The three Baltic states have been trampled over by everybody from the Russians and Soviets to the Germans, Swedes and even Ottomans prior to now few centuries. However, even because the world wonders whether or not they are going to be subsequent on Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion record after Ukraine, there’s a counterintuitive sense in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that they’re as secure as they ever have been.
“If you happen to take a look at the previous 800 to 900 years of historical past, an argument may very well be made that now we have by no means been so safe. As a result of now we have so many very highly effective allies, we’re an unbiased nation with our personal standing military, a free and open and flourishing commerce and funding setting,” says Krisjanis Karins, Latvia’s prime minister.
This confidence is essentially as a result of backing of the US and Nato, that are collectively speeding to bolster and reassure these nations on the frontline between the navy alliance’s japanese flank and Russia.
In a stand-off between the west and Russia that many are calling a second chilly struggle, the Baltic states are more and more seen as this era’s West Berlin. Part of Nato territory which may be all however unattainable to defend in itself, however which western officers underscore to Moscow will likely be closely avenged within the case of any assault.
Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, reiterated this on Tuesday after a whistle-stop tour of all three Baltic nations. He informed an viewers in Estonia that the US and the navy alliance would “defend each inch of Nato territory”.
Advertisement
In additional than a dozen interviews with senior Baltic officers, together with all three presidents and quite a few ministers, all counsel there isn’t a instant menace to their area however that they’re prepared for no matter Russia may throw at them, as they’ve been for many years. There are nonetheless safety weaknesses that they hope Nato may also help to plug. However for each the navy alliance and the EU there’s a clear sense that the Baltics are on the entrance line towards Russia’s revanchism.
“There may be an understanding that we’re the area the place Nato, by defending its territory, both succeeds or fails,” says Edgars Rinkevics, Latvia’s overseas minister. “This can be a life or demise concern for Nato. So you may draw comparisons with West Berlin.”
Forcibly and illegally annexed by the Soviet Union after the second world struggle, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania solely regained their independence in 1990-91 and promptly made it their aim to affix each Nato and the EU, which they did in 2004 — the one ex-Soviet states to take action.
Officers within the three capitals, Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius, are clear that the Baltics aren’t Ukraine, in methods each good and unhealthy. One large distinction is that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all coated by Nato’s collective defence pledge of article 5, which says that an assault on one nation is an assault on all.
However Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, final week linked the destiny of his nation immediately with that of the Baltic states telling reporters that, “if we aren’t any extra then, God forbid, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia will likely be subsequent”.
Advertisement
Requested if the Baltics “will likely be subsequent”, politicians within the area are inclined to say it will be Nato subsequent whether or not the assault had been on Latvia, the UK or Germany. “We have now no instant threats,” says Egils Levits, Latvia’s president. “Or to place it one other manner: we’re experiencing the identical threats as Nato on the whole.”
Nato positioned multinational battle teams of about 1,000 troopers every in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland in 2017, designed to behave as a tripwire in case of a Russian assault. “It is vital, so [Nato allies] can’t fake it’s not taking place,” says one former senior Baltic intelligence official. Artis Pabriks, Latvia’s defence minister, provides: “We see from the Ukrainian expertise that the primary 72 hours is essential when everyone is confused.”
The nations main every battalion — Britain, Canada, Germany and the US respectively — have all despatched additional troops in latest weeks. However even then, Russia nonetheless has as much as 10 instances extra forces on its aspect. “We really feel we’re within the zone the place now we have a deficit rising, particularly with the troop build-up in Belarus,” says Gabrielius Landsbergis, Lithuania’s overseas minister.
The defence of the Baltics can be far harder than that of Ukraine, which has a floor space virtually 4 instances the three Baltic states mixed, and a prewar inhabitants of 44mn folks, seven instances bigger. “Within the Baltics it’s very clear that we’re dwelling in an uneven scenario, as a result of the powers of Russia and Belarus are bigger than us. In the event that they wish to have some navy intervention, and so they didn’t have their arms tied in Ukraine, after all they might overwhelm us,” says Pabriks.
