Connect with us

News

Analysis: 1st US ambassador to Ukraine — ‘I think we handled it wrong from the get-go’

Published

on

Analysis: 1st US ambassador to Ukraine — ‘I think we handled it wrong from the get-go’
That is how Popadiuk, born in Austria to displaced Ukrainians who then immigrated to America, in 1992 turned the primary US ambassador to Ukraine following the breakup of the Soviet Union. The expertise positioned him on the bottom flooring of relations between the 2 nations over three a long time previous right this moment’s allied efforts to assist Ukraine fend off Russian aggression.

And he provides a blunt verdict on the US authorities’s efficiency throughout that point: “I feel we dealt with it incorrect from the get-go.”

That is not a partisan assertion. Popadiuk spent his profession not as a political appointee however as a international service officer. He has a quintessentially American story.

His household, assisted by a Catholic charity, ended up in Brooklyn after a quick stint on an Iowa farm. In 1959, when Popadiuk was 9 years previous, an immigration official handed him a citizenship certificates for his adopted nation simply earlier than Thanksgiving.

“He stated, ‘Do you want turkey?’ ” Popadiuk recollects with a chuckle. ” ‘You are an American.’ “

A Ph.D. in worldwide affairs and a international service examination later, he wound up detailed to a nonpolitical job in President Ronald Reagan’s White Home. Press secretary Larry Speakes ended up making Popadiuk his deputy for worldwide affairs, a job he held into the subsequent administration till Bush despatched him to Kyiv.
After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the US lavished diplomatic consideration on Russia to encourage financial modernization and safety cooperation from its former Chilly Struggle adversary. Former Soviet republics comparable to Ukraine, Popadiuk says, did not get practically sufficient

As ambassador, he initiated discussions over what turned often called the Budapest Memorandum. Below its phrases, Ukraine surrendered a big nuclear arsenal inside its borders in return for safety assurances from Russia, the US and Britain.

Advertisement

Ukraine’s concession was lower than met the attention, since Russia had retained the nuclear launch codes for these weapons. However Popadiuk says the fledgling authorities in Kyiv ought to have gotten extra US financial and navy help.

Different errors adopted, flowing largely from the impulse to keep up a optimistic US-Russia relationship. President George W. Bush, who famously stated he had peered into Vladimir Putin’s soul, reacted cautiously to Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia. President Barack Obama, who sought a “reset” with the Kremlin, did the identical after Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine.

“Each administrations fell brief in realizing the menace,” Popadiuk concludes.

President Donald Trump exacerbated home divisions that Putin has counted on to weaken America’s response to his aggression. That included Trump’s personal impeachment over his try to squeeze Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for political favors.
However Popadiuk does not assume Trump’s presidency essentially affected Putin’s calculations. Nor does he blame President Invoice Clinton’s assist for increasing the North Atlantic Treaty Group to incorporate Ukraine, amongst different nations in Japanese Europe.
Russia’s historic need to regulate Ukraine, he explains, runs deeper than any of these developments. That is why he faults President Joe Biden, who launched a lot correct intelligence about Putin’s intention earlier than the battle, for not performing on it by preemptively offering extra navy help.

“When you knew they have been going to assault Ukraine, why did not you give them every thing they wanted forward of time?” Popadiuk says. “We wanted to get forward of him.”

The bravery of Ukraine’s troopers and ineptness of his personal seem to have caught Putin abruptly. So has the unity that Biden and his European counterparts have maintained.

However Popadiuk says the allied response stays too constrained by worry of nuclear escalation. NATO hasn’t transferred previous Soviet fighter jets to Ukraine, for instance, to keep away from the opportunity of Russia attacking the switch and compelling a NATO response.

“We have let Putin outline the foundations of the sport,” he explains, reasonably than making the chance of a catastrophic change the Russian chief’s burden.

What is NATO and why hasn't it imposed a no-fly zone in Ukraine?
Russia’s assaults on Ukrainian civilians have grown extra savage as its navy falls wanting its targets. Final week introduced a missile strike at a prepare station in Kramatorsk, on prime of assaults on hospitals and executions on the streets of Bucha.

The extra they occur, the stiffer the check of allied resistance to direct confrontation with Russia by steps comparable to a NATO-imposed no-fly zone.

“There’s acquired to be a purple line for the West,” says Popadiuk. The target is imposing a value excessive sufficient to shift Putin’s cost-benefit evaluation.

Advertisement

An unsightly finish is already assured. Distasteful as it could be, he fears halting the battle will ultimately require recognizing Russian management over Crimea and components of jap Ukraine.

