to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry for comment.

Slow Gains for Ukraine

As noted in the Chicago Council survey, there appears to be a relationship between the declining enthusiasm for sending military aid to Ukraine and the slowing pace of the conflict, in which neither side has gained significant territory since the beginning of this year.

Ganser noted how “Ukraine has indeed managed to break into the heavily reinforced Russian defense lines at one point on the southern front in recent weeks,” but stated that, “for the time being, however, these remain tactical gains.”

“At the operational and strategic level, I see a stalemate for about a year now,” he added, “with extremely high casualties on both sides.”

But Ganser argues that the task facing Ukraine is far more difficult that is generally acknowledged, even by its partners.

“Expectations in Washington and elsewhere that the Ukrainian counteroffensive should advance more quickly are unreasonable,” he said. “Neither U.S. nor European generals have direct experience with such comprehensive operations, which are comparable in essence to World War I and World War II. The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were of a different nature.”

Former Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Leonid Polyakov, who continues to consult in support of the Ukrainian government, had a different read on the political trends coming out of the West.

“The elections-related ‘debates’ are understandable for democracies,” Polyakov told Newsweek. “Meanwhile, commitments made by NATO and G7 countries in July are of much higher value than pre-electoral populism.”

In any case, he asserted that, “We will fight as long as we can.”

“Look at our missile strikes in Sevastopol and similar [actions],” Polyakov said. “Our outreach is growing, and it will impact a battlefield very soon.”

A Possible Shift in Strategy

Oleksander Musiienko, head of the Kyiv-based Center for Military and Legal Studies, also argued that “it is normal for democracies to exchange ideas and have debates,” and that “ultimately, Ukraine as a state should also be interesting in being a democratic state.”

But he was not without reservations in observing the rhetoric emerging from abroad.

“Obviously, with some concern, we can perceive certain signals from the West that the level of assistance to Ukraine may decrease,” Musiienko told Newsweek. “We appreciate and are grateful for the level of support that has already been provided to Ukraine. This is very important. The funds that have been allocated have definitely contributed to the growth of democracy and freedom in the world.”

“However,” he added, “the level and volume of assistance cannot be stopped to avoid giving any hope or chances to Russia.”

Musiienko also addressed the lack of progress in Ukraine’s counteroffensive, citing “insufficient resources” for Ukrainian troops “to conduct large-scale offensive actions, primarily in terms of weapons systems: aviation, artillery, long-range weapons.” He also warned that “fighting while exposing ourselves to significant soldier casualties is not a viable option for Ukraine; we must preserve our human resources because we cannot compete with Russia in terms of mobilization resources, as they have a larger population.”

As such, he argued a change in tactics may be necessary, owing to developments both on the ground as well as in the political realm.

“Considering the trends on the battlefield and the absence of large aid packages from partners at the moment, the way forward for Ukraine may be transitioning our troops to active defense,” Musiienko said. “If we are talking about a war of attrition, the best way to do it is by defending, inflicting large losses on the enemy, and accumulating resources for future offensive actions.”

“Perhaps such an accumulation of resources will take place in the spring, and Ukraine will be able to resume active offensive operations,” he added. “Until then, we need to exhaust the enemy in defense and destroy Russian military capabilities in Crimea.”

Putin Plays the Long Game

And yet Putin too seems to be prepping for a long war. Russian forces have fortified themselves in a winding series of trenches guarded by deadly minefields, luring Ukrainian troops to advance into exposed positions.

Should the conflict remain as “static” as it is today, Gian Gentile, a retired U.S. Army colonel who serves as associate director of the Rand Corporation’s U.S. Army-affiliated Arroyo Center, told Newsweek that “Putin has figured out how to make this work for years and years.”

Russia has shown no sign of wavering in its war effort, even faced with mounting losses of personnel and equipment, brazen attacks on its own territory and a Western-led campaign of international sanctions. Despite a lack of progress on the frontlines, Russian missiles and drones continue to rain down on Ukrainian battlefield positions and population centers alike.

And while Gentile said he felt a sorely needed Ukrainian breakthrough was still possible in the coming months, potentially in the direction of Tokmak or even further south to Melitopol, he argued that continued U.S. backing would prove crucial for any Ukrainian push forward.

“The U.S. has been a critical leading element for the support of Ukraine since the war began,” Gentile said. “NATO and other partner nations have contributed a lot, but the U.S. has to lead in this effort to support Ukraine in its war against Russia.”

Given the mixed signals emerging from Washington, however, he said the “the Ukrainians absolutely should be worried about where these trend lines are heading.”

“Because if the U.S. isn’t able to lead,” Gentile added, “the trajectory of the war does not look good for Ukraine.”

US-backed Syria fighters want Biden to shoot down more of Turkey’s drones

0

The U.S. military’s top partner in Syria is praising the United States’ shootdown of a Turkish drone in the civil war-torn country, and it’s calling on President Joe Biden‘s administration to take even further action against its own ally.

“The attack on a Turkish drone is not enough in light of the widespread brutal targeting of service infrastructure in the region and the international parties—America and Russia— turning a blind eye to it,” Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) spokesperson Farhad Shami told Newsweek.