The Baltics are basically a peninsula, connected to the remainder of Europe by a slender, 65km-wide land border between Lithuania and Poland. Referred to as the Suwalki Hole, it’s bordered to the west by the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad and to the east by Belarus. The Suwalki Hole is extensively considered certainly one of Nato’s largest vulnerabilities.
“In Kaliningrad [Russia has] one of the militarised areas in Europe,” says Gitanas Nauseda, Lithuania’s president. “Lithuania feels sandwiched between this closely militarised space and Belarus.”
Advertisement
The US presence is seen as important by Baltic leaders. Earlier than the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, the US had about 500 troops on rotation in Lithuania however has now despatched a further 400 to Latvia and 20 Apache helicopters, which one Baltic official quipped was “extra firepower than all our armies collectively”. Now all three nations wish to see US and Nato troops based mostly completely within the Baltics, a situation not on the desk earlier than the Ukraine invasion.
Latvia has carefully studied the struggle in Ukraine and drawn conclusions on what it wants from its allies. A number of ministers level to the necessity for improved air defence, lengthy a weak spot within the area the place jets from varied Nato allies make up the Baltic air policing mission. Rinkevics says Latvia feels safe however provides: “We perceive that there aren’t any good instances forward. So we have to enhance our defence funds. We have to work with our allies to make their presence right here long-term, if not everlasting.”
All three Baltic nations are actually dedicated to spending 2.5 per cent of gross home product yearly on defence, forward of Nato’s goal of two per cent. However given the scale of their economies, monetary help will likely be wanted from Nato, notably for air and coastal defence.
A full Russian invasion of the Baltics is seen as unlikely, given the implications of attacking members of Nato and the EU. “I do imagine that the Baltic states, if Nato and the EU are severe about territorial defence, aren’t going to be subsequent because the navy invasion targets,” says Rinkevics. “However you can’t exclude checks [by the Russians].”
A Baltic nationwide safety official believes an enormous cyber assault is extra seemingly. Putin has type, attacking Estonia in 2007 together with authorities, banks and media. There may be an unresolved debate in Nato about whether or not a cyber assault can set off Article 5 and the way huge it must be to take action.
One other risk is a restricted Russian incursion into the Baltics, maybe by forces claiming to be separatists. “Essentially the most harmful situation for us is a really restricted incursion. It may be onerous to seek out an instantaneous Nato response,” says a second Baltic nationwide safety official who fears such a transfer might divide the allies. Nonetheless, most officers assume the “little inexperienced males” utilized by Russia in Crimea are unlikely to be tried a second time. Latvia’s former president as soon as mentioned the tactic for use towards such an incursion can be easy: shoot them on sight.
Different potential checks might embrace utilizing vitality or migration as a weapon, or psychological or info warfare, officers say. “I’m not panicking about any Russian strikes or a Russian assault. I don’t have this sense of concern or nervousness,” says Rinkevics, who provides that it’s nonetheless necessary to not get complacent.
‘Russia woke us up’
There may be intense horror throughout the Baltic states at what is occurring in Ukraine and a eager need to assist Kyiv as a lot as potential. There may be additionally a way that it might have been them had that they had not joined Nato and the EU once they did. “I’ve by no means been extra grateful to be in Nato,” says one senior Estonian official.
The three nations, in addition to Poland, have warned about Russia loudly since not less than its struggle with Georgia in 2008, if not earlier than. “They thought this was due to our peculiar historical past: that we had been harm and we are able to’t forgive. However we don’t dwell in harm. We merely see them. We all know how Russians act,” says Ainars Latkovskis, chair of the defence committee in Latvia’s parliament.
The Estonian and Latvian prime ministers speak of the “naivety” of earlier western leaders, considering that Putin was a politician like them, and as a substitute providing him compromises and displaying him weak spot. Each are heartened by the unity and energy of the west’s response up to now to the invasion of Ukraine.
“That is the correct response, a response out of energy. I’ve no curiosity to brag or say I informed you so. That is meaningless,” provides Karins. “We’re all on this collectively.”