At 71, Popadiuk is lengthy faraway from any energetic function in international coverage. He retired ten years in the past as diplomat-in-residence on the George H.W. Bush Basis, which like Bush’s presidential library is at Texas A&M College.

What Popadiuk is aware of for sure is that, no matter America and its European allies do, Ukrainians will not cease defending their nation.

“That is a few cultural battle of survival for Ukrainians,” he says. “If there’s one standing, that battle’s going to go on.”

Advertisement

News

Space engine start-up in talks for new capital after funding crunch

Published

on

Space engine start-up in talks for new capital after funding crunch

A British technology start-up which had promised to build the world’s first space plane is in last-ditch talks to secure new financing after two of its backers wrote down the value of their investment.

Reaction Engines, which was founded in 1989, is in detailed talks with the UAE-backed Strategic Development Fund (SDF), one of its existing shareholders, about a new injection of capital, according to two people familiar with the situation. The SDF led a £40mn funding round in January last year. 

The British start-up is also backed by several aerospace giants, including BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, as well as financial investors Artemis and Schroders.

Reaction has previously raised more than £150mn and grew its commercial revenues by more than 400 per cent last year. The company, however, warned earlier this year that it would need to raise additional financing. It has this weekend lined up PwC, the accountancy firm, to act as administrator if the funding talks collapse.

Sky News first reported that PwC had been put on standby. The accountancy firm, which has not yet been formally appointed, declined to comment on Saturday. Reaction also declined to comment. 

Advertisement

Other existing investors are monitoring the situation, said one of the people close to the talks. 

Artemis and Schroders both announced last week that they had significantly written down the value of their stakes in Reaction. Artemis cut the value of its 2.3 per cent holding by 75 per cent. Artemis Alpha Trust, the fund that manages the London-based fund manager’s stake, now values it at £1.2mn, compared with £6.4mn in April. 

Reaction has in recent years focused on developing a hybrid jet and rocket engine, known as Sabre. The innovative engine was originally planned to power Skylon, a space aircraft also designed by Reaction.

Key to Sabre’s development is Reaction’s groundbreaking pre-cooling technology which prevents engines from overheating and could lead to hypersonic space planes. The company is part of a UK-led military project aiming to make hypersonic flight a reality. At hypersonic speeds, the temperature generated inside a conventional gas turbine would start to melt components unless they were cooled in some way.

More recently the company has focused its attention on developing nearer-term aerospace and commercial applications for its pre-cooling technology. It signed an agreement with US industrial group Honeywell to collaborate on the development of thermal management technologies to help reduce aircraft emissions. 

Advertisement

Reaction is chaired by Philip Dunne, a former UK defence minister. It has been led by Mark Thomas, who was previously at Rolls-Royce. 

Continue Reading

News

Former US President Trump hints at support for Florida ballot measure legalising recreational marijuana – Times of India

Published

on

Former US President Trump hints at support for Florida ballot measure legalising recreational marijuana – Times of India
Former President Trump has suggested he might support a Florida ballot measure to legalise recreational marijuana for adults, known as Amendment 3, reported the Hill.
Trump, a Florida resident, emphasised the importance of this measure being appropriately managed by the state Legislature to avoid public consumption issues.
Emphasis on responsible legislation
“In Florida, like so many other States that have already given their approval, personal amounts of marijuana will be legalised for adults with Amendment 3,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social site.“Whether people like it or not, this will happen through the approval of the Voters, so it should be done correctly.”

Trump avoided stating his voting intention or openly backing marijuana legalisation but stressed that responsible legislation is necessary to avoid public nuisances. He pointed to the need for laws that prevent marijuana use in public areas to keep public spaces free from the smell of marijuana, similar to the issues observed in other cities.
“The state Legislature needs to responsibly create laws that prohibit marijuana consumption in public spaces so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we go, like we do in many of the Democrat-run Cities,” said Trump.
Concerns over inconsistent marijuana laws
He also highlighted the inconsistency of criminalising marijuana possession in Florida when it is legal in many other states. Trump emphasised that law enforcement resources and lives should not be wasted on arresting adults for possessing small amounts of marijuana.
“We do not need to ruin lives & waste Taxpayer Dollars arresting adults with personal amounts of it on them, and no one should grieve a loved one because they died from fentanyl-laced marijuana,” he added.
Impact on voter mobilisation and Republican division
Trump’s comments follow recent efforts by Democrats to attract younger voters in Florida, focusing on issues like abortion and marijuana legalisation. These issues have mobilised younger voters in other regions, as seen in Ohio, and Democrats hope for a similar impact in Florida.
Democrats are targeting the fall ballot measures, aiming to increase voter turnout and gain the support of younger voters, a group with which Trump has faced challenges.
Earlier in the year, the Department of Justice made a significant move toward reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. If this reclassification is approved, marijuana will be downgraded to a Schedule III drug.
Despite the trend toward normalisation and Trump’s comments, some Republicans remain opposed to legalising recreational marijuana. Sen Rick Scott has publicly stated his intention to vote against the measure. He cited personal family experience with addiction as a key reason for his opposition.
“My brother, who died at 67 in April, began smoking marijuana as a teenager and led a life of addiction,” Scott said.

