US President Joe Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett over the phone discussing nuclear talks, the Russia-Ukraine crisis and a visit to Israel later this year.

US President Joe Biden to visit Israel later this year

The number of competitive congressional districts is on track to dive near — and possibly below — the lowest level in at least three decades, as Republicans and Democrats draw new political maps designed to ensure that the vast majority of House races are over before the general election starts.

With two-thirds of the new boundaries set, mapmakers are on pace to draw fewer than 40 seats — out of 435 — that are considered competitive based on the 2020 presidential election results, according to a New York Times analysis of election data. Ten years ago that number was 73.

While the exact size of the battlefield is still emerging, the sharp decline of competition for House seats is the latest worrying sign of dysfunction in the U.S. political system, which is already struggling with a scourge of misinformation and rising distrust in elections. Lack of competition in general elections can widen the ideological gulf between the parties, leading to hardened stalemates on legislation and voters’ alienation from the political process.

“The reduction of competitive seats is a tragedy,” said former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who is chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “We end up with gridlock, we end up with no progress, and we end up with a population looking at our legislatures and having this feeling that nothing gets done.” He added: “This gridlock leads to cynicism about this whole process.”

Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for adding to the tally of safe seats. Over decades, the parties have deftly used the redistricting process to create districts dominated by voters from one party or to bolster incumbents.

It’s not yet clear which party will ultimately benefit more from this year’s bumper crop of safe seats, or whether President Joe Biden’s sagging approval ratings might endanger Democrats whose districts haven’t been considered competitive. Republicans control the mapmaking for more than twice as many districts as Democrats, leaving many in the GOP to believe that the party can take back the House majority after four years of Democratic control largely by drawing favorable seats.

But Democrats have used their power to gerrymander more aggressively than expected. In New York, for example, the Democratic-controlled Legislature on Wednesday approved a map that gives the party a strong chance of flipping as many as three House seats currently held by Republicans.

That has left Republicans and Democrats essentially at a draw, with two big outstanding unknowns: Florida’s 28 seats, increasingly the subject of Republican infighting, are still unsettled, and several court cases in other states could send lawmakers back to the drawing board.

“Democrats in New York are gerrymandering like the House depends on it,” said Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the party’s main mapmaking organization. “Republican legislators shouldn’t be afraid to legally press their political advantage where they have control.”

New York’s new map doesn’t just set Democrats up to win more seats, it also eliminates competitive districts. In 2020, there were four districts where Biden and former President Donald Trump were within 5 percentage points. There are none in the new map. Even the reconfigured district that stretches from Republican-dominated Staten Island to Democratic neighborhoods in Brooklyn is now, at least on paper, friendly territory for Democrats.

Without that competition from outside the party, many politicians are beginning to see the biggest threat to their careers as coming from within.

“When I was a member of Congress, most members woke up concerned about a general election,” said former Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who led the House Democrats’ campaign committee during the last redistricting cycle. “Now they wake up worried about a primary opponent.”

Israel, who left Congress in 2017 and now owns a bookstore on Long Island, recalled Republicans telling him they would like to vote for Democratic priorities like gun control but feared a backlash from their party’s base. House Democrats, Israel said, would like to address issues such as Social Security and Medicare reform, but understand that doing so would draw a robust primary challenge from the party’s left wing.

Republicans argue that redistricting isn’t destiny: The political climate matters, and more races will become competitive if inflation, the lingering pandemic or other issues continue to sour voters on Democratic leadership.

But the far greater number of districts drawn to be overwhelmingly safe for one party is likely to limit how many seats will flip — even in a so-called wave election.

“The parties are contributing to more and more single-party districts and taking the voters out of the equation,” said former Rep. Tom Davis, who led the House Republicans’ campaign arm during the 2001 redistricting cycle. “November becomes a constitutional formality.”

In the 29 states where maps have been completed and not thrown out by courts, there are just 22 districts that either Biden or Trump won by 5 percentage points or less, according to data from the Brennan Center for Justice, a research institute.

By this point in the 2012 redistricting cycle, there were 44 districts defined as competitive based on the previous presidential election results. In the 1992 election, the margin between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush was within 5 points in 108 congressional districts.

The phenomenon of parties using redistricting to gain an edge is as old as the republic itself, but it has escalated in recent decades with more sophisticated technology and more detailed data about voter behavior. Americans with similar political views have clustered in distinct areas — Republicans in rural and exurban areas, Democrats in cities and inner suburbs. It’s a pattern that can make it difficult to draw cohesive, competitive districts.

No state has quashed competition ahead of the midterm elections like Texas. In the 2020 election, there were 12 competitive districts in the state. After redistricting, there is only one.

Though Trump won 52% of the vote in Texas in 2020, Republicans are expected to win roughly 65% — 24 of the state’s 38 congressional seats. (Texas gained two seats in the reapportionment after the 2020 census.)

The Texas state legislators who control redistricting shored up Republican incumbents including Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Beth Van Duyne and Michael McCaul, but in doing so also drew safer districts for Democrats such as Reps. Colin Allred and Lizzie Fletcher.

“The fact that it’s going to be harder for us to pick up congressional seats is a big concern,” said Gilberto Hinojosa, chair of the Texas Democratic Party. “That doesn’t mean that we think that it’s not important to mount challengers; it’s just a reality that it’s going to be harder.”

Democrats did the same where they could. Oregon legislators took the state’s competitive 4th District and turned it into a seat that strongly favors their party.

The change was so dramatic that Rep. Peter DeFazio, an 18-term Democrat, told reporters last year that he chose to retire because the district is now “winnable by another Democrat.”

Redrawing DeFazio’s district enraged Oregon Republicans.

“Competitive districts benefit all of us,” said Shelly Boshart Davis, an Oregon state representative who was the former Republican co-chairwoman of the state House’s redistricting committee. “We hear voters that feel marginalized all the time, that say, ‘I don’t feel my voice gets heard.’ ”

A lack of competition has unintended consequences. Without a competitive race at the congressional level, local parties are deprived of an infusion of money and organizing. Candidates for governor or Senate don’t benefit from being able to piggyback on the energy and activity at the local level.

“Anybody running statewide has to pull the wagon entirely themselves because you don’t have competitive races going on locally,” said Matt Angle, a Democratic activist in Texas.

It can sometimes take years to see the full effect of eliminating a competitive district.

Ten years ago, North Carolina Republicans took a battleground district in the state’s western tip and, by slicing off a piece of the liberal city of Asheville, turned it into a district that John McCain would have carried by 18 points in the 2008 presidential election. The incumbent centrist Democrat, Heath Shuler, retired rather than seek reelection in a district he had little shot at winning.

He was replaced by Mark Meadows, who went on to be a founding member of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus before becoming the last White House chief of staff for Trump and a central figure in Trump’s campaign to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The number of competitive congressional districts is on track to dive near — and possibly below — the lowest level in at least three decades, as Republicans and Democrats draw new political maps designed to ensure that the vast majority of House races are over before the general election starts.

The number of competitive congressional districts is on track to dive near — and possibly below — the lowest level in at least three decades, as Republicans and Democrats draw new political maps designed to ensure that the vast majority of House races are over before the general election starts. With two-thirds of the new boundaries set, mapmakers are on pace to draw fewer than 40 seats — out of 435 — that are considered competitive based on the 2020 presidential election results, according to a New York Times analysis of election data. Ten years ago that number was 73. While the exact size of the battlefield is still emerging, the sharp decline of competition for House seats is the latest worrying sign of dysfunction in the U.S. political system, which is already struggling with a scourge of misinformation and rising distrust in elections. Lack of competition in general elections can widen the ideological gulf between the parties, leading to hardened stalemates on legislation and voters’ alienation from the political process. “The reduction of competitive seats is a tragedy,” said former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who is chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “We end up with gridlock, we end up with no progress, and we end up with a population looking at our legislatures and having this feeling that nothing gets done.” He added: “This gridlock leads to cynicism about this whole process.” Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for adding to the tally of safe seats. Over decades, the parties have deftly used the redistricting process to create districts dominated by voters from one party or to bolster incumbents. It’s not yet clear which party will ultimately benefit more from this year’s bumper crop of safe seats, or whether President Joe Biden’s sagging approval ratings might endanger Democrats whose districts haven’t been considered competitive. Republicans control the mapmaking for more than twice as many districts as Democrats, leaving many in the GOP to believe that the party can take back the House majority after four years of Democratic control largely by drawing favorable seats. But Democrats have used their power to gerrymander more aggressively than expected. In New York, for example, the Democratic-controlled Legislature on Wednesday approved a map that gives the party a strong chance of flipping as many as three House seats currently held by Republicans. That has left Republicans and Democrats essentially at a draw, with two big outstanding unknowns: Florida’s 28 seats, increasingly the subject of Republican infighting, are still unsettled, and several court cases in other states could send lawmakers back to the drawing board. “Democrats in New York are gerrymandering like the House depends on it,” said Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the party’s main mapmaking organization. “Republican legislators shouldn’t be afraid to legally press their political advantage where they have control.” New York’s new map doesn’t just set Democrats up to win more seats, it also eliminates competitive districts. In 2020, there were four districts where Biden and former President Donald Trump were within 5 percentage points. There are none in the new map. Even the reconfigured district that stretches from Republican-dominated Staten Island to Democratic neighborhoods in Brooklyn is now, at least on paper, friendly territory for Democrats. Without that competition from outside the party, many politicians are beginning to see the biggest threat to their careers as coming from within. “When I was a member of Congress, most members woke up concerned about a general election,” said former Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who led the House Democrats’ campaign committee during the last redistricting cycle. “Now they wake up worried about a primary opponent.” Israel, who left Congress in 2017 and now owns a bookstore on Long Island, recalled Republicans telling him they would like to vote for Democratic priorities like gun control but feared a backlash from their party’s base. House Democrats, Israel said, would like to address issues such as Social Security and Medicare reform, but understand that doing so would draw a robust primary challenge from the party’s left wing. Republicans argue that redistricting isn’t destiny: The political climate matters, and more races will become competitive if inflation, the lingering pandemic or other issues continue to sour voters on Democratic leadership. But the far greater number of districts drawn to be overwhelmingly safe for one party is likely to limit how many seats will flip — even in a so-called wave election. “The parties are contributing to more and more single-party districts and taking the voters out of the equation,” said former Rep. Tom Davis, who led the House Republicans’ campaign arm during the 2001 redistricting cycle. “November becomes a constitutional formality.” In the 29 states where maps have been completed and not thrown out by courts, there are just 22 districts that either Biden or Trump won by 5 percentage points or less, according to data from the Brennan Center for Justice, a research institute. By this point in the 2012 redistricting cycle, there were 44 districts defined as competitive based on the previous presidential election results. In the 1992 election, the margin between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush was within 5 points in 108 congressional districts. The phenomenon of parties using redistricting to gain an edge is as old as the republic itself, but it has escalated in recent decades with more sophisticated technology and more detailed data about voter behavior. Americans with similar political views have clustered in distinct areas — Republicans in rural and exurban areas, Democrats in cities and inner suburbs. It’s a pattern that can make it difficult to draw cohesive, competitive districts. No state has quashed competition ahead of the midterm elections like Texas. In the 2020 election, there were 12 competitive districts in the state. After redistricting, there is only one. Though Trump won 52% of the vote in Texas in 2020, Republicans are expected to win roughly 65% — 24 of the state’s 38 congressional seats. (Texas gained two seats in the reapportionment after the 2020 census.) The Texas state legislators who control redistricting shored up Republican incumbents including Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Beth Van Duyne and Michael McCaul, but in doing so also drew safer districts for Democrats such as Reps. Colin Allred and Lizzie Fletcher. “The fact that it’s going to be harder for us to pick up congressional seats is a big concern,” said Gilberto Hinojosa, chair of the Texas Democratic Party. “That doesn’t mean that we think that it’s not important to mount challengers; it’s just a reality that it’s going to be harder.” Democrats did the same where they could. Oregon legislators took the state’s competitive 4th District and turned it into a seat that strongly favors their party. The change was so dramatic that Rep. Peter DeFazio, an 18-term Democrat, told reporters last year that he chose to retire because the district is now “winnable by another Democrat.” Redrawing DeFazio’s district enraged Oregon Republicans. “Competitive districts benefit all of us,” said Shelly Boshart Davis, an Oregon state representative who was the former Republican co-chairwoman of the state House’s redistricting committee. “We hear voters that feel marginalized all the time, that say, ‘I don’t feel my voice gets heard.’ ” A lack of competition has unintended consequences. Without a competitive race at the congressional level, local parties are deprived of an infusion of money and organizing. Candidates for governor or Senate don’t benefit from being able to piggyback on the energy and activity at the local level. “Anybody running statewide has to pull the wagon entirely themselves because you don’t have competitive races going on locally,” said Matt Angle, a Democratic activist in Texas. It can sometimes take years to see the full effect of eliminating a competitive district. Ten years ago, North Carolina Republicans took a battleground district in the state’s western tip and, by slicing off a piece of the liberal city of Asheville, turned it into a district that John McCain would have carried by 18 points in the 2008 presidential election. The incumbent centrist Democrat, Heath Shuler, retired rather than seek reelection in a district he had little shot at winning. He was replaced by Mark Meadows, who went on to be a founding member of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus before becoming the last White House chief of staff for Trump and a central figure in Trump’s campaign to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

‘Taking the voters out of the equation’: How the parties are killing competition in US

US President Joe Biden said that US forces had eliminated Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, a leader of ISIS in a raid in Syria. The raid was carried out under his direction, Biden said in a statement. He said that all Americans returned safely from the operation.

"Last night at my direction, U.S. military forces in the northwest Syria successfully undertook a counterterrorism operation to protect the American people and our Allies, and make the world a safer place. Thanks to the skill and bravery of our Armed Forces, we have taken off the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi—the leader of ISIS. All Americans have returned safely from the operation. I will deliver remarks to the American people later this morning. May God protect our troops," Biden said in the statement.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-isis-leader-killed-in-us-operation-in-syria-450275/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Reports of the operation were doing rounds in media before the official statement from the president. It was initially thought that an Al Qaeda terrorist was the target.&nbsp;It has been reported that At least 13 people, including six children and four women were killed in the clashes. &nbsp;The raid targetted a house in the Atmeh area near the Turkish border.

After the initial reports, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby had confirmed that such a raid had taken place. Biden's statement was released after this.&nbsp;

"US Special Operations forces under the control of US&nbsp;Central Command conducted a counter-terrorism mission this evening in northwest Syria. The mission was successful," Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said in the statement earlier.

A US official said that "at the beginning of the operation the terrorist target exploded a bomb that killed him and members of his own family, including women and children."

&nbsp;“We all remember the gut wrenching stories, mass slaughters that wiped out entire villages, thousands of women and young girls sold into slavery, rape used a weapon of war,” and that “this horrible terrorist leader is no more,” Biden said.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden said that US forces had eliminated Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, a leader of ISIS in a raid in Syria. The raid was carried out under his direction, Biden said in a statement.