The Baltics now advocate making ready for a long-term confrontation with Russia whereas supporting Ukraine and persevering with to inflict financial ache on Moscow. Pabriks says that “lastly, Russia woke us up”. He provides that though Latvia feels “comparatively secure”, there may be additionally a way that Nato and the EU can’t afford to desert Kyiv to its destiny.
“The Russians can’t win this struggle,” says Pabriks. “So what’s the finish recreation for them? No one desires Russian destruction, no one desires Russia to vanish from the map, no one desires nuclear struggle. We merely need Russia to cease threatening its neighbours and change into a standard state.”
Advertisement
Russian voices
Latvia and Estonia have a selected potential vulnerability: giant populations of Russian audio system. Most got here within the Soviet-era as a part of a deliberate coverage by authorities to suppress the native tradition, traditions and language. About 37 per cent of individuals in Latvia converse Russian as their mom tongue, though a few of these are Ukrainians or Belarusians; it’s a couple of quarter in Estonia.
Officers are fast to minimize any thought they may very well be exploited by Putin, nonetheless. “We by no means noticed the ethnic Russians right here as a hazard for our safety or our democracy. Putin’s aggression is opening the eyes not solely of western Europeans but additionally of many native Russians,” says Pabriks.
The Russian audio system are concentrated in japanese Estonia and Latvia in addition to each capital cities, however even when some have beforehand expressed sympathy with Russia and Putin, they’re effectively conscious that wages and pensions are considerably higher the place they’re. “The extra the Russian-speaking minority dwell in Estonia, the extra they realise that is their very own nation and it’s higher to dwell right here,” says Alar Karis, Estonia’s president.
One distinction between Estonia and Latvia is in politics. In Estonia, the political celebration that appeals most to Russians, the Centre celebration, is totally built-in within the system and is a member of the ruling coalition. However in Latvia there has lengthy been suspicion and sometimes open hostility to Concord, the celebration most interesting to Russians, which has come first in each parliamentary election since 2011, however has by no means been capable of type a authorities.
Karins hails Concord’s resolution to help a parliamentary movement vital of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a possible watershed. “It appears that evidently in each nation, there are all the time definitive moments, and moments that additional change at a way more fast tempo than earlier than. This might effectively be certainly one of them,” he provides.
Latvia’s prime minister says the bombing of locations corresponding to Kharkiv, a predominantly Russian-speaking metropolis in Ukraine, has led to a “profound realisation” amongst Russian-speakers in Latvia that “we actually may very well be threatened”. Karins provides: “If the bombs began to fly in Latvia, sadly they might not be discriminatory, taking a look at one’s household make-up or political views.”
Advertisement
Officers are seeing an uptick in Russian disinformation makes an attempt. Janis Sarts, director of the Nato Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence in Riga, says there are two present ways: one, instilling concern through social media and Russian TV channels by saying “you’re subsequent — we’re going to assault you and wipe you out”; and secondly, trying to sow division by spreading rumours of native Russians being mistreated. But, says Sarts, the variety of native Russian audio system supporting the Kremlin — already a minority — has fallen in latest weeks.
Latvia has had points with Russian cash in its monetary system prior to now, however beneath heavy strain from the US and worldwide authorities it launched into a clean-up of its banks and is now advising different EU nations on the best way to enhance their anti-money-laundering controls. Non-resident deposits — these from outdoors the nation, principally Russia — have fallen sharply prior to now 5 years.
There have additionally been questions raised in regards to the affect of Russian oligarchs in Latvia, the place they congregate within the seaside city of Jurmala. However President Levits has a blunt evaluation: “The investments of Russian oligarchs in Latvia are peanuts in contrast with the presence of them in London.” He provides that Latvia is way much less inclined than many western nations to “poisonous investments and the political affect of oligarchs”.
Karins says he’s ready for a prolonged stand-off between democratic Europe and autocratic Russia. He provides: “If we don’t cease Putin in Ukraine, Putin won’t cease. And any western democracy may very well be subsequent.
“This can be a struggle towards democracy,” provides the Latvian prime minister, “it’s a struggle of imperialistic growth whereby Putin blatantly says he doesn’t respect the proper of self-determination of Ukraine. It’s anachronistic however true.”
