Month: June 2024

There’s a new dark money group supporting Trump  POLITICO

After Donald Trump was found guilty on all thirty-four felony charges yesterday, he meekly lumbered out of the courtroom, clearly defeated. Today he decided to hold a press conference at the friendlier confines of Trump Tower, which he still partly owns (for now).

Unfortunately for Trump, he’s still Trump. He tried looking defiant by attacking the judge in his criminal trial, but instead he ended up claiming that one of the defense witnesses was “literally” crucified. Then Trump went on to call the judge the devil, while incoherently saying… whatever this is supposed to mean:

.

.

There’s no nice way to put it: Donald Trump’s brain is potato salad. He doesn’t have any idea where he’s at or what’s going on, and he can’t even get up and read the talking points that his babysitters have put in front of him. There’s just nothing left of this guy. As we move forward with our messaging, let’s keep in mind that he’s not just a convicted felon, he’s also completely senile.

The post Donald Trump’s brain is potato salad appeared first on Palmer Report.

Give us 5 minutes, and we’ll give you the world. Around the clock, Voice of America keeps you in touch with the latest news. We bring you reports from our correspondents and interviews with newsmakers from across the world.

Bangkok — Thailand’s government appears set to complete a deal for a Chinese-built diesel-electric attack submarine — a one-off purchase first negotiated under its previous military government — but experts say at this point, motivation for the deal may more political than military.

Under Thailand’s previous government led by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-Cha, the original deal to purchase three submarines was made in 2017.

But only one of the submarine deals materialized and faced many snags along the way. It was projected to cost Thailand about 13.5 billion baht — or $367 million — for China’s construction of the S26T Yuan-class submarine and was put on hold amid the outbreak of COVID-19.

Hesitant to resume the deal, Thailand’s Defense Ministry under a new civilian-led government in October 2023 said it would no longer acquire the submarine because of Beijing’s inability to integrate a German-made diesel engine, a result of EU sanctions on China.

Benjamin Zawacki, author of Thailand: Shifting Ground Between the U.S and Rising China, said the events unfolded during a time of political uncertainty in Thailand.

“There were legitimate concerns about the engines. But the timing of that controversy coincided with a lot of controversy about the then-military government, whether or not it should be spending so much money in the midst of COVID-19 and the midst of post-COVID-19 economic recovery,” he told VOA. “It was trying to realize this submarine deal didn’t place it in a very good light politically.”

With Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s September 2023 rise to power, the submarine deal looked dead in the water — until Thai Defense Minister Sutin Klungsang’s May 21 announcement that Thailand’s Royal Navy had dropped demands for the German hardware, opting instead from Chinese-made CHD620 diesel engine, bringing the submarine deal back to life.

Not all about defense

Chinese tourism is key to Thailand’s tourist economy. China was Thailand’s largest trading partner in 2023, when it exchanged an estimated $135 billion in revenue.

Following the 2014 military coup, the U.S., which had worked closely with Thailand in the past, quickly denounced the seizure of power, withdrawing millions in military aid to Bangkok.

Since then, Bangkok and Beijing have tightened security ties. Thailand purchased more arms equipment in terms of value from China than the U.S. between 2016 and 2022, according to a report published in the Lowy Institute.

But Zawacki says questions remain about the necessity of a Thai attack submarine.

“Thailand doesn’t need it, and China doesn’t need Thailand to have it,” he told VOA. “Speaking purely from a security standpoint, it doesn’t make a great deal of sense for either China or Thailand, especially given the political controversy it’s caused.”

But, Zawacki added, the deal is “emblematic of the [Sino-Thai] military-to-military relationship” that has evolved since the 2014 coup. He also believes Beijing has persisted in finalizing the deal, which has since been modified to accommodate trade requirements on Thai military hardware procurement announced under Srettha’s new government.

“It’s been brought back I think primarily because it’s important to the Chinese,” Zawacki said. “I’m sure they were persistent. It’s a deal they want to get done for their own reasons.”

Greg Raymond, a senior lecturer at the Strategic & Defence Studies Center at Australia National University, echoes that opinion, saying it seems like Chinese pressure pushed the deal over the line.