“There has to be a firm response and prevention of this targeting and preventing them,” he added, “as happened with the Turkish reconnaissance plane that was shot down.”

Sinam Mohamad, representative of the SDF’s political wing, the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), in Washington, D.C., welcomed the U.S. action, but she too called for further steps to be taken against Turkey, officially known as Türkiye.

“Of course, it’s good that the Americans used the F-16 to stop the drone,” Mohamad told Newsweek. “But they have to put even more pressure on Turkey to stop it from bombing all over northeast Syria.”

“The U.S. Air Forces’ successful operation against the Turkish drone was a direct response to Turkey’s unprovoked attacks against us,” she added. “I call on the international community to act immediately and stop Turkey.”

Reports emerged earlier Thursday of the rare NATO-on-NATO clash, with the Associated Press citing U.S. officials who said a U.S. F-16 shot down a Turkish unmanned aerial vehicle operating near the northeastern Syrian city of Al-Hasakah earlier that morning.

While neither U.S. nor Turkish officials have yet confirmed the incident, Mohamad said that the action appeared to take place after the Turkish drone veered “too close” to a U.S. military base.

As the news began to spread, the Turkish Defense Ministry announced that Turkish Chief of Staff General Metin Gurak held a telephone conversation with his U.S. counterpart General Charles Q. Brown, Jr. to discuss “current developments.” Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler also spoke with his U.S. counterpart Lloyd Austin.

A Pentagon readout later alluded to “today’s incident,” without getting into detail. Austin was said to have “urged de-escalation in northern Syria and the importance of maintaining strict adherence to de-confliction protocols and communication through established military-to-military channels.”

“Both leaders reiterated our shared commitment to defeating ISIS,” the readout said. “The Secretary acknowledged Türkiye’s legitimate security concerns and affirmed his commitment to close coordination between the United States and Türkiye to prevent any risk to U.S. forces or the Global Coalition’s Defeat-ISIS Mission in northeast Syria exclusively in support of the campaign to defeat ISIS.”

Newsweek has reached out to NATO, the Turkish Embassy to the United States and U.S. Central Command for comment.

The attack has the potential to have major consequences for relations between Washington and Ankara, which are already fraught over diverging policies in Syria.

Both the U.S. and Turkey, officially known as Türkiye, were leading supporters of an insurgency that erupted in Syria against President Bashar al-Assad in 2011. As the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) took large swathes of land, however, the U.S. shifted its backing to the largely Kurdish-led SDF, the SDC’s military wing, which led a successful charge to defeat the jihadis’ self-proclaimed caliphate.

But Ankara views the SDF as having direct ties to the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has waged a decades-long insurgency in Turkey. Both Washington and Ankara consider the PKK to be a terrorist organization.

For years, Turkish forces and allied rebels, who are primarily Arab, have clashed with Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has led at least four major ground offensives largely targeting Kurdish presence across the border in spite of U.S. protests.

Amid ongoing violence, the situation escalated sharply earlier this week when a suicide bombing claimed by the PKK struck a Turkish police headquarters in Ankara, injuring two. One Turkish civilian was also reportedly killed by the perpetrators in a hijacking leading up to the attack.

The Turkish Armed Forces responded with a sweeping series of strikes across northern Syria and northern Iraq, where Ankara has also identified PKK elements.

Mohamad said such attacks are still ongoing against Syrian cities along the border, from Ayn al-Arab, known to Kurds as Kobani, to Al-Malikiyah, called Derik in Kurdish.

“Oil stations, water stations, gas, electricity, all the infrastructure is being bombed,” she said. “Nobody could stop them.”

And while she noted that “this time the Americans targeted the drone of Turkey and stopped it” due to its proximity to a U.S. base, she said it was “essential for us” that Washington adopt further measures to put an end to Ankara’s campaign.

Whether she was concerned as to how Turkey might react to the U.S. action, she said the “The opposite is true.”

“We are very concerned and troubled how a NATO ally of the U.S., Turkey, has taken international law into its own hands and attacked us, an American ally in Syria that continues to partner with the US military to defeat ISIS,” she said.

Drones were also at the center of another volatile development in northern Syria on Wednesday. At least 80 people were killed when a yet unclaimed drone strike targeted a graduation ceremony for students at the Homs Military Academy, a 90-year-old institution led by the Syrian government.

In a statement, the Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned the attack “in the strongest terms” and laid blame on “terrorist organizations” that Damascus alleged were being supported by both Washington and Ankara. In response, Syrian troops reportedly began shelling the opposition-held province of Idlib.

Responding to the eruption of violence across Syria on Wednesday, U.N. special envoy for Syria Geir Perdersen said he was “gravely concerned” in a statement shared with Newsweek by his office.

“I deeply deplore the loss of life on all sides. I urgently appeal to all sides to exercise the utmost restraint,” Pedersen said. “Today’s horrific scenes are a reminder of the need to immediately de-escalate violence, towards a nationwide ceasefire and a cooperative approach to countering Security Council-listed terrorist groups, in line with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015).”

“All sides must respect their obligations under international law,” he added, “and ensure the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure.”

This is a developing news story and more information will be added as it becomes available.