Continue Reading

News

Big Oil calls on Kamala Harris to come clean on her energy and climate plans

Published

on

Big Oil calls on Kamala Harris to come clean on her energy and climate plans

Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

The US oil industry and Republicans are demanding Kamala Harris clarify her energy and climate policy, as the Democratic candidate tries to please her progressive base without alienating voters in shale areas like Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state.

On Thursday, the vice-president said she no longer supported a ban on fracking, the technology that unleashed the shale revolution. But Harris’s reversal has not quelled attacks from Donald Trump or US executives that she would damage the country’s oil and gas sector.

The heads of the US’s two biggest oil lobby groups said the Democratic candidate must also say whether she would keep or end a pause on federal approvals for new liquefied natural gas plants, and whether she supported curbs on drilling imposed by the Biden administration.

Advertisement

“Based on what we know of her past positions, the bills that she has sponsored, and her past statements she’s taken a pretty aggressively anti-energy and anti-oil and gas industry stand,” said Anne Bradbury, head of the American Exploration and Production Council.

“These are significant and major policy questions that impact every American family and business, and which voters deserve to understand better when making their choice in November,” she said.

Mike Sommers, chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, Big Oil’s most powerful lobby group, said Harris should say whether she would stick with Biden administration policies that had unleashed “a regulatory onslaught the likes of which this industry has never seen”.

Trump, the Republican candidate, has accused Harris of plotting a “war on American energy” and has repeatedly blamed her and President Joe Biden for high fuel costs in recent years.

On Thursday, he vowed to scrap Biden administration policies that “distort energy markets”. The former president has called climate change a hoax and his advisers have said he would gut Biden’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act.

Advertisement

The debate over Harris’s energy policy comes as she and Trump court blue-collar workers in Pennsylvania, a huge shale gas producer that employs 72,000 workers — a potentially decisive voting group in a state Biden won narrowly in 2020.

Harris said in 2019 that she supported a fracking ban but told CNN on Thursday she had ditched that position and the US could have “a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking”.

US oil and gas production has reached a record high under Biden, even as clean energy capacity has expanded rapidly.

But gas executives in particular have been alarmed at a federal pause on building new LNG export plants, which supply customers from Europe to Asia, saying the policy will stymie further US shale output.

Toby Rice, chief executive of Pennsylvania-based EQT, the US’s largest natural gas producer, said Harris should lift the restrictions, which he argued would compromise energy security.

Advertisement

“Ignoring her anti-fracking statement four years ago for a second, can we talk about the recent LNG Pause that was put in place this year?”, he said. “This is a policy that has received massive criticism from all sides — our allies, industry and environmental champions . . . a step backwards for climate and American energy security.”

While Biden put climate at the centre of his and Harris’s 2020 White House campaign, Harris has been largely silent, and made only a passing reference to climate change in her speech at the Democratic convention.

“It looks like the Harris campaign has concluded that it’s safer to avoid antagonising producers or climate activists by skirting these issues entirely,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners.

Climate-focused voters are less vexed than energy executives by the lack of explicit policy from Harris.

“Let’s be clear: the most important climate policy right now is defeating Donald Trump in November,” said Cassidy DiPaola of Fossil Free Media, a non-profit organisation. “All the wonky policy details in the world won’t matter if climate deniers control the White House.”

Advertisement

Last week the political arms of the League of Conservation Voters, Climate Power and the Environmental Defense Fund unveiled a $55mn advertising campaign backing Harris in swing states, focused on economic rather than climate issues.

In contrast, Trump has courted oil bosses who are backing his pledge to slash regulation and scrap clean energy subsidies. His campaign received nearly $14mn from the industry in June, according to OpenSecrets, almost double his oil haul in May.

Additional reporting by Sam Learner

Climate Capital

Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here.

Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Find out more about our science-based targets here

Advertisement

   

Continue Reading

Trending