“I don’t think [this is] what the current Srettha government was looking for,” he said, adding that Srettha’s administration in October 2023 briefly discussed the possibility of converting the deal into a procurement of Chinese-made naval frigates.

“They were looking for that trade to frigates or some other alternative, [but] they wanted to stand their ground,” he said of the new administration.

“They’ve been rolled,” he added, alluding to China pushing through the deal. “I think that’s pretty significant that whatever pressure or leverage the Chinese have applied has been successful.”

VOA has contacted governments of Thailand and China seeking comment on the submarine deal.

Beijing’s push for greater power in Southeast Asia, including the submarine deal with Thailand and docking its warships in Cambodia, won’t go down well in Washington, Raymond added.

“This … is something which I’m not sure the Thais have thought through in terms of how that’s going to be read by the U.S.,” he said. “I think it’s an increasingly tenuous posture of hoping to somehow achieve a balance and equidistance between China and the U.S.”

Zawacki says Washington’s main concern will be about where the Chinese-made submarine will dock.

“Will it be at Satthip Heap [Thailand Naval Base in Chonburi] which is where U.S. assets are also docked? And would that pose a potential [for] espionage and information gathering? In terms of the proximity of having Chinese or Chinese-built vessel and U.S. vessels in the same in the same port, that’s been their primary concern.”

Unveiling the newly modified deal to acquire the submarine last week, Thai Defense Minister Sutin Klungsang asked opposition leaders to wait until further details of the transaction were locked in place before asking questions about it.

According to the Bangkok Post, Sutin also said he could not share precisely when the finalized deal would be ready for review by Cabinet officials, adding that a trade component of the deal was still being negotiated.  

Alexander Smith’s PowerPoint presentation doesn’t appear designed to court controversy. The slides, focused on declining maternal health in Gaza, cite public health data from the United Nations and World Health Organization. His employer, the U.S. Agency for International Development, had selected him to share it at the government agency’s Global Gender Equality Conference.

But just before the conference, an issue of contention emerged.

A single slide mentioned international humanitarian law in context of the health crisis in Gaza. USAID staff cited the slide and discussion of international law as potential fodder for leaks, documents and emails Smith shared with The Intercept show. Despite Smith’s willingness to make revisions, his presentation was eventually canceled. On the last day of the conference, he found himself out of a job.

“I thought it is really obscene that misinformation can go out freely out into the world [about Gaza], but I can’t talk about the reality of starving pregnant women,” said Smith, who worked as a contracted senior adviser at USAID on gender and material health. “We can’t even whisper about that in a conference on that topic.”

In a statement to The Intercept, the agency declined to comment on personnel matters but said Smith was not forced out over the presentation. “As an Agency, we value and intentionally seek out a diversity of viewpoints,” said a USAID spokesperson.

Smith, who is both a lawyer and public health expert, had worked for USAID for four years. In February, he submitted an abstract for his presentation — titled “An Intersectional Gender Lens in Gaza: Ethnicity, Religion, Geography, Legal Status, and Maternal/Child Health Outcomes” — which was accepted for the small USAID conference. He was scheduled to present on May 22 in Washington, D.C.

On May 10, two weeks before the conference, the State Department issued a report — dubbed the “NSM-20” report — about Israel’s compliance with international law. As The Intercept reported, USAID officials had urged Secretary of State Antony Blinken to find Israel’s commitments to international law were not credible based on its conduct in Gaza since October.

Blinken’s report hedged considerably, expressing “deep concerns” about “action and inaction” by the Israeli government that resulted in “insufficient” aid delivery to Gaza, while concluding Israel was not “prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.”

At the conference, Smith wanted to touch on international humanitarian law. His slides on the topic did not mention Israel specifically, the presentation shows.

“I wasn’t planning to stand up and yell ‘Israel is committing genocide,’” Smith said. “I was stating the laws.”

A slide from Alexander Smith’s PowerPoint presentation addressing international humanitarian law.

Courtesy Alexander Smith

A comment left on the slide by a USAID employee.

Courtesy of Alexander Smith

The rest of Smith’s presentation drew on data from the U.N., WHO, and other sources about the decline of maternal health in Gaza, including reports about Israel’s devastating attacks on Gaza’s health infrastructure.