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Countries at the United Nations climate summit in Baku struck a final deal on the broad rules to launch carbon trading markets, almost a decade after being first proposed.
The agreement passed at the UN COP29 climate summit late on Saturday night will allow countries and companies to trade credits for cuts in carbon emissions to offset their carbon footprints.
The carbon trading mechanism had first been formally sketched out in the 2015 Paris agreement on limiting climate change, as a way for polluters to pay for other countries to cut emissions on their behalf.
Advertisement
But it has proved controversial over fears it will not result in the promised removal of carbon from the atmosphere.
The head of delegation for a group of heavily forested countries, including Bolivia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kevin Conrad, said “properly regulated, markets can become a force for good, and start to reverse the market failures causing environmental and atmospheric destruction”.
The birth of the market prompted cheers and standing ovations by UN negotiators in the first session of the final plenary, in a rare breakthrough at the summit that was otherwise on the verge of collapse.
States and companies will be able to trade credits meant to represent one tonne of carbon dioxide saved or removed from the atmosphere, under mechanisms subject to loose oversight by the UN and designed to avoid double-counting of emissions cuts.
The final agreement overcame a quarrel about a proposed UN registry for tracking the flow in emission claims, with the US forced to compromise on how much power this registry should have.
Advertisement
Host country Azerbaijan made the issue of carbon emissions trading a priority, pushing successfully on the first day of the two-week summit for countries to adopt an initial element of the global market.
In subsequent negotiations to settle the rules, it drove the participants to overcome their disagreements. This included on a series of trade-offs between requiring more rigorous accounting and easing the pathway to get the market off the ground, with a rule book on principles for how credits should be traded, counted and checked.
Countries and companies took advantage of the prospective launch of the market by signing preliminary deals in recent weeks. Commodity trader Trafigura announced a “pilot” carbon project to help Mozambique develop carbon restoration projects.
Some experts warned however that the new market could face many of the same greenwashing allegations that have plagued the existing unregulated trade in credits between companies.
These have caused the voluntary credit markets to shrink from $1.4bn in 2022 to $1.1bn last year, based on MSCI Carbon Markets estimates.
Advertisement
“The deal leaves a lot of trust in the hands of [countries] which is a problem because the rules themselves are not yet net zero [emissions] aligned,” said Injy Johnstone, a research fellow at the University of Oxford.
The concerns were echoed by Isa Mulder of Carbon Market Watch, who said the “dangerously loose and opaque” deal enshrined a “free-for-all” approach.
Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.
UN carbon market experts will continue to discuss which types of credits countries can buy. For example, some countries would like to sell credits linked to hypothetical CO₂ that is not emitted, for example from protecting a forest, closing a coal mine or cooking on a stove using gas rather than wood as fuel, to cancel out real greenhouse gas emissions.
These types of credits could ultimately lead to more CO₂ entering the atmosphere, some experts say, in part because it could lessen the incentive for polluters to make plans to cut their underlying emissions.
Advertisement
One negotiator described discussions as “very, very tough” before ultimately settling on a “buyer beware” approach which will rely mainly on transparency to shame countries which fall into bad practice.
The money raised by carbon deals could help contribute to the climate finance needs of poorer countries, which economists estimated at $1.3tn a year.
But others expressed caution about the solutions provided by carbon emissions trading. Brazil’s environment minister Marina Silva said it was not a “panacea” for boosting finance to developing countries.
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
Fred Harris, a former U.S. senator from Oklahoma, presidential hopeful and populist who championed Democratic Party reforms in the turbulent 1960s, died Saturday. He was 94.
Harris’ wife, Margaret Elliston, confirmed his death to The Associated Press. He had lived in New Mexico since 1976.
“Fred Harris passed peacefully early this morning of natural causes. He was 94. He was a wonderful and beloved man. His memory is a blessing,” Elliston said in a text message.
Sen. Fred Harris of Oklahoma announces his intention to seek the 1972 Democratic nomination for president, in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 24, 1971.
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
Advertisement
Harris served eight years in the Senate, first winning in 1964 to fill a vacancy, and made unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 1976.