US President Joe Biden said that US forces had eliminated Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, a leader of ISIS in a raid in Syria. The raid was carried out under his direction, Biden said in a statement. He said that all Americans returned safely from the operation. "Last night at my direction, U.S. military forces in the northwest Syria successfully undertook a counterterrorism operation to protect the American people and our Allies, and make the world a safer place. Thanks to the skill and bravery of our Armed Forces, we have taken off the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi—the leader of ISIS. All Americans have returned safely from the operation. I will deliver remarks to the American people later this morning. May God protect our troops," Biden said in the statement. × Reports of the operation were doing rounds in media before the official statement from the president. It was initially thought that an Al Qaeda terrorist was the target. It has been reported that At least 13 people, including six children and four women were killed in the clashes. The raid targetted a house in the Atmeh area near the Turkish border. After the initial reports, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby had confirmed that such a raid had taken place. Biden's statement was released after this. "US Special Operations forces under the control of US Central Command conducted a counter-terrorism mission this evening in northwest Syria. The mission was successful," Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said in the statement earlier. A US official said that "at the beginning of the operation the terrorist target exploded a bomb that killed him and members of his own family, including women and children." “We all remember the gut wrenching stories, mass slaughters that wiped out entire villages, thousands of women and young girls sold into slavery, rape used a weapon of war,” and that “this horrible terrorist leader is no more,” Biden said. (With inputs from agencies)

ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim exploded a bomb that killed him: US official

The leader of the Islamic state has been killed in a counter-terror operation carried out by the United States in north-western Syria. The US president Joe Biden gave the green light to the operations on Wednesday.

US conducts counter-terrorism mission, ISIS leader blew himself up during raids

Joe Biden is deploying 3,000 soldiers to Europe as Russia prepares for a massive military drill with Belarus. Will Putin use the drills to mount an invasion? Is the window for diplomacy shrinking? Molly Gambhir tells you.

Gravitas: US deploys 3,000 soldiers to Europe

US President Joe Biden visited the NYPD to address his administration’s strategy to confront the surge in crime and gun violence.

US President Joe Biden visits NYPD to address surge in gun crimes

The Joe Biden administration is sending a warship to the UAE to help the sheikhdom fight the Houthis. A year back, U.S. had withdrawn itself from the conflict & delisted the Houthi movement as a terror group. Palki Sharma tells you how President Biden is breaking his own promises.

Gravitas: UAE vs HOUTHIS: US to deploy warship

US President Joe Biden has approved sending additional forces to Eastern Europe amid the ongoing fear of Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Moscow has denounced the step as “destructive”.

US troop deployment to Eastern Europe a destructive step, says Russia

Fifteen days after Election Day in 2020, James R. Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, received a memo setting out what became the rationale for an audacious strategy: to put in place alternate slates of electors in states where President Donald Trump was trying to overturn his loss.

The memo, from a lawyer named Kenneth Chesebro, may not have been the first time that lawyers and allies of Trump had weighed the possibility of naming their own electors in the hopes that they might eventually succeed in flipping the outcome in battleground states through recounts and lawsuits baselessly asserting widespread fraud.

But the Nov. 18 memo and another three weeks later are among the earliest known efforts to put on paper proposals for preparing alternate electors. They helped to shape a crucial strategy that Trump would embrace with profound consequences for himself and the nation.

The memos show how just over two weeks after Election Day, Trump’s campaign was seeking to buy itself more time to undo the results. At the heart of the strategy was the idea that the real deadline was not Dec. 14, when official electors would be chosen to reflect the outcome in each state, but Jan. 6, when Congress would meet to certify the results.

And in that focus on Jan. 6 lay the seeds of what became a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to accept the validity of a challenge to the outcome and to block Congress from finalizing Joe Biden’s victory — a campaign that would also lead to a violent assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters and an extraordinary rupture in U.S. politics.

“It may seem odd that the electors pledged to Trump and Pence might meet and cast their votes on Dec. 14 even if, at that juncture, the Trump-Pence ticket is behind in the vote count, and no certificate of election has been issued in favor of Trump and Pence,” the Nov. 18 memo said. “However, a fair reading of the federal statutes suggests that this is a reasonable course of action.”

Federal prosecutors and the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 have recently confirmed that they are examining the effort to submit alternate slates of electors to the Electoral College. On Friday, congressional investigators issued subpoenas to 14 people who claimed to be official Trump electors in states that were actually won by Biden.

The two memos, obtained by The New York Times, were used by Trump’s top lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and others like John Eastman as they developed a strategy intended to exploit ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The memos were initially meant to address Trump’s challenge to the outcome in Wisconsin, but they ultimately became part of a broader conversation by members of Trump’s legal team as the president looked toward Jan. 6 and began to exert pressure on Pence to hold up certification of the Electoral College count.

Neither Troupis nor Chesebro responded to requests for comment about the memos. Even before the memos were written, legislative leaders in Arizona and Wisconsin sought advice from their own lawyers about whether they had the power to alter slates of electors after the election took place and were effectively told they did not, according to new documents obtained by American Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group.

Trump has long embraced the scheme. Just this past weekend, he issued a statement reiterating that he was justified in using the process in Congress on Jan. 6 to challenge the outcome and asserting that Pence “could have overturned the election.”

The plan to employ alternate electors was one of Trump’s most expansive efforts to stave off defeat, beginning even before some states had finished counting ballots and culminating in the pressure placed on Pence when he presided over the joint congressional session Jan. 6. At various times, the scheme involved state lawmakers, White House aides and lawyers like Chesebro and Troupis.

In the weeks after the election, Troupis oversaw the Trump campaign’s recount effort in Wisconsin, which ultimately showed that Biden had won by more than 20,000 votes. In early December 2020, Troupis filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Trump campaign that sought to invalidate the use of absentee ballots in Milwaukee and Dane counties, which both have large numbers of Black voters.

At a hearing in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, one justice, Rebecca Dallet, noted that Troupis had not sought to invalidate votes in Wisconsin's 70 other counties but had focused only on the “most nonwhite, urban” parts of the state. Another justice, Jill Karofsky, echoed that sentiment, telling Troupis that his lawsuit “smacks of racism.”

In late December, Chesebro joined Troupis in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the question of whether competing slates of electors in Wisconsin and six other contested states could be considered Jan. 6. The high court denied their request.

The language and suggestions in the memos from Chesebro to Troupis closely echo tactics and talking points that were eventually adopted by Trump’s top lawyers.

The November memo, for example, called Jan. 6 the “hard deadline” for settling the results of the election and advised that the Trump campaign had nearly two months for “judicial proceedings” to challenge the outcome. It also suggested that Trump-friendly electors in Wisconsin needed to meet in Madison, the state capital, on Dec. 14, 2020, the day the Electoral College would be voting.

The second memo was dated Dec. 9, 2020, and expanded on the plan. It set forth an analysis of how to legally authorize alternate electors in six key swing states, including Wisconsin. It noted that the scheme was “unproblematic” in Arizona and Wisconsin, “slightly problematic” in Michigan, “somewhat dicey” in Georgia and Pennsylvania, and “very problematic” in Nevada.

Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., a member of the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, said that the panel was examining the origins of the plans to put forward alternate electors. The panel already has in its possession memos that were written by Eastman and another Trump lawyer, Jenna Ellis, in late December 2020 and early January 2021; those memos laid out steps for Congress to take to cast aside Biden’s electors in key swing states.

“We know this was a coordinated effort on behalf of the former president and those around him to overturn a free and fair election,” Aguilar said. “We continue to learn new and more details. It’s incredibly troubling to know the lengths they went to support these efforts in multiple states.”

Aguilar said that he and others on the panel believed the plan to use the electors was connected to other aspects of Trump’s effort to remain in power, such as proposals to seize voting machines and to put intense pressure on Pence to throw out legitimate electoral votes.

“We need to know the depth of that plan, and we need to know the different ways in which they sought to operationalize their theory,” he said.

Fifteen days after Election Day in 2020, James R. Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, received a memo setting out what became the rationale for an audacious strategy: to put in place alternate slates of electors in states where President Donald Trump was trying to overturn his loss.

Fifteen days after Election Day in 2020, James R. Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, received a memo setting out what became the rationale for an audacious strategy: to put in place alternate slates of electors in states where President Donald Trump was trying to overturn his loss. The memo, from a lawyer named Kenneth Chesebro, may not have been the first time that lawyers and allies of Trump had weighed the possibility of naming their own electors in the hopes that they might eventually succeed in flipping the outcome in battleground states through recounts and lawsuits baselessly asserting widespread fraud. But the Nov. 18 memo and another three weeks later are among the earliest known efforts to put on paper proposals for preparing alternate electors. They helped to shape a crucial strategy that Trump would embrace with profound consequences for himself and the nation. The memos show how just over two weeks after Election Day, Trump’s campaign was seeking to buy itself more time to undo the results. At the heart of the strategy was the idea that the real deadline was not Dec. 14, when official electors would be chosen to reflect the outcome in each state, but Jan. 6, when Congress would meet to certify the results. And in that focus on Jan. 6 lay the seeds of what became a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to accept the validity of a challenge to the outcome and to block Congress from finalizing Joe Biden’s victory — a campaign that would also lead to a violent assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters and an extraordinary rupture in U.S. politics. “It may seem odd that the electors pledged to Trump and Pence might meet and cast their votes on Dec. 14 even if, at that juncture, the Trump-Pence ticket is behind in the vote count, and no certificate of election has been issued in favor of Trump and Pence,” the Nov. 18 memo said. “However, a fair reading of the federal statutes suggests that this is a reasonable course of action.” Federal prosecutors and the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 have recently confirmed that they are examining the effort to submit alternate slates of electors to the Electoral College. On Friday, congressional investigators issued subpoenas to 14 people who claimed to be official Trump electors in states that were actually won by Biden. The two memos, obtained by The New York Times, were used by Trump’s top lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and others like John Eastman as they developed a strategy intended to exploit ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act, according to a person familiar with the matter. The memos were initially meant to address Trump’s challenge to the outcome in Wisconsin, but they ultimately became part of a broader conversation by members of Trump’s legal team as the president looked toward Jan. 6 and began to exert pressure on Pence to hold up certification of the Electoral College count. Neither Troupis nor Chesebro responded to requests for comment about the memos. Even before the memos were written, legislative leaders in Arizona and Wisconsin sought advice from their own lawyers about whether they had the power to alter slates of electors after the election took place and were effectively told they did not, according to new documents obtained by American Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group. Trump has long embraced the scheme. Just this past weekend, he issued a statement reiterating that he was justified in using the process in Congress on Jan. 6 to challenge the outcome and asserting that Pence “could have overturned the election.” The plan to employ alternate electors was one of Trump’s most expansive efforts to stave off defeat, beginning even before some states had finished counting ballots and culminating in the pressure placed on Pence when he presided over the joint congressional session Jan. 6. At various times, the scheme involved state lawmakers, White House aides and lawyers like Chesebro and Troupis. In the weeks after the election, Troupis oversaw the Trump campaign’s recount effort in Wisconsin, which ultimately showed that Biden had won by more than 20,000 votes. In early December 2020, Troupis filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Trump campaign that sought to invalidate the use of absentee ballots in Milwaukee and Dane counties, which both have large numbers of Black voters. At a hearing in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, one justice, Rebecca Dallet, noted that Troupis had not sought to invalidate votes in Wisconsin's 70 other counties but had focused only on the “most nonwhite, urban” parts of the state. Another justice, Jill Karofsky, echoed that sentiment, telling Troupis that his lawsuit “smacks of racism.” In late December, Chesebro joined Troupis in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the question of whether competing slates of electors in Wisconsin and six other contested states could be considered Jan. 6. The high court denied their request. The language and suggestions in the memos from Chesebro to Troupis closely echo tactics and talking points that were eventually adopted by Trump’s top lawyers. The November memo, for example, called Jan. 6 the “hard deadline” for settling the results of the election and advised that the Trump campaign had nearly two months for “judicial proceedings” to challenge the outcome. It also suggested that Trump-friendly electors in Wisconsin needed to meet in Madison, the state capital, on Dec. 14, 2020, the day the Electoral College would be voting. The second memo was dated Dec. 9, 2020, and expanded on the plan. It set forth an analysis of how to legally authorize alternate electors in six key swing states, including Wisconsin. It noted that the scheme was “unproblematic” in Arizona and Wisconsin, “slightly problematic” in Michigan, “somewhat dicey” in Georgia and Pennsylvania, and “very problematic” in Nevada. Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., a member of the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, said that the panel was examining the origins of the plans to put forward alternate electors. The panel already has in its possession memos that were written by Eastman and another Trump lawyer, Jenna Ellis, in late December 2020 and early January 2021; those memos laid out steps for Congress to take to cast aside Biden’s electors in key swing states. “We know this was a coordinated effort on behalf of the former president and those around him to overturn a free and fair election,” Aguilar said. “We continue to learn new and more details. It’s incredibly troubling to know the lengths they went to support these efforts in multiple states.” Aguilar said that he and others on the panel believed the plan to use the electors was connected to other aspects of Trump’s effort to remain in power, such as proposals to seize voting machines and to put intense pressure on Pence to throw out legitimate electoral votes. “We need to know the depth of that plan, and we need to know the different ways in which they sought to operationalize their theory,” he said.

Memos show roots of Trump’s focus on Jan. 6 and alternate electors

Amid the ongoing tensions between Ukraine, Russia and the West, the US says that it plans to send 3,000 troops to East Europe.

Tensions escalate over Ukraine as US plan to send 3,000 troops to East Europe

US President Biden on Wednesday approved the deployment of additional 3,000 US military troops to Eastern Europe as per a senior administration official.

"The Department of Defense will reposition certain Europe-based units further east, forward-deploy additional US-based units to Europe, and maintain the heightened state of readiness of response forces" to meet commitments to NATO, the administration official said.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-ukraine-crisis-moscow-boosts-troop-levels-around-ukrainian-border-449320/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Biden has said he will not put American troops in Ukraine to fight any Russian incursion, although the United States is supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend itself.

"These forces are not going to fight in Ukraine. They are not permanent moves. They respond to current conditions," the official added

The move is being viwed by experts as Washington reinforcement towards its allies against what it describes as a Russian threat to invade Ukraine.

Also see |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/what-weapons-has-ukraine-received-from-western-countries-to-resist-russias-army-449650">What weapons has Ukraine received from Western countries to resist Russia's army?</a>

Moscow, which has massed more than 100,000 troops near Ukraine's borders, denies any plan to invade its neighbour but says it could take unspecified military measures if demands are not met, including a promise by NATO never to admit Kyiv.

According to US media reports, around 2,000 troops will be sent from Fort Bragg, North Carolina to Poland and Germany, while another 1,000 already in Germany will be moved to Romania.

The Pentagon also has put about 8,500 US-based troops on higher alert for possible deployment to Europe as additional reassurance to allies, and officials have indicated the possibility that additional units could be placed on higher alert soon.&nbsp;

Also see |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/beyond-full-scale-attack-on-ukraine-what-are-other-risky-options-does-russia-have-448771">Beyond full scale attack on Ukraine, what are other risky options does Russia have?</a>

The US already has between 75,000 and 80,000 troops in Europe as permanently stationed forces and as part of regular rotations in place such as Poland.