When officials in USAID’s Middle East bureau reviewed Smith’s presentation days before the event, they flagged the slide on international humanitarian law, in particular.

“REMOVE – This framing is unnecessary for the subsequent slides,” wrote Erika Yepsen, a public affairs official for the bureau, in a comment. “This is an inappropriate venue to be commenting on Israel’s compliance with IHL.”

The U.S. government’s “assessment of Israel’s compliance with IHL is a major point of contention across the Hill,” Yepsen wrote in the comment. She recommended that the Middle East bureau “not clear any version of this presentation with this topic included” due to “problematic language.”

In an email with other USAID advisers, Yepsen, who did not respond to The Intercept’s inquiries, noted that “the NSM-20 report has made national news and Israel’s compliance remains an unresolved issue.”

Another slide from the presentation addressing the lack of medical facilities in Gaza.

Courtesy of Alexander Smith

Part of the presentation addressing declining maternal health in Gaza.

Courtesy of Alexander Smith

Smith agreed to cut the slide, the email thread shows. In line with administration guidelines, he also agreed to cut references to “Palestine,” including from the title of a chart produced by the United Nations Population Fund Palestine. He also agreed to other changes to comply with agency talking points and messaging, and offered to present without any slides, Smith told The Intercept.

Ultimately, USAID officials nixed the entire presentation. “Please remove this from the conference agenda,” wrote Allison Salyer, a senior adviser in the bureau, in an email. Salyer did not respond to The Intercept.

In a statement, a USAID official declined to discuss “specific personnel matters” but said Smith’s “work responsibilities did not include supporting USAID’s response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza or the devastating impacts of the conflict on women and children.”

USAID officials did not raise concerns over Smith’s expertise in any of the documents reviewed by The Intercept, focusing instead on his language choices.

“No one ever asked me before the conference if Gaza was outside my scope or used that as a reason not to talk about it,” Smith said. “Certainly the 35 people who reviewed and approved my abstract thought it was appropriate for me to speak on Gaza.”

Smith chose to attend the conference nonetheless. On the final day, he tried to ask the head of USAID, Samantha Power, why his presentation was canceled, but he was not called on, Smith said.

Late last week, Smith said he got a call from the company that contracted his position with USAID. He was told he could either resign or be terminated over “personality differences.”

“What happened to me sends a very clear signal to staff: We don’t talk about Gaza.”

The company would not tell him if the presentation contributed to USAID’s dissatisfaction with his performance, Smith said.

On Monday, Smith joined the growing ranks of Biden administration officials who have resigned over Gaza.

“Actively silencing discussion of Palestinian lives and the ongoing global health disaster is dehumanizing,” Smith wrote in a resignation letter to Power, “not only to the people of Gaza, but to the people of the United States who deserve to know the extent to which we are paying for and supporting crimes against Palestinians.”

“What happened to me sends a very clear signal to staff: We don’t talk about Gaza,” Smith told The Intercept.

The post He Made a PowerPoint on Mothers Starving in Gaza. Then He Lost His Government Job. appeared first on The Intercept.

THE WHITE HOUSE — Less than a day after U.S. President Joe Biden granted Ukraine authorization to strike inside Russia with American weaponry, Michael Carpenter, senior director for Europe at the National Security Council, spoke with VOA’s Iuliia Iarmolenko to discuss details of the new policy and explain what prompted the president’s reversal of a longstanding ban.

Carpenter, former U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, emphasized that U.S. policies barring Ukraine from using American-provided ATACMS, or long-range missiles, and other munitions to strike offensively inside Russia have not changed.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

VOA: Could you provide details about this shift in policy? What is allowed and what are the limitations?

MICHAEL CARPENTER, SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE AT NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: This is in the context of the Russian offensive in the Kharkiv region against Ukraine. Russians were striking targets in Ukraine from just across the border. And at that point, the Ukrainians came to us with a request to use U.S.-provided weapons to be able to hit back at the Russian weapons that were targeting Ukrainian villages and Ukrainian people and their homes. And so the president directed his national security team to look into this and directed them to change the guidance and to allow for the employment of U.S. provided weapons to be able to strike back. That guidance has now gone into effect.