“I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of my longtime friend Fred Harris today,” Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham wrote in a post to social media. “Harris was a towering presence in politics and in academia, and his work over many decades improved New Mexico and the nation. He will be greatly missed.”
Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico said in a statement that “New Mexico and our nation have lost a giant,” describing him as a “tireless champion of civil rights, tribal sovereignty and working families.”
It fell to Harris, as chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 1969 and 1970, to help heal the party’s wounds from the tumultuous national convention in 1968 when protesters and police clashed in Chicago.
He ushered in rule changes that led to more women and minorities as convention delegates and in leadership positions.
Advertisement
“I think it’s worked wonderfully,” Harris recalled in 2004, when he was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Boston. “It’s made the selection much more legitimate and democratic.”
“The Democratic Party was not democratic, and many of the delegations were pretty much boss-controlled or -dominated. And in the South, there was terrible discrimination against African Americans,” he said.
Harris ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976, quitting after poor showings in early contests, including a fourth-place win in New Hampshire. The more moderate Jimmy Carter went on to win the presidency.
Harris moved to New Mexico that year and became a political science professor at the University of New Mexico. He wrote and edited more than a dozen books, mostly on politics and Congress. In 1999 he broadened his writings with a mystery set in Depression-era Oklahoma.
Throughout his political career, Harris was a leading liberal voice for civil rights and anti-poverty programs to help minorities and the disadvantaged. Along with his first wife, LaDonna, a Comanche, he also was active in Native American issues.
Advertisement
“I’ve always called myself a populist or progressive,” Harris said in a 1998 interview. “I’m against concentrated power. I don’t like the power of money in politics. I think we ought to have programs for the middle class and working class.”
“Today ‘populism’ is often a dirty word because of how certain leaders wield power,” Heinrich said in his statement Saturday. “But Fred represented a different brand of populism — one that was never mean or exclusionary. Instead, Fred focused his work and attention on regular people who are often overlooked by the political class.”
Harris was a member of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, the so-called Kerner Commission, appointed by then-President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the urban riots of the late 1960s.
The commission’s groundbreaking report in 1968 declared, “our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white — separate and unequal.”
Thirty years later, Harris co-wrote a report that concluded the commission’s “prophecy has come to pass.”
Advertisement
“The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and minorities are suffering disproportionately,” said the report by Harris and Lynn A. Curtis, president of the Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation, which continued the work of the commission.
Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said Harris rose to prominence in Congress as a “fiery populist.”
“That resonates with people…the notion of the average person against the elite,” Ornstein said. “Fred Harris had a real ability to articulate those concerns, particularly of the downtrodden.”
In 1968, Harris served as co-chairman of the presidential campaign of then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey. He and others pressed Humphrey to use the convention to break with Johnson on the Vietnam War. But Humphrey waited to do so until late in the campaign, and narrowly lost to Republican Richard Nixon.
“That was the worst year of my life, ’68. We had Dr. Martin Luther King killed. We had my Senate seatmate Robert Kennedy killed and then we had this terrible convention,” Harris said in 1996.
Advertisement
“I left the convention — because of the terrible disorders and the way they had been handled and the failure to adopt a new peace platform — really downhearted.”
After assuming the Democratic Party leadership post, Harris appointed commissions that recommended reforms in the procedures for selecting delegates and presidential nominees. While lauding the greater openness and diversity, he said there had been a side effect: “It’s much to the good. But the one result of it is that conventions today are ratifying conventions. So it’s hard to make them interesting.”
“My own thought is they ought to be shortened to a couple of days. But they are still worth having, I think, as a way to adopt a platform, as a kind of pep rally, as a way to get people together in a kind of coalition-building,” he said.
Harris was born Nov. 13, 1930, in a two-room farmhouse near Walters, in southwestern Oklahoma, about 15 miles from the Texas line. The home had no electricity, indoor toilet or running water.
At age 5 he was working on the farm and received 10 cents a day to drive a horse in circles to supply power for a hay bailer.
Advertisement
He worked part-time as a janitor and printer’s assistant to help for his education at University of Oklahoma. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 1952, majoring in political science and history. He received a law degree from the University of Oklahoma in 1954, and then moved to Lawton to practice.