Washington and Moscow have been at loggerheads over Ukraine, with little sign of a diplomatic path forward.

In his first public remarks on the standoff in more than a month, Putin on Tuesday accused the U.S. and its allies of ignoring Russia’s central security demands but he said that Moscow is willing to talk more to ease tensions over Ukraine.

His remarks suggested that a potential Russian invasion may not be imminent and that at least one more round of diplomacy is likely.

Ukraine has been battling Moscow-backed insurgencies in two separatist regions since 2014, when Moscow annexed the peninsula of Crimea.

More than 13,000 people have been killed in the fighting, the last major ongoing war in Europe.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

US President Biden on Wednesday approved the deployment of additional 3,000 US military troops to Eastern Europe as per a senior administration official. "The Department of Defense will reposition certain Europe-based units further east, forward-deploy additional US-based units to Europe, and maintain the heightened state of readiness of response forces" to meet commitments to NATO, the administration official said.

US President Biden on Wednesday approved the deployment of additional 3,000 US military troops to Eastern Europe as per a senior administration official. "The Department of Defense will reposition certain Europe-based units further east, forward-deploy additional US-based units to Europe, and maintain the heightened state of readiness of response forces" to meet commitments to NATO, the administration official said. Biden has said he will not put American troops in Ukraine to fight any Russian incursion, although the United States is supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend itself. "These forces are not going to fight in Ukraine. They are not permanent moves. They respond to current conditions," the official added The move is being viwed by experts as Washington reinforcement towards its allies against what it describes as a Russian threat to invade Ukraine. Also see | What weapons has Ukraine received from Western countries to resist Russia's army? Moscow, which has massed more than 100,000 troops near Ukraine's borders, denies any plan to invade its neighbour but says it could take unspecified military measures if demands are not met, including a promise by NATO never to admit Kyiv. According to US media reports, around 2,000 troops will be sent from Fort Bragg, North Carolina to Poland and Germany, while another 1,000 already in Germany will be moved to Romania. The Pentagon also has put about 8,500 US-based troops on higher alert for possible deployment to Europe as additional reassurance to allies, and officials have indicated the possibility that additional units could be placed on higher alert soon. Also see | Beyond full scale attack on Ukraine, what are other risky options does Russia have? The US already has between 75,000 and 80,000 troops in Europe as permanently stationed forces and as part of regular rotations in place such as Poland. Washington and Moscow have been at loggerheads over Ukraine, with little sign of a diplomatic path forward. In his first public remarks on the standoff in more than a month, Putin on Tuesday accused the U.S. and its allies of ignoring Russia’s central security demands but he said that Moscow is willing to talk more to ease tensions over Ukraine. His remarks suggested that a potential Russian invasion may not be imminent and that at least one more round of diplomacy is likely. Ukraine has been battling Moscow-backed insurgencies in two separatist regions since 2014, when Moscow annexed the peninsula of Crimea. More than 13,000 people have been killed in the fighting, the last major ongoing war in Europe. (With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden approves deployment of additional 3,000 troops to eastern Europe: Report

US President is one of the most powerful men on Earth and it seems now, he has also started to get death threats. &nbsp;

Two men, one from Maryland and another from Kansas, have been charged with making threats to kill President Joe Biden separately, the authorities said on Tuesday. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/qatar-to-become-major-non-nato-ally-us-president-tells-emir-449366">Qatar to become major non-NATO ally, US President tells emir</a>

Last week, the authorities arrested 37-year-old Ryan Matthew Conlon of Halethorpe, Maryland and 37-year-old Scott Ryan Merryman of Independence, Kansas. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The case of Conlon was sealed until Monday. He has also been charged with making threats to blow up headquarters of National Security Agency. &nbsp;

Merryman was arrested by the authorities when he travelled from his home to Maryland. He had called the police in his hometown on last Tuesday to say that he was on his way to Washington, DC, to see the president, the federal authorities said. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-instigating-hysteria-people-in-ukraine-packing-frontline-bags-russia-449263" hreflang="en">US instigating hysteria, people in Ukraine packing frontline bags: Russia</a>

According to an FBI agent's affidavit, when a secret service agent called him on last Wednesday, Merryman said God had told him to travel to Washington to "lop off the head of the serpent in the heart of the nation." &nbsp;

"Merryman denied that the serpent was the President of the United States, but stated that he had information about the Book of Revelation that he was being instructed by God to give to the President," the agent wrote. &nbsp;

Court filings did not list attorneys for Merryman or Conlon, who was released after his initial appearance in court last week. US Magistrate Judge A David Copperthite had also ordered Conlon to refrain from using a computer or any other internet-connected devices without a probation officer's permission.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

US President is one of the most powerful men on Earth and it seems now, he has also started to get death threats. Two men, one from Maryland and another from Kansas, have been charged with making threats to kill President Joe Biden separately, the authorities said on Tuesday.

US President is one of the most powerful men on Earth and it seems now, he has also started to get death threats. Two men, one from Maryland and another from Kansas, have been charged with making threats to kill President Joe Biden separately, the authorities said on Tuesday. Also Read: Qatar to become major non-NATO ally, US President tells emir Last week, the authorities arrested 37-year-old Ryan Matthew Conlon of Halethorpe, Maryland and 37-year-old Scott Ryan Merryman of Independence, Kansas. The case of Conlon was sealed until Monday. He has also been charged with making threats to blow up headquarters of National Security Agency. Merryman was arrested by the authorities when he travelled from his home to Maryland. He had called the police in his hometown on last Tuesday to say that he was on his way to Washington, DC, to see the president, the federal authorities said. Also Read | US instigating hysteria, people in Ukraine packing frontline bags: Russia According to an FBI agent's affidavit, when a secret service agent called him on last Wednesday, Merryman said God had told him to travel to Washington to "lop off the head of the serpent in the heart of the nation." "Merryman denied that the serpent was the President of the United States, but stated that he had information about the Book of Revelation that he was being instructed by God to give to the President," the agent wrote. Court filings did not list attorneys for Merryman or Conlon, who was released after his initial appearance in court last week. US Magistrate Judge A David Copperthite had also ordered Conlon to refrain from using a computer or any other internet-connected devices without a probation officer's permission. (With inputs from agencies)

Two men charged with making death threats to President Joe Biden separately in US

US President Joe Biden hosted Qatar’s Emir on Monday in the White House. The meeting underscored the tiny Gulf state’s strategic importance. Qatar’s ruling emir is the first Gulf leader to visit the White House since Biden took office last year.

US President Joe Biden meets Qatar Emir in shadow of Ukraine tensions

The United States has called on the Taliban to release an American civil engineer abducted in Afghanistan two years ago. Mark Frerichs, a 59-year-old US Navy veteran, was kidnapped in early 2020 and passed on to the dreaded Haqqani Network a month before Washington signed the true pull-out deal in Doha.

United States president Joe Biden demands release of Mark Frerichs

Authorities in the United States have held a Kansas man who was travelling to Washington with charges of allegedly threatening to harm President Joe Biden, CNN reported. The man has been identified as Scott Ryan Merryman.&nbsp;

The report mentioned that the man was allegedly telling US Secret Service agents that "he had been told by God to travel to Washington, DC to 'lop off the head of the serpent in the heart of the nation.'"

Joe Biden has completed one year in office as President after taking oath in 2021 to become 46th President of the United States.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/growth-is-surging-in-bidens-economy-why-dont-voters-feel-better-448733">Growth is surging in Biden’s economy, why don’t voters feel better?</a>

As per a court filing cited by US media outlets, Merryman had called police in Independence, Kansas, on Tuesday. He had told them that he was going to the nation's capital to see the President.&nbsp;

During the telephonic conversation with the US Secret Service agent on Wednesday, Scott has mentioned that 'God told him to go to Washington...'

He was found in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel restaurant by the agents in Hagerstown, Maryland, on Wednesday, according to a criminal complaint.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/war-possible-only-if-belarus-or-russia-get-attacked-says-lukashenko-448858">War possible only if Belarus or Russia get attacked, says Lukashenko</a>

Secret Service agents said in the complaint that they had searched Merryman and found a magazine loaded with three rounds of .45 ammunition and spotting scope in his backpack. There were&nbsp;no weapons.&nbsp;

They said Merryman had told them that God told him to bring the ammo and that the spotting scope was for "doing recon," reported CNN.

He also called the White House switchboard, according to court records, and made threats against Biden. In the call to the White House, Merryman allegedly said he was "coming to the White House, and was going to cut off the head of the snake/anti-Christ."

As per reports, Merryman was in the Washington County Detention Center in Hagerstown, Maryland. A detention centre official was quoted as saying that a court appearance is set for Monday.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Authorities in the United States have held a Kansas man who was travelling to Washington with charges of allegedly threatening to harm President Joe Biden, CNN reported.

Authorities in the United States have held a Kansas man who was travelling to Washington with charges of allegedly threatening to harm President Joe Biden, CNN reported. The man has been identified as Scott Ryan Merryman. The report mentioned that the man was allegedly telling US Secret Service agents that "he had been told by God to travel to Washington, DC to 'lop off the head of the serpent in the heart of the nation.'" Joe Biden has completed one year in office as President after taking oath in 2021 to become 46th President of the United States. ALSO READ | Growth is surging in Biden’s economy, why don’t voters feel better? As per a court filing cited by US media outlets, Merryman had called police in Independence, Kansas, on Tuesday. He had told them that he was going to the nation's capital to see the President. During the telephonic conversation with the US Secret Service agent on Wednesday, Scott has mentioned that 'God told him to go to Washington...' He was found in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel restaurant by the agents in Hagerstown, Maryland, on Wednesday, according to a criminal complaint. ALSO READ | War possible only if Belarus or Russia get attacked, says Lukashenko Secret Service agents said in the complaint that they had searched Merryman and found a magazine loaded with three rounds of .45 ammunition and spotting scope in his backpack. There were no weapons. They said Merryman had told them that God told him to bring the ammo and that the spotting scope was for "doing recon," reported CNN. He also called the White House switchboard, according to court records, and made threats against Biden. In the call to the White House, Merryman allegedly said he was "coming to the White House, and was going to cut off the head of the snake/anti-Christ." As per reports, Merryman was in the Washington County Detention Center in Hagerstown, Maryland. A detention centre official was quoted as saying that a court appearance is set for Monday. (With inputs from agencies)

'God told me to go...': US man charged with threatening to harm President Joe Biden

Alisia Adamson Profit, a Black woman who has practiced law for more than a dozen years in central Florida, walked into a courtroom one morning in June for a pretrial hearing, just as she had done countless times.

But this time was different. A court deputy asked Profit — and none of the other lawyers in the courtroom, all of whom were white — for her identification.

It wasn’t the first time she felt singled out as part of a tiny universe of Black women judges and lawyers.

“It’s the idea that somehow I don’t belong here,” said Profit, a former public defender who founded a criminal defense firm based in Orlando, Florida.

As President Joe Biden prepares to nominate the first Black woman to the nation’s highest court, members of the small, elite group of Black women lawyers and judges are reflecting about their place in their profession and watching with complicated emotions.

By some estimates, they represent perhaps just 2% of the nation’s 1.3 million lawyers.

Many say they have experienced discrimination or been second-guessed. At times, they have felt dismissed by others in the legal world.

Knowing how isolating that can be, older Black women, many of whom were the first in their families to go to law school, described an instinctive urge to mentor younger Black women. And despite the challenges, they described still loving the law and doing what they considered their dream jobs.

Now, for the first time in their lives, someone who looks like them — and probably experienced similar career challenges — could ascend to the Supreme Court and rule on issues foundational to American lives, from voting and abortion rights to health care and affirmative action.

“Finally. We now have the possibility of a Supreme Court that would look more like America,” said Kara Beverly, 39, an employment lawyer who now works as an equity compliance investigator at Johns Hopkins University.

Biden’s vow to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court has launched conversations across the country about what that would mean. Many see the president’s promise as a significant step toward overdue representation, closely following the victorious ascent of another Black woman lawyer, Kamala Harris, to the vice presidency.

But along with that excitement is frustration that it has taken more than two centuries for this moment to arrive. And Black women in the legal community are bracing for the possibility that the yet-to-be-named nominee will be judged unfairly as an affirmative action appointment.

“People are going to say she only got this because she was a Black woman, and that could not be further from the truth. She would not even be considered if she wasn’t qualified, prepared and ready,” said Profit, 38. “There will be a segment that will discredit her ability to serve.”

On Friday, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said in a radio interview that the nominee would be a “beneficiary” of affirmative action. In a statement Saturday, a White House spokesperson, Andrew Bates, rebuked the senator, noting that President Ronald Reagan had announced that he would appoint a woman before he named the court’s first, Sandra Day O’Connor.

“President Biden’s promise that he would nominate and confirm the first Black woman to the Supreme Court is in line with the best traditions of both parties and our nation,” the statement said.

The expected appointment will become a historic moment in the court’s lumbering progress toward diversity. Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish justice, was appointed in 1916. Thurgood Marshall, the first Black justice, ascended to the court in 1967. Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman, joined 14 years later in 1981. And Sonia Sotomayor took the bench in 2009, becoming the first Hispanic jurist. With each nomination, the court got closer to representing America.

In the hours after the announcement that Justice Stephen Breyer would be retiring, Angela Groves, a civil rights attorney in Washington, D.C., and her mother, Emanuella Groves, an appellate judge in Ohio, feverishly exchanged text messages about the Supreme Court opening.

Although the two hadn’t had time to speak at length — they were planning to have a long discussion this weekend — they sent each other links to articles about potential nominees.

“When Barack Hussein Obama was elected, that seemed impossible,” said Emanuella Groves, 63. “I think it will be someone probably in their late 40s who hopefully will have a track record of revealing a problem, educating others, have the courage to say no and be able to do it artfully, so we can begin to shift the needle to improve the administration of justice.”

The younger Groves, 32, credited her parents, both of whom were lawyers, with teaching her about social justice and planting the seed that she could follow in their career footsteps. She attended law school at New York University, where she was one of about 60 Black students.

That experience was in stark contrast to that of her mother, who was elected to the 8th District Court of Appeals in Ohio in 2020 after serving as a trial judge in the Cleveland Municipal Court for 18 years. When she was studying at Case Western Reserve School of Law in Cleveland in the late 1970s, she was one of fewer than a dozen Black students, and among only a handful of Black women. She hadn’t grown up around any lawyers and never imagined she would become a judge.

“I didn’t think it was within my reach,” she said, adding that her husband, whom she met in law school, had championed her throughout her career. During law school, she was neighbors with Sara Harper, a former prosecutor and appellate judge who was the first African American woman to graduate from Case Western’s law school. But if only she had known more Black women practicing law, Groves said of her university days.

The younger Groves said that it was important to her that the new justice, as a Democratic appointee, would be liberal.

“It is important that we have representation, but that alone is not going to be enough to bring about a more just society,” she said. “It’s important not only that there is a Black woman, but that there’s someone who has a track record of doing work that uplifts and supports Black communities and underserved communities.”