VOA: Does it apply only to the Kharkiv region?

CARPENTER: This applies to counter-fire capabilities that are deployed just across the border. It does not apply to ATACMS or long-range strikes. This is meant to enable Ukrainians to defend themselves against what would otherwise be a Russian sanctuary across the border.

VOA: But in the Sumy region, would it be possible to do so there?

CARPENTER: As I said, this applies to enable Ukrainians to defend themselves. Yes, across the border for Russian attacks that are coming across, where otherwise Russians would enjoy a relative sanctuary on their side of the border.

VOA: What is the hope of the administration on how this policy shift might influence Ukraine’s position on the battlefield?

CARPENTER: Well, we have all long wanted to give Ukraine the capabilities that it needs defensively to push back on this aggressive onslaught on their territory. And we will continue to do that.

VOA: Do you expect, though, that this change in policy might influence the situation on a battlefield, such that Ukraine might have an upper hand in coming months?

CARPENTER: We endeavor to give Ukraine the capabilities over time to enable Ukraine to be able to defend its sovereignty against this aggression. And, yes, the types of weapons systems and the capabilities that we have provided, yes those have changed over time. The battlefield has changed over time. And we have reacted to what Russia has done. Don’t forget that Russia has also benefited from its partners. Principally Iran and North Korea. And we have therefore stepped up the contributions that we have made together with our allies and partners. And we continue to do so.

VOA: A couple weeks ago, Defense Secretary Austin said the United States is talking to allies in Europe about trying to get at least one more Patriot air-defense battery in place. Should we expect another battery directly from the United States as well?

CARPENTER: We are looking very carefully at what we could contribute to Ukraine’s air defense needs, which are very acute at this point in time. We’re talking with allies and partners. We’re talking around the world with various countries that we engage in. And I don’t have any announcements to make today, but I can assure you that this is an ongoing process where we are doing everything possible to unlock air defense capabilities for Ukraine.

VOA: I’d like to talk about the upcoming July NATO summit in Washington. Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week said that we’ll see “very strong deliverables for Ukraine” at the summit. Is there a consensus among allies about what those deliverables might look like? And should Ukraine expect the invitation to start accession talks?

CARPENTER: Secretary Blinken is in Prague right now to talk about the nature of the deliverable for Ukraine, the nature of the support that will be provided in the aftermath of the Washington summit. We think it’s going to be very robust. This will be essentially a bridge to [NATO] membership, so that when Ukraine does in the future receive an invitation — now, there is no consensus for an invitation now, at the Washington summit — but when conditions permit and when there is that consensus and Ukraine does gain entry to the NATO alliance, we want to make sure that Ukraine is fully capable on day one of being able to deter and defend and also is fully interoperable with NATO and is able to essentially participate in all the benefits but also undertake the responsibilities of being a member of the alliance from day one. So, we’re looking out to build out those capabilities and that support through this package of measures that is currently under discussion among NATO allies in Prague as we speak right now.

VOA: President Biden is meeting today with Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo at the White House. What role does President Biden hope Belgium can play in using Russian frozen assets to Ukraine’s benefit?

CARPENTER: Belgium is a great NATO ally. They’re a member of the EU. They’ve had the presidency of the European Union. They play a very important role. And President Biden, as he does with every single European leader, will underscore our partnership in support of Ukraine. Now, Belgium plays a particular role in terms of Russian sovereign assets, and we will be discussing how we can use the proceeds from those immobilized Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine.

VOA: It appears President Biden is likely to skip the Ukraine peace summit that’s going to be happening in Switzerland. Is it a sign that the administration doesn’t believe that this summit can produce some important results?

CARPENTER: So, first of all, I don’t have an announcement for you today on who will participate for the United States. We will have senior-level participation there, no doubt. … But we will look to use the opportunity of this Swiss peace summit to underscore support for Ukraine, for its sovereignty, for its territorial integrity, for the principles of the U.N. Charter. And as wide a participation as possible that will underscore worldwide support for Ukraine and its effort to defend itself.