In 1956, he won election to the Oklahoma state Senate and served for eight years. In 1964, he launched his career in national politics in the race to replace Sen. Robert S. Kerr, who died in January 1963.
Harris won the Democratic nomination in a runoff election against J. Howard Edmondson, who left the governorship to fill Kerr’s vacancy until the next election. In the general election, Harris defeated an Oklahoma sports legend — Charles “Bud” Wilkinson, who had coached OU football for 17 years.
Harris won a six-year term in 1966 but left the Senate in 1972 when there were doubts that he, as a left-leaning Democrat, could win reelection.
Harris married his high school sweetheart, LaDonna Vita Crawford, in 1949, and had three children, Kathryn, Byron and Laura. After the couple divorced, Harris married Margaret Elliston in 1983. A complete list of survivors was not immediately available Saturday.
Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world
Stanford University professor and Covid-19 lockdown sceptic Jay Bhattacharya has emerged as the frontrunner to run the National Institutes of Health, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The nomination of Bhattacharya, who rose to prominence during the pandemic for opposing lockdown restrictions, would put another ally of Robert Kennedy Jr, the vaccine sceptic who is Trump’s pick to run the US health department, in charge of one of the country’s most powerful public health agencies.
With an annual budget of $48bn, NIH is the biggest government-funded biomedical research agency in the world, providing more than 60,000 grants a year to support medical and scientific research.
Advertisement
Senior officials within Trump’s transition team have spoken with Bhattacharya, who runs Stanford’s Center on the Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, in recent days, the people said.
The pick for NIH director is likely to be announced in the coming days but plans may change and another candidate may emerge, the people added.
Representatives for Trump’s transition team and Kennedy did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Bhattacharya could also not be reached for comment.
Late on Friday, Trump’s transition team announced a flurry of high profile nominations, including Treasury secretary, Labor secretary and three key health official picks.
Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon who opposed the Covid-19 vaccine mandate, was nominated to run the Food and Drug Administration. Physician and former GOP congressman Dave Weldon, who has cast doubts on vaccine safety, was tapped to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Advertisement
Bhattacharya appeared alongside Kennedy at a campaign event during his independent campaign for President, during which he unveiled his running mate Nicole Shanahan.
Since backing Trump’s bid for presidency in August, Kennedy has been given significant influence over the president’s healthcare policy agenda as part of his “Make American Healthy Again” campaign. Trump’s choice of Fox News medical contributor Janette Nesheiwat was the only one of the health appointees so far not close to Kennedy, the people added.
Alongside two other professors, Bhattacharya became the face of the “Great Barrington Declaration” during the pandemic, an open letter published in October 2020 opposing widescale lockdowns and instead calling for restrictions focused on at-risk groups, such as elderly individuals. The letter provoked criticism from then-NIH director Francis Collins, who dismissed the authors as “fringe experts”.
Much of Bhattacharya’s public criticism of the NIH has focused on how Collins and Anthony Fauci — former director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a division of NIH — responded to the pandemic.
Bhattacharya told the Financial Times this month that he supported term limits for NIH directors. “I think there’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few people: there should not be another Tony Fauci,” he said.
Advertisement
Kennedy’s nomination as Health and Human Services secretary has worried the pharmaceutical industry and public health bodies because of his sceptical views on vaccines, his stated aim to eliminate “entire departments” within the FDA and his plans to remove fluoride from drinking water. However, Kennedy has promised not to limit vaccine access.
In an article on digital media site UnHerd published last week, Bhattacharya brushed away concerns about some of Kennedy’s debunked claims, saying: “Kennedy is not a scientist, but his good-faith calls for better research and more debate are echoed by many Americans.”
He added that “the American public voted for disrupters like RFK Jr in 2024, and academic medicine now has an opportunity to atone for its Covid-era blunders.”
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24007866/acastro_STK109_microsoft_02.jpg "Microsoft pauses Windows 11 updates for PCs with some Ubisoft games installed")
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25739950/247386_Elon_Musk_Open_AI_CVirginia.jpg "Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI")