Biden made the promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court at a debate in early 2020 as his candidacy was sputtering. At the time, he was days away from the Democratic primary in South Carolina where he needed a big win among African American voters.

“I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court to make sure we in fact get everyone represented,” Biden said that night.

The pledge helped bolster both the support of Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., and Black voters, which make up a large portion of the party electorate. Biden ultimately won the South Carolina primary, marking the turning point in his campaign. In turn, during his presidential victory speech, Biden explicitly thanked Black voters for revitalizing his campaign, declaring, “you’ve always had my back, and I’ll have yours.”

And although the inclusion of a Black woman to the court would not shift the conservative majority, said Elise Boddie, a law professor at Rutgers University who last year was appointed to Biden’s Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, it would mark the first time that a large segment of Americans would feel represented by those in power. That visibility alone could go a long way in influencing career choices.

Christopher Kang, chief counsel and co-founder of Demand Justice, a progressive advocacy group pushing for judges of different backgrounds and professional experiences, said he regularly interviewed potential judicial nominees when he worked for the White House during the Obama administration. His first question was always why they had applied at that moment in their careers.

Women, people of color and LGBTQ lawyers typically said they had been encouraged because they had not grown up seeing anyone who looked like them in those roles.

Latosha Lewis Payne, 47, presiding judge of the 55th Civil District Court in Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston, said that unlike many of her peers, she had a diverse group of mentors that included Black women and men when she began her career.

“There needs to be a support system for us because we’re all going to experience things that some of our other colleagues may not ever have experienced,” Payne said. “And because there are more African American women in this space now, there are more opportunities for support and connection.”

Black women account for an overwhelming majority of all Black law students and are entering the field in greater numbers than ever before, according to the Center on the Legal Profession at Harvard Law School, which surveyed Black alumni and tracked the careers of Black women lawyers.

Today, younger law students are finding much of their support online. When Stephanie Goggans, 36, decided to pivot from her 13-year career in the military to the legal profession, she turned to “Black Girls Do Law,” an Instagram account with 30,000 followers, where she found many who looked like her and harbored the same ambitions.

In addition to sharing celebratory photos of graduations and acceptances to law schools and new jobs, the account offers practice tests, study tips and resources to connect with other Black women lawyers and students.

Goggans, who met a Black lawyer for the first time in her life when she was in the U.S. Army, is now in her second year at Cleveland State University’s law school and interning for Emanuella Groves.

“This is hard no matter who you are, but my peers — half of their parents are lawyers so they’ve always known they can do this,” she said of her white counterparts. “When it comes to mentorship: Black women. I have not had an experience where a Black woman made me feel that I couldn’t do this. It’s always been support.”

Alisia Adamson Profit, a Black woman who has practiced law for more than a dozen years in central Florida, walked into a courtroom one morning in June for a pretrial hearing, just as she had done countless times.

Alisia Adamson Profit, a Black woman who has practiced law for more than a dozen years in central Florida, walked into a courtroom one morning in June for a pretrial hearing, just as she had done countless times. But this time was different. A court deputy asked Profit — and none of the other lawyers in the courtroom, all of whom were white — for her identification. It wasn’t the first time she felt singled out as part of a tiny universe of Black women judges and lawyers. “It’s the idea that somehow I don’t belong here,” said Profit, a former public defender who founded a criminal defense firm based in Orlando, Florida. As President Joe Biden prepares to nominate the first Black woman to the nation’s highest court, members of the small, elite group of Black women lawyers and judges are reflecting about their place in their profession and watching with complicated emotions. By some estimates, they represent perhaps just 2% of the nation’s 1.3 million lawyers. Many say they have experienced discrimination or been second-guessed. At times, they have felt dismissed by others in the legal world. Knowing how isolating that can be, older Black women, many of whom were the first in their families to go to law school, described an instinctive urge to mentor younger Black women. And despite the challenges, they described still loving the law and doing what they considered their dream jobs. Now, for the first time in their lives, someone who looks like them — and probably experienced similar career challenges — could ascend to the Supreme Court and rule on issues foundational to American lives, from voting and abortion rights to health care and affirmative action. “Finally. We now have the possibility of a Supreme Court that would look more like America,” said Kara Beverly, 39, an employment lawyer who now works as an equity compliance investigator at Johns Hopkins University. Biden’s vow to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court has launched conversations across the country about what that would mean. Many see the president’s promise as a significant step toward overdue representation, closely following the victorious ascent of another Black woman lawyer, Kamala Harris, to the vice presidency. But along with that excitement is frustration that it has taken more than two centuries for this moment to arrive. And Black women in the legal community are bracing for the possibility that the yet-to-be-named nominee will be judged unfairly as an affirmative action appointment. “People are going to say she only got this because she was a Black woman, and that could not be further from the truth. She would not even be considered if she wasn’t qualified, prepared and ready,” said Profit, 38. “There will be a segment that will discredit her ability to serve.” On Friday, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said in a radio interview that the nominee would be a “beneficiary” of affirmative action. In a statement Saturday, a White House spokesperson, Andrew Bates, rebuked the senator, noting that President Ronald Reagan had announced that he would appoint a woman before he named the court’s first, Sandra Day O’Connor. “President Biden’s promise that he would nominate and confirm the first Black woman to the Supreme Court is in line with the best traditions of both parties and our nation,” the statement said. The expected appointment will become a historic moment in the court’s lumbering progress toward diversity. Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish justice, was appointed in 1916. Thurgood Marshall, the first Black justice, ascended to the court in 1967. Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman, joined 14 years later in 1981. And Sonia Sotomayor took the bench in 2009, becoming the first Hispanic jurist. With each nomination, the court got closer to representing America. In the hours after the announcement that Justice Stephen Breyer would be retiring, Angela Groves, a civil rights attorney in Washington, D.C., and her mother, Emanuella Groves, an appellate judge in Ohio, feverishly exchanged text messages about the Supreme Court opening. Although the two hadn’t had time to speak at length — they were planning to have a long discussion this weekend — they sent each other links to articles about potential nominees. “When Barack Hussein Obama was elected, that seemed impossible,” said Emanuella Groves, 63. “I think it will be someone probably in their late 40s who hopefully will have a track record of revealing a problem, educating others, have the courage to say no and be able to do it artfully, so we can begin to shift the needle to improve the administration of justice.” The younger Groves, 32, credited her parents, both of whom were lawyers, with teaching her about social justice and planting the seed that she could follow in their career footsteps. She attended law school at New York University, where she was one of about 60 Black students. That experience was in stark contrast to that of her mother, who was elected to the 8th District Court of Appeals in Ohio in 2020 after serving as a trial judge in the Cleveland Municipal Court for 18 years. When she was studying at Case Western Reserve School of Law in Cleveland in the late 1970s, she was one of fewer than a dozen Black students, and among only a handful of Black women. She hadn’t grown up around any lawyers and never imagined she would become a judge. “I didn’t think it was within my reach,” she said, adding that her husband, whom she met in law school, had championed her throughout her career. During law school, she was neighbors with Sara Harper, a former prosecutor and appellate judge who was the first African American woman to graduate from Case Western’s law school. But if only she had known more Black women practicing law, Groves said of her university days. The younger Groves said that it was important to her that the new justice, as a Democratic appointee, would be liberal. “It is important that we have representation, but that alone is not going to be enough to bring about a more just society,” she said. “It’s important not only that there is a Black woman, but that there’s someone who has a track record of doing work that uplifts and supports Black communities and underserved communities.” Biden made the promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court at a debate in early 2020 as his candidacy was sputtering. At the time, he was days away from the Democratic primary in South Carolina where he needed a big win among African American voters. “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court to make sure we in fact get everyone represented,” Biden said that night. The pledge helped bolster both the support of Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., and Black voters, which make up a large portion of the party electorate. Biden ultimately won the South Carolina primary, marking the turning point in his campaign. In turn, during his presidential victory speech, Biden explicitly thanked Black voters for revitalizing his campaign, declaring, “you’ve always had my back, and I’ll have yours.” And although the inclusion of a Black woman to the court would not shift the conservative majority, said Elise Boddie, a law professor at Rutgers University who last year was appointed to Biden’s Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, it would mark the first time that a large segment of Americans would feel represented by those in power. That visibility alone could go a long way in influencing career choices. Christopher Kang, chief counsel and co-founder of Demand Justice, a progressive advocacy group pushing for judges of different backgrounds and professional experiences, said he regularly interviewed potential judicial nominees when he worked for the White House during the Obama administration. His first question was always why they had applied at that moment in their careers. Women, people of color and LGBTQ lawyers typically said they had been encouraged because they had not grown up seeing anyone who looked like them in those roles. Latosha Lewis Payne, 47, presiding judge of the 55th Civil District Court in Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston, said that unlike many of her peers, she had a diverse group of mentors that included Black women and men when she began her career. “There needs to be a support system for us because we’re all going to experience things that some of our other colleagues may not ever have experienced,” Payne said. “And because there are more African American women in this space now, there are more opportunities for support and connection.” Black women account for an overwhelming majority of all Black law students and are entering the field in greater numbers than ever before, according to the Center on the Legal Profession at Harvard Law School, which surveyed Black alumni and tracked the careers of Black women lawyers. Today, younger law students are finding much of their support online. When Stephanie Goggans, 36, decided to pivot from her 13-year career in the military to the legal profession, she turned to “Black Girls Do Law,” an Instagram account with 30,000 followers, where she found many who looked like her and harbored the same ambitions. In addition to sharing celebratory photos of graduations and acceptances to law schools and new jobs, the account offers practice tests, study tips and resources to connect with other Black women lawyers and students. Goggans, who met a Black lawyer for the first time in her life when she was in the U.S. Army, is now in her second year at Cleveland State University’s law school and interning for Emanuella Groves. “This is hard no matter who you are, but my peers — half of their parents are lawyers so they’ve always known they can do this,” she said of her white counterparts. “When it comes to mentorship: Black women. I have not had an experience where a Black woman made me feel that I couldn’t do this. It’s always been support.”

Black women in law feel pride and frustration ahead of court nominee

Tesla CEO Elon Musk called US President Joe Biden as a “damp sock puppet in human form” after he was snubbed from a White House summit meeting of top business leaders, including the CEOs of General Motors and Ford.

Musk was riled up when Biden left out the name of Tesla in a Twitter post where he said, “Companies like GM and Ford are building more electric vehicles here at home than ever before.”

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I meant it when I said the future was going to be made right here in America. Companies like GM and Ford are building more electric vehicles here at home than ever before. <a href="https://t.co/5E3ecA93MR">pic.twitter.com/5E3ecA93MR</a>
— President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1486494532007079937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Replying to Biden's Twitter post, Musk wrote the name of "Tesla" in all caps. In another tweet, he said, "Biden is a damp Socks puppet in human form."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Starts with a T 
Ends with an A 
ESL in the middle
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1486758032038113281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Musk also said that "Biden is treating the American public like fools".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Biden is a damp 🧦 puppet in human form
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1486767109275328516?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Biden's Twitter post came hours after he concluded&nbsp;his meeting with CEOs of General Motors and Ford at the White House, along with other business leaders to discuss his administration's “Build Back Better” legislation.

When asked why Tesla was not included in that event, White House press secretary Jen Psaki noted the three firms in attendance were “the three largest employers of the United Auto Workers” — an indication that Tesla was snubbed because its hourly employees aren’t unionized, reported the New York Post.

This is the second time that Musk was purposefully left out of the meeting.

Last year, Biden invited executives from these companies last year when signed an executive order with the goal of making all vehicles sold in the US electric by 2030.

Musk addressed Tesla’s exclusion from the electric vehicle summit at the Code Conference in California last September.

The billionaire noted that White House officials “didn’t mention Tesla once.”

He accused the Biden administration of being "a little biased" and "seems to be" controlled by unions.

(With inputs from agencies)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk called US President Joe Biden as a “damp sock puppet in human form” after he was snubbed from a White House summit meeting of top business leaders, including the CEOs of General Motors and Ford.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk called US President Joe Biden as a “damp sock puppet in human form” after he was snubbed from a White House summit meeting of top business leaders, including the CEOs of General Motors and Ford. Musk was riled up when Biden left out the name of Tesla in a Twitter post where he said, “Companies like GM and Ford are building more electric vehicles here at home than ever before.” I meant it when I said the future was going to be made right here in America. Companies like GM and Ford are building more electric vehicles here at home than ever before. pic.twitter.com/5E3ecA93MR — President Biden (@POTUS) January 27, 2022 × Replying to Biden's Twitter post, Musk wrote the name of "Tesla" in all caps. In another tweet, he said, "Biden is a damp Socks puppet in human form." Starts with a T Ends with an A ESL in the middle — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 27, 2022 × Musk also said that "Biden is treating the American public like fools". Biden is a damp 🧦 puppet in human form — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 27, 2022 × Biden's Twitter post came hours after he concluded his meeting with CEOs of General Motors and Ford at the White House, along with other business leaders to discuss his administration's “Build Back Better” legislation. When asked why Tesla was not included in that event, White House press secretary Jen Psaki noted the three firms in attendance were “the three largest employers of the United Auto Workers” — an indication that Tesla was snubbed because its hourly employees aren’t unionized, reported the New York Post. This is the second time that Musk was purposefully left out of the meeting. Last year, Biden invited executives from these companies last year when signed an executive order with the goal of making all vehicles sold in the US electric by 2030. Musk addressed Tesla’s exclusion from the electric vehicle summit at the Code Conference in California last September. The billionaire noted that White House officials “didn’t mention Tesla once.” He accused the Biden administration of being "a little biased" and "seems to be" controlled by unions. (With inputs from agencies)

'Biden is a damp sock puppet’: Musk reacts angrily after White House CEO summit snub

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy holds a briefing after a phone call with US counterpart Joe Biden over ongoing conflict with Russia.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy briefs the press amid ongoing conflict with Russia

United States President Joe Biden has warned of a “distinct possibility” of Russian invasion on Ukraine next month, the White House officials have said.

The US president made the comments during a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday.

"President Biden said that there is a distinct possibility that the Russians could invade Ukraine in February," White House National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne said.

"He has said this publicly and we have been warning about this for months."

The president’s warning comes hours after Russia sounded a grim tone saying that it saw “little ground for optimism” in resolving the crisis after the US this week again rejected Moscow’s security demands.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/if-russia-invades-ukraine-nord-stream-2-pipeline-will-not-move-forward-us-448278" hreflang="en">If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 pipeline will not move forward: US</a>

During their talk, Biden is said to have “reaffirmed the readiness of the United States along with its allies and partners to respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine,” a White House statement said.

Zelensky said they “discussed recent diplomatic efforts on de-escalation and agreed on joint actions for the future”.

The West has repeatedly claimed that Russia has amassed thousands of troops along the Ukraine border in recent weeks and warned of a potential invasion.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/why-russia-has-parked-iskander-m-missile-system-along-ukraine-448119">Also Read:&nbsp;Why Russia has parked Iskander-M missile system along Ukraine?</a>

Some western countries have threatened to impose economic sanctions on Russia if the invasion takes place.

However, countries like Germany and the UK have expressed concern over Kremin retaliating with cutting off gas supplies.

Also on Thursday, the US threatened to halt the opening of a key pipeline that would send Russian gas to Western Europe if Russia invades Ukraine.

Nord Stream 2 would run from Russia to Germany, and on Thursday officials in Berlin said the project could face sanctions if Russia attacks.

(With inputs from agencies)

United States President Joe Biden has warned of a “distinct possibility” of Russian invasion on Ukraine next month, the White House officials have said. The US president made the comments during a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday.

United States President Joe Biden has warned of a “distinct possibility” of Russian invasion on Ukraine next month, the White House officials have said. The US president made the comments during a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday. "President Biden said that there is a distinct possibility that the Russians could invade Ukraine in February," White House National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne said. "He has said this publicly and we have been warning about this for months." The president’s warning comes hours after Russia sounded a grim tone saying that it saw “little ground for optimism” in resolving the crisis after the US this week again rejected Moscow’s security demands. Also read | If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 pipeline will not move forward: US During their talk, Biden is said to have “reaffirmed the readiness of the United States along with its allies and partners to respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine,” a White House statement said. Zelensky said they “discussed recent diplomatic efforts on de-escalation and agreed on joint actions for the future”. The West has repeatedly claimed that Russia has amassed thousands of troops along the Ukraine border in recent weeks and warned of a potential invasion. Also Read: Why Russia has parked Iskander-M missile system along Ukraine? Some western countries have threatened to impose economic sanctions on Russia if the invasion takes place. However, countries like Germany and the UK have expressed concern over Kremin retaliating with cutting off gas supplies. Also on Thursday, the US threatened to halt the opening of a key pipeline that would send Russian gas to Western Europe if Russia invades Ukraine. Nord Stream 2 would run from Russia to Germany, and on Thursday officials in Berlin said the project could face sanctions if Russia attacks. (With inputs from agencies)

US President Biden warns Russia may invade Ukraine next month

US President Joe Biden and his Democratic Party may be on thin ice as his approval ratings among US voters continue to crash. To add to Biden's woes,&nbsp;It has now been observed that Biden's support among African-American voters is dwindling. In a survey carried out by Pew Research Center, it has been revealed that Biden's approval rating among African-American voters has gone down by 7 per cent since September last year.

In September last year, 67 per cent of African-Africans approved Biden's performance. But now only 60 per cent feel so. African-American voters traditionally vote for Democratic Party and a big dent in this vote bank may prove to be problematic for the party

Percentage of White voters supporting Biden has also seen a decrease. The number has gone from 37 per cent to 33 per cent. Biden's support among Hispanic (52%) and Asian (55 voters) has remained somewhat unchanged.

When Biden took&nbsp;office after 2020 US Presidential Elections, there was a palpable feeling of relief in and outside USA as Biden's predecessor Donald Trump was seen as an isolationist leader with a slant towards the right-wing. After he took office, Biden did a course correction of US foreign policy and reentered agreements and understandings with allies.

However, Biden's stature took a massive hit after America's disastrous exit from Afghanistan. The regime America propped up for two decades collapsed in matter of weeks and US had to rely on the Taliban's help to get own citizens out of the country.

Biden's handling of the Covid pandemic in US, especially his vaccine mandates have been divisive issues.

Midterm elections are due to be held in November this year. It is being predicted that Democratic Party may face a heavy defeat in US Congress. If this happens, it will be even harder for Biden to push his legislations through Congress.

US President Joe Biden and his Democratic Party may be on thin ice as his approval ratings among US voters continue to crash. To add to Biden's woes, It has now been observed that Biden's support among African-American voters is dwindling.

US President Joe Biden and his Democratic Party may be on thin ice as his approval ratings among US voters continue to crash. To add to Biden's woes, It has now been observed that Biden's support among African-American voters is dwindling. In a survey carried out by Pew Research Center, it has been revealed that Biden's approval rating among African-American voters has gone down by 7 per cent since September last year. In September last year, 67 per cent of African-Africans approved Biden's performance. But now only 60 per cent feel so. African-American voters traditionally vote for Democratic Party and a big dent in this vote bank may prove to be problematic for the party Percentage of White voters supporting Biden has also seen a decrease. The number has gone from 37 per cent to 33 per cent. Biden's support among Hispanic (52%) and Asian (55 voters) has remained somewhat unchanged. When Biden took office after 2020 US Presidential Elections, there was a palpable feeling of relief in and outside USA as Biden's predecessor Donald Trump was seen as an isolationist leader with a slant towards the right-wing. After he took office, Biden did a course correction of US foreign policy and reentered agreements and understandings with allies. However, Biden's stature took a massive hit after America's disastrous exit from Afghanistan. The regime America propped up for two decades collapsed in matter of weeks and US had to rely on the Taliban's help to get own citizens out of the country. Biden's handling of the Covid pandemic in US, especially his vaccine mandates have been divisive issues. Midterm elections are due to be held in November this year. It is being predicted that Democratic Party may face a heavy defeat in US Congress. If this happens, it will be even harder for Biden to push his legislations through Congress.

Biden's support among African-American voters dwindles

One of the liberal Justices on the US Supreme Court is retiring paving the way for President Joe Biden to name his pick.

Joe Biden to name his pick for Supreme Court vacancy as liberal Justice Breyer is retiring

US President Joe Biden and Russian counterpart will be holding talks via video call on Tuesday, according to media reports, as tensions escalate between the two nuclear-powered countries over reports of Russia troops build-up near the Ukrainian border.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed plans on Saturday to Russia's state news agency RIA Novosti and said it will take place in the evening. Peskov added that “the presidents will decide themselves” how long the conversation will last.

The leaders will reportedly discuss the implementation of agreements reached during their previous meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, the situations in Afghanistan, Iran, Libya and Syria, as well as the Ukrainian crisis.

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-prepares-plan-to-protect-ukraine-putin-slams-drone-deployment-at-border-433950">Biden prepares plan to protect Ukraine; Putin slams drone deployment at border</a>

Putin and Biden are also expected to cover strategic stability issues, and the Russian side will ask for guarantees against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's eastward expansion, Ushakov said.

The Russian official said that the oil market, climate change, and the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic could also be on the agenda.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/what-will-happen-if-russian-troops-invade-ukraine-431684">Also Read in Pics:&nbsp;What will happen if Russian troops invade Ukraine?&nbsp;</a>

The United States, its NATO allies and Ukraine are accusing Moscow of amassing troops near the Ukrainian border, and Kyiv says it fears Russia is planning an attack.

However, Moscow denies plans to invade Ukraine, and accuses Kyiv of building up its own forces to attack territory held by pro-Russian separatists.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/why-russia-tested-s-400-missiles-in-crimea-amid-operation-sea-breeze-in-ukraine-395351">Also Read:&nbsp;Why Russia tested S-400 missiles in Crimea amid operation Sea Breeze in Ukraine</a>

Russia has been pushing for top-level talks with the US for weeks and has floated the idea of seeking legally-binding security guarantees from the West.

Earlier, Ukraine's defence minister declared that Russia was ready for escalation in January raising fears of an invasion while informing that the Putin regime had launched exercises along the border and had started "winter training".

The Biden administration had declared earlier that it had evidence that Russia was set to attack Ukraine despite Kremlin's denial.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden and Russian counterpart will be holding talks via video call on Tuesday, according to media reports, as tensions escalate between the two nuclear-powered countries over reports of Russia troops build-up near the Ukrainian border.

US President Joe Biden and Russian counterpart will be holding talks via video call on Tuesday, according to media reports, as tensions escalate between the two nuclear-powered countries over reports of Russia troops build-up near the Ukrainian border. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed plans on Saturday to Russia's state news agency RIA Novosti and said it will take place in the evening. Peskov added that “the presidents will decide themselves” how long the conversation will last. The leaders will reportedly discuss the implementation of agreements reached during their previous meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, the situations in Afghanistan, Iran, Libya and Syria, as well as the Ukrainian crisis. Also read | Biden prepares plan to protect Ukraine; Putin slams drone deployment at border Putin and Biden are also expected to cover strategic stability issues, and the Russian side will ask for guarantees against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's eastward expansion, Ushakov said. The Russian official said that the oil market, climate change, and the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic could also be on the agenda. Also Read in Pics: What will happen if Russian troops invade Ukraine? The United States, its NATO allies and Ukraine are accusing Moscow of amassing troops near the Ukrainian border, and Kyiv says it fears Russia is planning an attack. However, Moscow denies plans to invade Ukraine, and accuses Kyiv of building up its own forces to attack territory held by pro-Russian separatists. Also Read: Why Russia tested S-400 missiles in Crimea amid operation Sea Breeze in Ukraine Russia has been pushing for top-level talks with the US for weeks and has floated the idea of seeking legally-binding security guarantees from the West. Earlier, Ukraine's defence minister declared that Russia was ready for escalation in January raising fears of an invasion while informing that the Putin regime had launched exercises along the border and had started "winter training". The Biden administration had declared earlier that it had evidence that Russia was set to attack Ukraine despite Kremlin's denial. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden, Putin all set for video meet on Tuesday amid Ukraine crisis

At a news conference a few days ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was asked whether the Biden administration had a “red line” in Ukraine, a point beyond which Russian aggression toward the country would incite a dramatic American response.

Blinken wouldn’t bite. “The U.S. has real concerns about Russia’s unusual military activity on the border with Ukraine,” he said, with notable understatement. No red line was drawn. The State Department spokesperson batted aside a similar question on Tuesday, saying only that “any escalatory or aggressive actions would be of great concern.”

U.S. officials often avoid questions about red lines, which when crossed can damage their credibility if they do not act. But in the case of Russia — which has been moving the estimated 90,000 troops it has on its border with Ukraine in ways that officials say might presage an invasion — the Biden administration has been conspicuously vague about when, and how, it might come to Ukraine’s defense.

That has raised questions about how far President Joe Biden would be willing to go in a confrontation with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine. Biden’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, resisted strongly increasing America’s commitment to Ukraine because, he said, Putin would always raise the ante even more. Obama otherwise largely delegated Ukraine affairs to Biden, then his vice president, who visited the country several times, extolling its independence.

Despite his personal investment in Ukraine’s fate, however, it is unclear how much Biden may be willing to risk on the country’s behalf as he fixates on competition with China. His senior officials have said repeatedly that their goal with Russia is to develop a relationship of stability and predictability.

In a statement on Wednesday honoring the millions of Ukrainians who starved to death under Josef Stalin, Biden said the United States “also reaffirms our commitment to the people of Ukraine today and our unwavering support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

For now, the Biden administration is focusing on diplomatic channels to deter and dissuade Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Those could eventually include a second face-to-face meeting between Biden and Putin: Last week, the Kremlin’s spokesperson said Washington and Moscow were discussing another potential summit.

Biden’s administration views continued dialogue with Putin as important to stopping him from taking action against Ukraine.

At the same time, U.S. officials are hammering out steps with partner countries to punish any Russian provocations, including new economic sanctions.

“We have administration officials in Europe trying to work towards coordinating what those economic measures would be,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a Russia expert with the Center for a New American Security who advised the Biden transition team. She said such action could include sanctions on Russian banks and energy producers and the country’s sovereign debt.

Nevertheless, U.S. and British officials have discussed imposing tougher sanctions on people close to Putin, including some measures that were considered, but put aside, after Moscow’s agents used a nerve agent in an attempt to kill a former Russian intelligence officer in Britain in 2018.

Measures under consideration include blocking Russian oligarchs from using Visa and Mastercard credit cards and restricting where they and their families can travel in Britain and Europe, as well as other kinds of sanctions that might get Putin’s attention quickly but damage parts of the American or European economy.

A Ukrainian official said the United States was considering a package of increased military aid to Ukraine. (The Biden administration is sending more than $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine this year.) But U.S. officials are hesitant to discuss Washington’s support, for fear of escalating the situation further.

Fiona Hill, who served as the National Security Council’s director for Russia in the Trump White House, added that one of Putin’s goals was to strike a deal with the United States that excluded European input.

“This is really a challenge to Europeans to step up in solidarity with the United States,” she said. “The United States shouldn’t be the prime mover here.”

But Kendall-Taylor said Putin might doubt Western willingness to follow through. “I think there is a calculation on Putin’s part that there will be a lack of resolve in the West,” she said, adding that the Russian leader recognizes that the United States in particular is determined to focus its attention on China.

Russia has not explicitly threatened to invade Ukraine, but it has complained of alleged provocations from the Ukrainian side of their shared border. Putin has supported a pro-Russian separatist insurgency in the former Soviet republic’s east since 2014, when a popular revolution ousted Ukraine’s Putin-backed president. Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula soon afterward.

In a sign of the increasing tensions, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, spoke by phone Tuesday with his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov. The Pentagon said in a statement that the call was meant to “ensure risk reduction and operational deconfliction.”

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has said that the United States is providing information and data to Kyiv about the Russian force buildup. Western officials have confirmed that NATO allies are stepping up intelligence sharing with Ukraine, in hopes that a better understanding of the rising threat will help Kyiv better prepare and better deter Moscow.

Even in worst-case scenarios, most analysts say, Kyiv should not expect the U.S. military to come to its rescue.

“The Russians know full well, because they’ve been invading Ukraine for seven years now, that we’re not going to send in the 82nd Airborne,” said Samuel Charap, a former State Department official now with the RAND Corp. “And I think they have likely priced in everything short of that, in the sense that they are willing to pay the price.”

“That’s what makes this hard,” he added. “There’s no easy way out of this.”

U.S. officials said they did not believe that Putin had yet decided whether to take military action against Ukraine. While the threat is being taken seriously, officials said, the United States and its allies have time to try to prepare Kyiv and convince Moscow that such a move would be a terrible mistake.

Whatever Putin’s thinking, his troop buildup is likely to test the willingness of the United States, NATO and Europe to act.

“The buildup of Russian forces is in part to see what Brussels is going to do and what Washington is going to do,” said Martijn Rasser, a former CIA officer and now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “Putin sees one goal of this military action as gauging the resolve of the West when it comes to having Ukraine’s back.” 
&nbsp;

At a news conference a few days ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was asked whether the Biden administration had a “red line” in Ukraine, a point beyond which Russian aggression toward the country would incite a dramatic American response.

At a news conference a few days ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was asked whether the Biden administration had a “red line” in Ukraine, a point beyond which Russian aggression toward the country would incite a dramatic American response. Blinken wouldn’t bite. “The U.S. has real concerns about Russia’s unusual military activity on the border with Ukraine,” he said, with notable understatement. No red line was drawn. The State Department spokesperson batted aside a similar question on Tuesday, saying only that “any escalatory or aggressive actions would be of great concern.” U.S. officials often avoid questions about red lines, which when crossed can damage their credibility if they do not act. But in the case of Russia — which has been moving the estimated 90,000 troops it has on its border with Ukraine in ways that officials say might presage an invasion — the Biden administration has been conspicuously vague about when, and how, it might come to Ukraine’s defense. That has raised questions about how far President Joe Biden would be willing to go in a confrontation with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine. Biden’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, resisted strongly increasing America’s commitment to Ukraine because, he said, Putin would always raise the ante even more. Obama otherwise largely delegated Ukraine affairs to Biden, then his vice president, who visited the country several times, extolling its independence. Despite his personal investment in Ukraine’s fate, however, it is unclear how much Biden may be willing to risk on the country’s behalf as he fixates on competition with China. His senior officials have said repeatedly that their goal with Russia is to develop a relationship of stability and predictability. In a statement on Wednesday honoring the millions of Ukrainians who starved to death under Josef Stalin, Biden said the United States “also reaffirms our commitment to the people of Ukraine today and our unwavering support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” For now, the Biden administration is focusing on diplomatic channels to deter and dissuade Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Those could eventually include a second face-to-face meeting between Biden and Putin: Last week, the Kremlin’s spokesperson said Washington and Moscow were discussing another potential summit. Biden’s administration views continued dialogue with Putin as important to stopping him from taking action against Ukraine. At the same time, U.S. officials are hammering out steps with partner countries to punish any Russian provocations, including new economic sanctions. “We have administration officials in Europe trying to work towards coordinating what those economic measures would be,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a Russia expert with the Center for a New American Security who advised the Biden transition team. She said such action could include sanctions on Russian banks and energy producers and the country’s sovereign debt. Nevertheless, U.S. and British officials have discussed imposing tougher sanctions on people close to Putin, including some measures that were considered, but put aside, after Moscow’s agents used a nerve agent in an attempt to kill a former Russian intelligence officer in Britain in 2018. Measures under consideration include blocking Russian oligarchs from using Visa and Mastercard credit cards and restricting where they and their families can travel in Britain and Europe, as well as other kinds of sanctions that might get Putin’s attention quickly but damage parts of the American or European economy. A Ukrainian official said the United States was considering a package of increased military aid to Ukraine. (The Biden administration is sending more than $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine this year.) But U.S. officials are hesitant to discuss Washington’s support, for fear of escalating the situation further. Fiona Hill, who served as the National Security Council’s director for Russia in the Trump White House, added that one of Putin’s goals was to strike a deal with the United States that excluded European input. “This is really a challenge to Europeans to step up in solidarity with the United States,” she said. “The United States shouldn’t be the prime mover here.” But Kendall-Taylor said Putin might doubt Western willingness to follow through. “I think there is a calculation on Putin’s part that there will be a lack of resolve in the West,” she said, adding that the Russian leader recognizes that the United States in particular is determined to focus its attention on China. Russia has not explicitly threatened to invade Ukraine, but it has complained of alleged provocations from the Ukrainian side of their shared border. Putin has supported a pro-Russian separatist insurgency in the former Soviet republic’s east since 2014, when a popular revolution ousted Ukraine’s Putin-backed president. Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula soon afterward. In a sign of the increasing tensions, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, spoke by phone Tuesday with his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov. The Pentagon said in a statement that the call was meant to “ensure risk reduction and operational deconfliction.” Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has said that the United States is providing information and data to Kyiv about the Russian force buildup. Western officials have confirmed that NATO allies are stepping up intelligence sharing with Ukraine, in hopes that a better understanding of the rising threat will help Kyiv better prepare and better deter Moscow. Even in worst-case scenarios, most analysts say, Kyiv should not expect the U.S. military to come to its rescue. “The Russians know full well, because they’ve been invading Ukraine for seven years now, that we’re not going to send in the 82nd Airborne,” said Samuel Charap, a former State Department official now with the RAND Corp. “And I think they have likely priced in everything short of that, in the sense that they are willing to pay the price.” “That’s what makes this hard,” he added. “There’s no easy way out of this.” U.S. officials said they did not believe that Putin had yet decided whether to take military action against Ukraine. While the threat is being taken seriously, officials said, the United States and its allies have time to try to prepare Kyiv and convince Moscow that such a move would be a terrible mistake. Whatever Putin’s thinking, his troop buildup is likely to test the willingness of the United States, NATO and Europe to act. “The buildup of Russian forces is in part to see what Brussels is going to do and what Washington is going to do,” said Martijn Rasser, a former CIA officer and now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “Putin sees one goal of this military action as gauging the resolve of the West when it comes to having Ukraine’s back.”

How far would Biden go to defend Ukraine against Russia?

Peace negotiations are usually thought to involve two sides brought together by a mediator trying to tease out possible compromises, far from the anger and destruction of the battlefield.

But talks starting in Geneva on Monday on the 8-year-old war in Ukraine are different. The conflict — and an overtly threatened Russian invasion that the talks are intended to forestall — is in Ukraine. But Ukraine will be missing from two of the three negotiating sessions scheduled for this week.

Such a limited role for Ukraine in the talks has clearly unnerved the government in Kyiv. Fearing the talks will yield little or nothing, and with President Joe Biden’s statement that the United States will not intervene militarily if Russia invades, Ukraine has quietly pursued its own negotiating track with Moscow.

The latest threat of invasion began last month, when Russia massed more than 100,000 troops along its borders with Ukraine and demanded wide-ranging — and, to Western analysts, impossible — concessions from the U.S. and NATO on matters of European security.

Those were laid out in two draft treaties proposed by Moscow that the government in Kyiv — because it is not a member of the alliance — has no say over. President Vladimir Putin of Russia subsequently threatened to launch an invasion of Ukraine if the talks on its proposals should fail.

In effect, that made Ukraine “the hostage,” of Russia, said Kostiantyn Yelisieiev, a former Ukrainian ambassador to the European Union.

Moscow’s sidelining of Ukraine and its demand for direct talks with the U.S. and NATO were intentional, Yelisieiev said.

One of Russia’s key demands is that NATO exclude any possibility of Ukraine’s membership in the alliance — NATO has already rejected that demand — and halt all military cooperation with the country. Russia also insisted that the alliance halt all military activities throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

“The issues concern all of Europe, including Ukraine, but Putin suggests discussions between Russia and the United States,” Yelisieiev said. “Russia in this way made an announcement of a sphere of influence. ‘You leave us the former Soviet space and do what you want elsewhere.’”

A Ukrainian delegation will take part in the third of the three rounds of talks, scheduled for Thursday in Vienna under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The U.S. has said it is coordinating closely with authorities in Kyiv.

“No decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine,” the Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, posted on Twitter last week, noting he will also meet with NATO officials in Brussels. “Part of a wide diplomatic effort to deter further Russian aggression.”

The current threat follows eight years of low-level conflict. Russia intervened militarily in Ukraine in 2014, annexing the Crimean Peninsula and fomenting separatist uprisings in two eastern provinces, leading to the deaths of about 13,000 people.

Given the stakes for Ukraine, the government of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has decided not to rely wholly on the U.S.-led negotiations. Zelenskyy announced a separate, Ukrainian diplomatic initiative with Russia in late December, the specifics of which were later published in Russian newspaper Kommersant.

The 10-point Ukrainian plan, which is bound to be highly contentious in Ukraine, begins with three confidence-building steps — a cease-fire, an exchange of prisoners and the opening of crossing points for civilians on the front line in the eastern Ukraine war — then moves to political issues. The first point, the cease-fire, has already been implemented.

The political matters involve direct talks between Zelenskyy and Putin and a final point, No. 10, under which the Ukrainian government would submit to parliament laws granting self-rule to separatist areas and devolving some powers to these areas, according to Kommersant.

In the Russian interpretation, these laws would grant its proxies in eastern Ukraine veto power over foreign policy decisions by the central government, including NATO membership for Ukraine, potentially satisfying enough of Russia’s request to forestall a catastrophic war in Ukraine.

Western diplomats say the proposed laws leave wiggle room for interpretation and that Zelenskyy is unlikely to grant Moscow veto power over future NATO membership. The proposal says nothing about the aspiration for NATO membership written into Ukraine’s Constitution and has seemingly stalled after the cease-fire, announced Dec. 22.

Like so many other diplomatic efforts to end the war, this one is given little chance of success by most analysts, but it could serve other purposes. Ukraine can do “nothing” in diplomacy but wait for the possible outbreak of violence, said Oleksandr Danylyuk, a former secretary of the Ukrainian Security Council. “This is why Putin is doing this. It’s his goal to show that Ukraine cannot do anything.”

And the negotiating effort could have one lasting effect: Zelenskyy’s apparent willingness to negotiate over autonomy for the separatist regions and any hint of accepting neutrality between the West and Russia could cause a firestorm in Ukrainian politics.

To date, none of the diplomatic talks with Russia, whether with the U.S. or Ukraine, have slowed the stream of ominous statements from Russian officials that diplomats and analysts worry could be used to justify military action or prepare the Russian population for a war.

In July, Putin published an article arguing that Russia and Ukraine are essentially the same country, with a shared history and culture, suggesting a reason for unification.

The threats became more focused in August after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, when senior Russian security officials publicly taunted Ukraine that it, too, could soon lose the U.S. as a protector.

“The country is headed toward collapse, and the White House at a certain moment won’t even remember about its supporters in Kyiv,” Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s Security Council, told Izvestia newspaper soon after the fall of Kabul.

In December, Putin, speaking to a gathering of generals and security officials, said Moscow might resort to “military-technical” means if Western nations “continue the obviously aggressive stance.”

A deputy foreign minister for Russia, Alexander Grushko, more explicitly linked a threat of Russian military force to a breakdown in the talks.

“The Europeans must also think about whether they want to avoid making their continent the scene of a military confrontation,” Grushko said. “They have a choice. Either take seriously what is put on the table or face a military-technical alternative.”

Echoing U.S. claims used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Russian defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, claimed without providing evidence that Moscow had intelligence showing that American mercenaries had brought an “unidentified chemical component” into Ukraine.

Pro-Kremlin commentators have cheered the Kremlin’s tough stance as a Russian nationalist triumph.

One newspaper compared Moscow favorably to a gangster character in a Russian movie who, “raising his heavy fist and looking into the eyes of his interlocutor, gently asks again: Where is your strength America?” 
&nbsp;

Peace negotiations are usually thought to involve two sides brought together by a mediator trying to tease out possible compromises, far from the anger and destruction of the battlefield.

Peace negotiations are usually thought to involve two sides brought together by a mediator trying to tease out possible compromises, far from the anger and destruction of the battlefield. But talks starting in Geneva on Monday on the 8-year-old war in Ukraine are different. The conflict — and an overtly threatened Russian invasion that the talks are intended to forestall — is in Ukraine. But Ukraine will be missing from two of the three negotiating sessions scheduled for this week. Such a limited role for Ukraine in the talks has clearly unnerved the government in Kyiv. Fearing the talks will yield little or nothing, and with President Joe Biden’s statement that the United States will not intervene militarily if Russia invades, Ukraine has quietly pursued its own negotiating track with Moscow. The latest threat of invasion began last month, when Russia massed more than 100,000 troops along its borders with Ukraine and demanded wide-ranging — and, to Western analysts, impossible — concessions from the U.S. and NATO on matters of European security. Those were laid out in two draft treaties proposed by Moscow that the government in Kyiv — because it is not a member of the alliance — has no say over. President Vladimir Putin of Russia subsequently threatened to launch an invasion of Ukraine if the talks on its proposals should fail. In effect, that made Ukraine “the hostage,” of Russia, said Kostiantyn Yelisieiev, a former Ukrainian ambassador to the European Union. Moscow’s sidelining of Ukraine and its demand for direct talks with the U.S. and NATO were intentional, Yelisieiev said. One of Russia’s key demands is that NATO exclude any possibility of Ukraine’s membership in the alliance — NATO has already rejected that demand — and halt all military cooperation with the country. Russia also insisted that the alliance halt all military activities throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia. “The issues concern all of Europe, including Ukraine, but Putin suggests discussions between Russia and the United States,” Yelisieiev said. “Russia in this way made an announcement of a sphere of influence. ‘You leave us the former Soviet space and do what you want elsewhere.’” A Ukrainian delegation will take part in the third of the three rounds of talks, scheduled for Thursday in Vienna under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The U.S. has said it is coordinating closely with authorities in Kyiv. “No decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine,” the Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, posted on Twitter last week, noting he will also meet with NATO officials in Brussels. “Part of a wide diplomatic effort to deter further Russian aggression.” The current threat follows eight years of low-level conflict. Russia intervened militarily in Ukraine in 2014, annexing the Crimean Peninsula and fomenting separatist uprisings in two eastern provinces, leading to the deaths of about 13,000 people. Given the stakes for Ukraine, the government of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has decided not to rely wholly on the U.S.-led negotiations. Zelenskyy announced a separate, Ukrainian diplomatic initiative with Russia in late December, the specifics of which were later published in Russian newspaper Kommersant. The 10-point Ukrainian plan, which is bound to be highly contentious in Ukraine, begins with three confidence-building steps — a cease-fire, an exchange of prisoners and the opening of crossing points for civilians on the front line in the eastern Ukraine war — then moves to political issues. The first point, the cease-fire, has already been implemented. The political matters involve direct talks between Zelenskyy and Putin and a final point, No. 10, under which the Ukrainian government would submit to parliament laws granting self-rule to separatist areas and devolving some powers to these areas, according to Kommersant. In the Russian interpretation, these laws would grant its proxies in eastern Ukraine veto power over foreign policy decisions by the central government, including NATO membership for Ukraine, potentially satisfying enough of Russia’s request to forestall a catastrophic war in Ukraine. Western diplomats say the proposed laws leave wiggle room for interpretation and that Zelenskyy is unlikely to grant Moscow veto power over future NATO membership. The proposal says nothing about the aspiration for NATO membership written into Ukraine’s Constitution and has seemingly stalled after the cease-fire, announced Dec. 22. Like so many other diplomatic efforts to end the war, this one is given little chance of success by most analysts, but it could serve other purposes. Ukraine can do “nothing” in diplomacy but wait for the possible outbreak of violence, said Oleksandr Danylyuk, a former secretary of the Ukrainian Security Council. “This is why Putin is doing this. It’s his goal to show that Ukraine cannot do anything.” And the negotiating effort could have one lasting effect: Zelenskyy’s apparent willingness to negotiate over autonomy for the separatist regions and any hint of accepting neutrality between the West and Russia could cause a firestorm in Ukrainian politics. To date, none of the diplomatic talks with Russia, whether with the U.S. or Ukraine, have slowed the stream of ominous statements from Russian officials that diplomats and analysts worry could be used to justify military action or prepare the Russian population for a war. In July, Putin published an article arguing that Russia and Ukraine are essentially the same country, with a shared history and culture, suggesting a reason for unification. The threats became more focused in August after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, when senior Russian security officials publicly taunted Ukraine that it, too, could soon lose the U.S. as a protector. “The country is headed toward collapse, and the White House at a certain moment won’t even remember about its supporters in Kyiv,” Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s Security Council, told Izvestia newspaper soon after the fall of Kabul. In December, Putin, speaking to a gathering of generals and security officials, said Moscow might resort to “military-technical” means if Western nations “continue the obviously aggressive stance.” A deputy foreign minister for Russia, Alexander Grushko, more explicitly linked a threat of Russian military force to a breakdown in the talks. “The Europeans must also think about whether they want to avoid making their continent the scene of a military confrontation,” Grushko said. “They have a choice. Either take seriously what is put on the table or face a military-technical alternative.” Echoing U.S. claims used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Russian defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, claimed without providing evidence that Moscow had intelligence showing that American mercenaries had brought an “unidentified chemical component” into Ukraine. Pro-Kremlin commentators have cheered the Kremlin’s tough stance as a Russian nationalist triumph. One newspaper compared Moscow favorably to a gangster character in a Russian movie who, “raising his heavy fist and looking into the eyes of his interlocutor, gently asks again: Where is your strength America?”

Left out of high-level talks, Ukraine tries other diplomatic channels

US President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Washington and its allies would act “decisively” if the easter European country is invaded by Russia.

Biden made the stern warning while talking to Zelenskyy over a phone call on Sunday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, as Russia reportedly continues to spruce up its troops on the Ukrainian borders.

In his call with Zelensky, Biden also stressed Washington's commitment “to the principle of 'nothing about you without you”, in an apparent reference to the need to include Ukraine in negotiations about its own future.

Zelensky later tweeted that he appreciated the United States' “unwavering support” and that the call “proves the special nature” of the two countries’ relationship.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-closes-ports-to-russian-ships-says-russian-media-441661">&nbsp;Ukraine closes ports to Russian ships, says Russian media</a>

The comments from Biden comes a week after he and Russian President Vladimir Putin exchanged warnings over Ukraine.

Discussing the call with Putin on Friday, Biden said, “I'm not going to negotiate here in public, but we made it clear he cannot —I'll emphasize, cannot —invade Ukraine."

The US leader added that he had “made it clear to President Putin that we will have severe sanctions, we will increase our presence in Europe, with NATO allies” if Russia invades Ukraine.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-closes-ports-to-russian-ships-says-russian-media-441661">&nbsp;</a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/if-russia-invades-ukraine-us-to-send-more-troops-to-eastern-europe-434750">If Russia invades Ukraine, US to send more troops to Eastern Europe</a>

It is being reported that around 100,000 Russian troops are massed near the border of the country, where Putin already seized the Crimea region in 2014 and is accused of fomenting a pro-Russian separatist war which erupted that same year in the east.

Putin has repeatedly said NATO should not extend its border further east bordering Russia and demanded Ukraine should not join the European military alliance, however, NATO officials haven't given any assurances to Russia so far.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Washington and its allies would act “decisively” if the easter European country is invaded by Russia.

US President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Washington and its allies would act “decisively” if the easter European country is invaded by Russia. Biden made the stern warning while talking to Zelenskyy over a phone call on Sunday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, as Russia reportedly continues to spruce up its troops on the Ukrainian borders. In his call with Zelensky, Biden also stressed Washington's commitment “to the principle of 'nothing about you without you”, in an apparent reference to the need to include Ukraine in negotiations about its own future. Zelensky later tweeted that he appreciated the United States' “unwavering support” and that the call “proves the special nature” of the two countries’ relationship. Also read | Ukraine closes ports to Russian ships, says Russian media The comments from Biden comes a week after he and Russian President Vladimir Putin exchanged warnings over Ukraine. Discussing the call with Putin on Friday, Biden said, “I'm not going to negotiate here in public, but we made it clear he cannot —I'll emphasize, cannot —invade Ukraine." The US leader added that he had “made it clear to President Putin that we will have severe sanctions, we will increase our presence in Europe, with NATO allies” if Russia invades Ukraine. Also read | If Russia invades Ukraine, US to send more troops to Eastern Europe It is being reported that around 100,000 Russian troops are massed near the border of the country, where Putin already seized the Crimea region in 2014 and is accused of fomenting a pro-Russian separatist war which erupted that same year in the east. Putin has repeatedly said NATO should not extend its border further east bordering Russia and demanded Ukraine should not join the European military alliance, however, NATO officials haven't given any assurances to Russia so far. (With inputs from agencies)

US will act ‘decisively’ if Russia invades, says Biden in phone call with Ukraine President

Joe Biden has ruled out sending American troops into Ukraine. The West is banking on sanctions to deter Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine. Palki Sharma tells you why sanctions have historically failed to achieve their objectives.

Gravitas: Biden rules out sending US troops to Ukraine

The United States President Joe Biden on Tuesday (January 25) said that he will think about imposing personal sanctions on Russian President Vladimir Putin if he invades Ukraine.&nbsp;

Amid heightened tensions at the Russia-Ukraine border, the Western countries fear that Putin is plotting to invade the&nbsp;country it invaded in 2014.

The crisis got escalated drastically after Russia amassed tens of thousands of troops on its borders with Ukraine. However, Russia denies it is planning an attack.&nbsp;

Russia has said it could take unspecified military action if a list of demands is not met, including a promise from NATO never to admit Ukraine as a member.&nbsp;

IN PICS |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/how-the-west-can-use-economic-sanctions-to-target-russia-over-ukraine-conflict-447444">How the West can use economic sanctions to target Russia over Ukraine conflict</a>

In the aftermath, the West tried to de-escalate the situation and now has stepped up military preparations and made plans to shield Europe from a potential energy supply shock.&nbsp;

Now, Biden has come up with the rare sanctions threat as NATO places forces on standby and reinforces eastern Europe with more ships and fighter jets in response to Russia's troop build-up near its border with Ukraine.&nbsp;

While addressing a presser, Biden was asked if he would see himself imposing sanctions on Putin directly. "Yes," he responded. "I would see that."

Direct US sanctions on foreign leaders are rare but not unprecedented. Others who have faced sanctions include Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.

Russian state TV plays down

On one side, NATO forces have&nbsp;gathered against a potential invasion - creating a war-like situation.&nbsp;On the other hand, Russian state TV has played down the entire crisis.&nbsp;

Russian state TV - vital for the Kremlin's public messaging over 11 time zones - has often focused in recent days on other issues such as Russian athletes' hopes for the Beijing Winter Olympics or rising Omicron cases.

"At the moment, there's no sense the enemy is at the door and that we're starting a war soon... That's not happening at all," said one Russian media analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

As mentioned by Reuters, Russian state media say Western "panic" is fuelling the tensions, along with the US troop reinforcements to the region and arms supplies to Kyiv while reporting the crisis.&nbsp;

They do not mention the presence of around 100,000 Russian troops near Ukraine's border. "They've invented it (the Russian threat)... The Americans have been scaring themselves about a Russian invasion for months," a reporter for the Vesti news programme told viewers.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-will-america-go-to-war-for-ukraine-447579/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The United States President Joe Biden on Tuesday (January 25) said that he will think about imposing personal sanctions on Russian President Vladimir Putin if he invades Ukraine.

The United States President Joe Biden on Tuesday (January 25) said that he will think about imposing personal sanctions on Russian President Vladimir Putin if he invades Ukraine. Amid heightened tensions at the Russia-Ukraine border, the Western countries fear that Putin is plotting to invade the country it invaded in 2014. The crisis got escalated drastically after Russia amassed tens of thousands of troops on its borders with Ukraine. However, Russia denies it is planning an attack. Russia has said it could take unspecified military action if a list of demands is not met, including a promise from NATO never to admit Ukraine as a member. IN PICS | How the West can use economic sanctions to target Russia over Ukraine conflict In the aftermath, the West tried to de-escalate the situation and now has stepped up military preparations and made plans to shield Europe from a potential energy supply shock. Now, Biden has come up with the rare sanctions threat as NATO places forces on standby and reinforces eastern Europe with more ships and fighter jets in response to Russia's troop build-up near its border with Ukraine. While addressing a presser, Biden was asked if he would see himself imposing sanctions on Putin directly. "Yes," he responded. "I would see that." Direct US sanctions on foreign leaders are rare but not unprecedented. Others who have faced sanctions include Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi. Russian state TV plays down On one side, NATO forces have gathered against a potential invasion - creating a war-like situation. On the other hand, Russian state TV has played down the entire crisis. Russian state TV - vital for the Kremlin's public messaging over 11 time zones - has often focused in recent days on other issues such as Russian athletes' hopes for the Beijing Winter Olympics or rising Omicron cases. "At the moment, there's no sense the enemy is at the door and that we're starting a war soon... That's not happening at all," said one Russian media analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity. As mentioned by Reuters, Russian state media say Western "panic" is fuelling the tensions, along with the US troop reinforcements to the region and arms supplies to Kyiv while reporting the crisis. They do not mention the presence of around 100,000 Russian troops near Ukraine's border. "They've invented it (the Russian threat)... The Americans have been scaring themselves about a Russian invasion for months," a reporter for the Vesti news programme told viewers. ×

Ukraine crisis: Joe Biden's rare sanction threat to Vladimir Putin; Russian media's narrative is different

As Western countries fear Russian incursion in Ukraine, the United States President Joe Biden has clarified his comments that he delivered in this context as he suggested that the allies were split over how to react to any potential "minor incursion" from Russia.&nbsp;

During a news conference on Wednesday, it looked like Biden is suggesting that the US and other allies might disagree over the response if Moscow stopped short of a major invasion and he also said he expected Putin to launch some kind of action.&nbsp;

The presser was meant to mark Biden's administration one year in office, when he said, "It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and what to not do, et cetera." Biden also added that an invasion would be a "disaster" for Russia.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-china-block-us-bid-to-impose-un-sanctions-on-north-koreans-446312">Russia, China block US bid to impose UN sanctions on North Koreans</a>

The comments invited backlash by allies as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy responded sharply to that on Thursday, tweeting in English and Ukrainian: "We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations. Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones."&nbsp;

Also,&nbsp;NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg weighed in on the situation, especially on Biden's comment as he said that the "minor incursion" comment was not a green light to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine.&nbsp;

The UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "Be in no doubt that if Russia were to make any kind of incursion into Ukraine, or on any scale, whatever, I think that that would be a disaster, not just for Ukraine, but for Russia."

Biden clarification&nbsp;and damage control

Biden's comments appeared to some as giving Russia the green light to attack - a remark that could escalate the already heightened border issues between Russia and Ukraine.&nbsp;

Biden sought to clarify his comments as on Thursday (January 20), he said that "I have been absolutely clear with President (Vladimir) Putin, he has no misunderstanding. If any, any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border that is an invasion".

Biden further added that such an invasion would be met by a "severe and coordinated response, economic response as discussed in details with our allies, as laid out very clearly with President Putin."&nbsp;

A Western security source said as quoted by Reuters that "it was not helpful, in fact it was a gift to Putin, but we should not read too much into it.&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;has not given Moscow the green light for an attack on Ukraine. It was a slip of his tongue, and the official Western position will prevail."

IN PICS |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/arrow-3-iron-dome-whats-next-in-israels-missile-interception-strategy-446193">Arrow 3, Iron Dome: What's next in Israel's missile interception strategy?</a>

Meanwhile, the US tried to control the damage as&nbsp;Secretary of State Antony Blinken also commented during his address at a press conference&nbsp;during a visit to Berlin to meet ministers from Britain, France and Germany.&nbsp;

He said, "No matter which path Russia chooses, it will find the United States, Germany, and our allies, united."&nbsp;

Ukraine-Russia border tensions

Russia has massed tens of thousands of troops on its borders with Ukraine, and Western states fear Moscow is planning a new assault on a country it invaded in 2014.

Russia denies it is planning an attack but says it could take unspecified military action if a list of demands is not met, including a promise from NATO never to admit Ukraine as a member.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-one-year-of-biden-no-better-than-trump-446303/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

(With inputs from agencies)

As Western countries fear Russian incursion in Ukraine, the United States President Joe Biden has clarified his comments that he delivered in this context as he suggested that the allies were split over how to react to any potential "minor incursion" from Russia.

As Western countries fear Russian incursion in Ukraine, the United States President Joe Biden has clarified his comments that he delivered in this context as he suggested that the allies were split over how to react to any potential "minor incursion" from Russia. During a news conference on Wednesday, it looked like Biden is suggesting that the US and other allies might disagree over the response if Moscow stopped short of a major invasion and he also said he expected Putin to launch some kind of action. The presser was meant to mark Biden's administration one year in office, when he said, "It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and what to not do, et cetera." Biden also added that an invasion would be a "disaster" for Russia. ALSO READ | Russia, China block US bid to impose UN sanctions on North Koreans The comments invited backlash by allies as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy responded sharply to that on Thursday, tweeting in English and Ukrainian: "We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations. Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones." Also, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg weighed in on the situation, especially on Biden's comment as he said that the "minor incursion" comment was not a green light to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. The UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "Be in no doubt that if Russia were to make any kind of incursion into Ukraine, or on any scale, whatever, I think that that would be a disaster, not just for Ukraine, but for Russia." Biden clarification and damage control Biden's comments appeared to some as giving Russia the green light to attack - a remark that could escalate the already heightened border issues between Russia and Ukraine. Biden sought to clarify his comments as on Thursday (January 20), he said that "I have been absolutely clear with President (Vladimir) Putin, he has no misunderstanding. If any, any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border that is an invasion". Biden further added that such an invasion would be met by a "severe and coordinated response, economic response as discussed in details with our allies, as laid out very clearly with President Putin." A Western security source said as quoted by Reuters that "it was not helpful, in fact it was a gift to Putin, but we should not read too much into it. Biden has not given Moscow the green light for an attack on Ukraine. It was a slip of his tongue, and the official Western position will prevail." IN PICS | Arrow 3, Iron Dome: What's next in Israel's missile interception strategy? Meanwhile, the US tried to control the damage as Secretary of State Antony Blinken also commented during his address at a press conference during a visit to Berlin to meet ministers from Britain, France and Germany. He said, "No matter which path Russia chooses, it will find the United States, Germany, and our allies, united." Ukraine-Russia border tensions Russia has massed tens of thousands of troops on its borders with Ukraine, and Western states fear Moscow is planning a new assault on a country it invaded in 2014. Russia denies it is planning an attack but says it could take unspecified military action if a list of demands is not met, including a promise from NATO never to admit Ukraine as a member. × (With inputs from agencies)

Joe Biden clarifies over Russia remark; Ukraine says there are no 'minor incursions' and small nations

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed an executive order that made sexual harassment a crime under the military justice code. Sexual harassment in US armed forces is an issue Pentagon has struggled with.

The move, called for in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, the Pentagon's annual budget package, pays homage to Vanessa Guillen.

Guillen, a 20-year-old army soldier was sexually harassed and murdered by a fellow soldier in 2020. Guillen had told her family that she did not trust the military command to follow up on her complaint.

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the order "honors the memory of Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen," whose death is "catalyzing national attention to the scourge of sexual violence in our military and helping advance bipartisan military justice reform."

Biden tweeted earlier in the day that he was "signing an Executive Order to make sexual harassment an offense in the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The order is also meant to "strengthen the military's response to domestic violence and the wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images," he said.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had previously appointed an independent commission to submit recommendations as to how best to deal with perpetrators of sexual violence in the armed forces, and how to prosecute them more effectively.

The commission concluded that removing decisions about prosecuting sexual assault from the military chain of command was the only solution.

Instead of incurring administrative sanctions as was previously the case, perpetrators may receive prison time.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed an executive order that made sexual harassment a crime under the military justice code. Sexual harassment in US armed forces is an issue Pentagon has struggled with.

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed an executive order that made sexual harassment a crime under the military justice code. Sexual harassment in US armed forces is an issue Pentagon has struggled with. The move, called for in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, the Pentagon's annual budget package, pays homage to Vanessa Guillen. Guillen, a 20-year-old army soldier was sexually harassed and murdered by a fellow soldier in 2020. Guillen had told her family that she did not trust the military command to follow up on her complaint. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the order "honors the memory of Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen," whose death is "catalyzing national attention to the scourge of sexual violence in our military and helping advance bipartisan military justice reform." Biden tweeted earlier in the day that he was "signing an Executive Order to make sexual harassment an offense in the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The order is also meant to "strengthen the military's response to domestic violence and the wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images," he said. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had previously appointed an independent commission to submit recommendations as to how best to deal with perpetrators of sexual violence in the armed forces, and how to prosecute them more effectively. The commission concluded that removing decisions about prosecuting sexual assault from the military chain of command was the only solution. Instead of incurring administrative sanctions as was previously the case, perpetrators may receive prison time. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden signs order making sexual harassment in US military a crime

US financial contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) have fallen by 25 per cent during the coronavirus pandemic, provisional data show, with Washington's future support to the United Nations agency under review.

The large drop in funding versus the previous two-year period arose from cuts decided by former US President Donald Trump that reveal for the first time the scale of the Trump administration's retreat from the UN&nbsp;body.

US funds are set to go up again in the&nbsp;WHO's next two-year budget following new pledges in December including $280 million by President Joe Biden's administration. However, the Biden administration has also raised doubts about Washington's future support to the global organisation.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/is-navalny-a-terrorist-russia-adds-kremlin-critic-allies-to-terrorists-list-us-eu-condemn-the-move-447614" hreflang="en">Is Navalny a terrorist? Russia adds Kremlin critic, allies to 'terrorists' list; US, EU condemn the move</a>

The UN&nbsp;agency did with over $200 million less from the United States in 2020 and 2021, according to provisional&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;data contained in a budget document reviewed by Reuters that has not yet been made public, though it managed to raise more funds from other donors which enabled an increase of its total budget.

Washington paid $672 million to the&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;for its latest two-year budget, down from $893 million in 2018-19, the provisional data showed.

As a result, the United States is no longer the&nbsp;WHO's top donor, with Germany having replaced it gradually through transfers of more than a billion dollars over the last two years.

<img alt="WHO funding" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fa32d3da-da53-4a56-a163-c19ac9f9a689" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/stories%20%2812%29.jpg" />

Graphic:&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;funding (Source:Reuters)

The US State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;spokesperson did not immediately provide an official comment.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the third largest donor to the&nbsp;WHO, with $584 million in 2020-21, largely spent on a global programme to eradicate polio. The foundation did not immediately reply for a request for comment.

Over the past two years, US funds went down mostly in 2020 - Trump's last full year in the White House - amid a sharp fall in so-called voluntary contributions.

Funding doubled in 2021 when Biden took over, but the increase was not enough to fully restore the US financing level compared to previous periods.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ahead-of-winter-olympics-over-25-of-us-diplomats-may-leave-china-find-out-why-447604" hreflang="en">Ahead of Winter Olympics, over 25% of US diplomats may leave China. Find out why</a>

Trump cut funding and moved to withdraw the United States from the&nbsp;WHO, accusing it of being too close to China and having mismanaged the first phase of the pandemic - accusations that the&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;has denied.

The Biden administration brought Washington back into the&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;and vowed to restore funding but has also voiced doubts about the&nbsp;WHO's ability to tackle new challenges, including from China.

Inflexible funding

Part of the US financial contributions were delayed by the&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;to next year. But even factoring this in, the fall in US funds was still about 20 per cent,&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;data show.

About one-third of US funds were mandatory membership fees, which remained stable compared to past years at around $230 million per biennium.

This is considered by the&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;the best funding because it allows higher flexibility in spending and permits the agency to channel the money to where it is most needed.

But the majority of funding went to areas selected by the US government.

This is part of a wider trend, with the&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;having received in total just less than 20 per cent of its funding in recent years from these mandatory contributions, without strings attached.

Watch |&nbsp;Tedros Ghebreyesus, WHO's prominent figure remains unopposed in top post race

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/tedros-ghebreyesus-whos-prominent-figure-remains-unopposed-in-top-post-race-447376/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;document showed that one of the areas underfunded as of Dec. 21 was country preparation for health emergencies, such as the current pandemic, which is only 73 per cent funded.

WHO&nbsp;Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reiterated on Tuesday that the current funding structure was restrictive.

"The problem is still whatever we have done is mainly an earmarked budget, so it's not really flexible enough," he told the&nbsp;WHO's Executive Board during a public debate, saying that the current financing model was unsustainable.

The United States is opposing a plan to raise mandatory fees, or assessed contributions, to 50 per cent of the&nbsp;WHO's budget in coming years.

"The US seeks to better understand the current funding mechanisms, efficiencies and decision-making before considering an increase in assessed contributions," US health official Mara Burr told the&nbsp;WHO&nbsp;board on Tuesday, noting Washington supported efforts to address gaps in financing for preparedness.

By far the largest part of the&nbsp;WHO's funding comes from voluntary contributions from states or private donors&nbsp;who&nbsp;decide the sectors or even the projects where they should be used.

This is one factor that has led the Geneva-based agency to delay the use of some of the funds since they could not all immediately be devoted to fighting the pandemic.

US financial contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) have fallen by 25 per cent during the coronavirus pandemic, provisional data show, with Washington's future support to the United Nations agency under review.

US financial contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) have fallen by 25 per cent during the coronavirus pandemic, provisional data show, with Washington's future support to the United Nations agency under review. The large drop in funding versus the previous two-year period arose from cuts decided by former US President Donald Trump that reveal for the first time the scale of the Trump administration's retreat from the UN body. US funds are set to go up again in the WHO's next two-year budget following new pledges in December including $280 million by President Joe Biden's administration. However, the Biden administration has also raised doubts about Washington's future support to the global organisation. Also read | Is Navalny a terrorist? Russia adds Kremlin critic, allies to 'terrorists' list; US, EU condemn the move The UN agency did with over $200 million less from the United States in 2020 and 2021, according to provisional WHO data contained in a budget document reviewed by Reuters that has not yet been made public, though it managed to raise more funds from other donors which enabled an increase of its total budget. Washington paid $672 million to the WHO for its latest two-year budget, down from $893 million in 2018-19, the provisional data showed. As a result, the United States is no longer the WHO's top donor, with Germany having replaced it gradually through transfers of more than a billion dollars over the last two years. Graphic: WHO funding (Source:Reuters) The US State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A WHO spokesperson did not immediately provide an official comment. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the third largest donor to the WHO, with $584 million in 2020-21, largely spent on a global programme to eradicate polio. The foundation did not immediately reply for a request for comment. Over the past two years, US funds went down mostly in 2020 - Trump's last full year in the White House - amid a sharp fall in so-called voluntary contributions. Funding doubled in 2021 when Biden took over, but the increase was not enough to fully restore the US financing level compared to previous periods. Also read | Ahead of Winter Olympics, over 25% of US diplomats may leave China. Find out why Trump cut funding and moved to withdraw the United States from the WHO, accusing it of being too close to China and having mismanaged the first phase of the pandemic - accusations that the WHO has denied. The Biden administration brought Washington back into the WHO and vowed to restore funding but has also voiced doubts about the WHO's ability to tackle new challenges, including from China. Inflexible funding Part of the US financial contributions were delayed by the WHO to next year. But even factoring this in, the fall in US funds was still about 20 per cent, WHO data show. About one-third of US funds were mandatory membership fees, which remained stable compared to past years at around $230 million per biennium. This is considered by the WHO the best funding because it allows higher flexibility in spending and permits the agency to channel the money to where it is most needed. But the majority of funding went to areas selected by the US government. This is part of a wider trend, with the WHO having received in total just less than 20 per cent of its funding in recent years from these mandatory contributions, without strings attached. Watch | Tedros Ghebreyesus, WHO's prominent figure remains unopposed in top post race The WHO document showed that one of the areas underfunded as of Dec. 21 was country preparation for health emergencies, such as the current pandemic, which is only 73 per cent funded. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reiterated on Tuesday that the current funding structure was restrictive. "The problem is still whatever we have done is mainly an earmarked budget, so it's not really flexible enough," he told the WHO's Executive Board during a public debate, saying that the current financing model was unsustainable. The United States is opposing a plan to raise mandatory fees, or assessed contributions, to 50 per cent of the WHO's budget in coming years. "The US seeks to better understand the current funding mechanisms, efficiencies and decision-making before considering an increase in assessed contributions," US health official Mara Burr told the WHO board on Tuesday, noting Washington supported efforts to address gaps in financing for preparedness. By far the largest part of the WHO's funding comes from voluntary contributions from states or private donors who decide the sectors or even the projects where they should be used. This is one factor that has led the Geneva-based agency to delay the use of some of the funds since they could not all immediately be devoted to fighting the pandemic.

US funding to WHO fell by 25% during the pandemic: Report

Troubles seem to find US President Joe Biden’s way nowadays. With tensions rife on several fronts like Ukraine, the president seems to have triggered a row at home too. &nbsp;

While answering a question about inflation on Monday, Biden responded to a Fox News reporter with vulgarity. &nbsp;

The incident happened when the president was in the East Room of the White House for a meeting of his Competition Council. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hard-to-ignore-us-woman-finds-3-million-lottery-prize-winning-mail-in-spam-folder-447152" hreflang="en">Hard to ignore: US woman finds $3 million lottery prize winning mail in spam folder</a>

The panel is focused on changing regulations and enforcing laws to help consumers deal with high prices. &nbsp;&nbsp;

After Biden's remarks, several reporters shouted a number of questions in the room. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Biden heard calling a journalist a "stupid son of a bitch" after question about inflation. 
 
🇺🇸🗞 Reporter: 
— "Do you think inflation is a political liability in the midterms?" 
 
🇺🇸 US President Joe Biden: 
— "It's a great asset — more inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch." <a href="https://t.co/zpIHM9NRSG">pic.twitter.com/zpIHM9NRSG</a>
— Ric 🍙 (@RiceKun) <a href="https://twitter.com/RiceKun/status/1485773212910858240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked about inflation. It is at a nearly 40-year high and seems to be hurting the president's public approval badly. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The network, which Doocy works with, has been critical of Biden. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cruise-ship-goes-off-course-docks-in-bahamas-find-out-what-happened-447026" hreflang="en">Cruise ship goes off course, docks in Bahamas. Find out what happened</a>

Doocy asked, "Do you think inflation is a political liability ahead of the midterms?" &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
President Biden said this about a reporter: 
 
“What a stupid son of a bitch.” 
 
President Bush and President Obama had enough decency to not use vulgarity unlike Donald Trump and Joe Biden. 
 
I miss the days of having a US president that didn’t lash out like an angry teenager.
— 🇺🇸🌊Serena Democrat Patriot 🌊🇺🇸 (@USPatriotSerena) <a href="https://twitter.com/USPatriotSerena/status/1485795239961014273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Responding with sarcasm, Biden said, "It's a great asset -- more inflation." Then, he shook his head and added, "What a stupid son of a bitch." &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
If you have any doubt that inflation is a political liability, then you're a stupid son of a bitch who shouldn't be asking the US President questions as a career.
— Extremely Stable Genius (@ProbzNotABot) <a href="https://twitter.com/ProbzNotABot/status/1485806837702316035?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The outrageous comments were captured on video and by his microphone. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Biden is not your favourite dank Youtuber. Calling a journalist a "son of a bitch" was wrong when Trump did it and it is wrong when Biden has done it.The liberals celebrating it as a dunk are showing how partisan their principles are.A sitting US President should show more grace.
— Shehzad Ghias Shaikh (@Shehzad89) <a href="https://twitter.com/Shehzad89/status/1485775408440164357?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In a subsequent appearance on his network, Doocy laughed it off and jokingly said, "Nobody has fact-checked him yet and said it's not true." &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Troubles seem to find US President Joe Biden’s way nowadays. With tensions rife on several fronts like Ukraine, the president seems to have triggered a row at home too.

Troubles seem to find US President Joe Biden’s way nowadays. With tensions rife on several fronts like Ukraine, the president seems to have triggered a row at home too. While answering a question about inflation on Monday, Biden responded to a Fox News reporter with vulgarity. The incident happened when the president was in the East Room of the White House for a meeting of his Competition Council. Also Read: Hard to ignore: US woman finds $3 million lottery prize winning mail in spam folder The panel is focused on changing regulations and enforcing laws to help consumers deal with high prices. After Biden's remarks, several reporters shouted a number of questions in the room. Biden heard calling a journalist a "stupid son of a bitch" after question about inflation. 🇺🇸🗞 Reporter: — "Do you think inflation is a political liability in the midterms?" 🇺🇸 US President Joe Biden: — "It's a great asset — more inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch." pic.twitter.com/zpIHM9NRSG — Ric 🍙 (@RiceKun) January 25, 2022 × Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked about inflation. It is at a nearly 40-year high and seems to be hurting the president's public approval badly. The network, which Doocy works with, has been critical of Biden. Also Read: Cruise ship goes off course, docks in Bahamas. Find out what happened Doocy asked, "Do you think inflation is a political liability ahead of the midterms?" President Biden said this about a reporter: “What a stupid son of a bitch.” President Bush and President Obama had enough decency to not use vulgarity unlike Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I miss the days of having a US president that didn’t lash out like an angry teenager. — 🇺🇸🌊Serena Democrat Patriot 🌊🇺🇸 (@USPatriotSerena) January 25, 2022 × Responding with sarcasm, Biden said, "It's a great asset -- more inflation." Then, he shook his head and added, "What a stupid son of a bitch." If you have any doubt that inflation is a political liability, then you're a stupid son of a bitch who shouldn't be asking the US President questions as a career. — Extremely Stable Genius (@ProbzNotABot) January 25, 2022 × The outrageous comments were captured on video and by his microphone. Biden is not your favourite dank Youtuber. Calling a journalist a "son of a bitch" was wrong when Trump did it and it is wrong when Biden has done it.The liberals celebrating it as a dunk are showing how partisan their principles are.A sitting US President should show more grace. — Shehzad Ghias Shaikh (@Shehzad89) January 25, 2022 × In a subsequent appearance on his network, Doocy laughed it off and jokingly said, "Nobody has fact-checked him yet and said it's not true." (With inputs from agencies)

Watch: US President Joe Biden calls reporter 'stupid son of a b****' on hot mic. Find out why

joe-biden

Joe Biden, News on Joe Biden, stories on Joe Biden, articles on Joe Biden, Joe Biden stories at Wion, Joe Biden news, Joe Biden latest news

joe biden