Since then, the Austrian people have voiced a preference maintain military neutrality, which is also enshrined in their Basic Law. Modern Russia has worked continuously to maintain and develop its links with Austria.

With Russia’s full-scale invasion, Austria found itself between a rock and a hard place. Partners from the European Union demanded Austria adopt a clear position on the war, at the same time, Vienna doesn’t want to lose permanent contact with Russia. Kyiv Post spoke to the former ambassador of Ukraine to Austria, Oleksandr Scherba, to get his take on this and whether changes in Austria’s geopolitics are possible.

Ambassador, you worked in Austria for six and a half years. Will you tell us about your impression of cooperation with the Austrians and their attitudes to Ukraine?

Austria is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, but rather difficult in terms of diplomacy. It has plenty of friends of Ukraine and enemies too. When I came there, the locals described Ukraine in terms of Russian narratives (a neo-fascist putsch, a civil war, a state of oligarchs, “Putin only wants to ensure his interests” etc.) Thank God, when I was leaving Austria, the tone had changed. The beginning of the invasion was a moment of truth. Most Austrians supported Ukraine. Austria gave refuge to thousands of our citizens. It always supports Ukraine in all international bodies. Although there are still many problems.

Pro-Russian narratives and sentiments really prevailed when you worked there?

I would not say that it is a pro-Russian country, but it had and still has a great deal of illusions about Russia. If you look at the coat of arms of this country, Austria has a new version of the traditional imperial eagle holding hammer and sickle. To me, it was always a symbol of a nation based on imperial and socialist past. Isn’t that the case for Russia too?

Most importantly, Austria made a lot of money and became very successful in the post-Cold War period because it was a bridge between East and West, in particular between the West and Russia (but also with countries like Ukraine). They enjoyed this position very much, it worked for them – and they want to be in that position in the future. Although it has become abundantly clear already that Russia doesn’t need any bridges. All it needs are useful idiots and cynics in the West who can be exploited for the benefit of Russian imperial agenda.

Austria has repeatedly been suspected of having too close ties with Russia. Russian agents were said to have infiltrated the country’s security services. Frequent visits to Russia by Austria’s former Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, as well as the corruption scandal connected with the Russians did not go unnoticed. In addition, Russian businessmen and oligarchs also took advantage of Austria. Why has did the country become so comfortable for Russians?

Austria is comfortable for everyone. Vienna is a city that has been awarded the title of the most livable city in the world for 10 years in a row. Austria attracts everyone, both good and bad; tourists and oligarchs, artists and criminals, you name it. Because of its social security system, it’s a country where both the rich and the poor can live comfortably.

What attracts the bad guys is of course the Austrian concept of neutrality. Although, the tragic events of 2022-23 showed very clearly: neutrality is, in the best case, an illusion, a delusion, and in the worst case, hypocrisy. Many Austrians admit this, at least behind the scenes. But the fact remains that these things attract Russians, for whom Austria combines western comfort without really being a 100% team player in the West.

Do you think Austria is convenient for Russians to launder money?

The problem is less prominent now than in the past. After the Panama Papers scandal, the European Central Bank “tightened the screws” and made money laundering more difficult. Many Russian and also some Ukrainian businesses were simply kicked out of Austrian financial institutions, without any explanation. Belonging to a post-Soviet country was reason enough. Plus, the scandal around “Meinl Bank” that allegedly was used for laundering massive amounts of money from our region, drew a lot of attention. Austria has instituted the necessary precautions against a repeat.

How do you think Austria’s policy towards Russia changed after Feb. 24? Does Austria want to remain this bridge between the East and the West?

Before 2022, there were thousands of people in Austria who were ready to give Russia the benefit of trust and turn a blind eye to many of its sins. 2022 was a game changer for them. This war was a betrayal for those who, despite everything, kept saying “let’s cut Russia some slack, they have their own truth”. They saw that validating Russia’s “truth” led to the worst European confrontation since WWII. I don’t know how many decades it will take Russia to bring these people back.

I’m talking primarily about business. On Feb. 24, businesspeople saw that Ukraine’s warnings were not propaganda, but truth. Russia is unreliable. It throws its partners under the bus. Like it threw Ukraine, like it threw all the European businesses that are suffering immense losses as a result of this war.

In the first weeks and months of the war we saw how dramatically the Austrian political rhetoric changed. And, as we know, words matter. The Austrian president, when opening the annual music festival in Bregenz last year, devoted most of his speech to Ukraine and Russia. And I have rarely heard such a clear condemnation from European leaders. That’s on the one hand. And on the other, we see certain businesses still remaining in Russia. We see one of the chief political forces in Austria repeating Russian talking points. So, some things change, and some – don’t.

Yes, now the rhetoric is pro-Ukrainian, anti-war, anti-Russian, but there is another side. Austria remains the largest buyer of Russian gas, its Raiffeisen Bank continues to work in Russia because the Russians need it for international financial transactions. Because of this, The Economist called Austria a “useful idiot” for the Putin regime. Can we say that Austria finances the war against Ukraine?

Raiffeisen and OMV (the chief oil and gas company in Austria) definitely do. When the war started, Austria reduced the purchase of Russian gas from 80 percent to 50 percent and promised to further cut it to at least 20 percent, however, now it has returned to 70-80 percent. What is this if not financing of the war? We can state that the criminal and barbaric policy of Putin is being pursued at the expense of Austrian money. There is no doubt about that. Why is Austria doing this, whereas Germany cut gas purchase to almost zero? Because this was the moral choice of the Austrian government.

And as to Raiffeisen… What a disappointment they are. I have been in contact with them since the beginning of the war. I know that in the first days, they decided to gradually leave the Russian market. But then Russia passed a law, which allowed expropriation of the assets of banks who left. Raiffeisen says, it was not big enough to swallow it. But it’s only partly true. They also made a moral choice. They cut a deal with the devil.  

Would you call Austria financially dependent on Russia?

Many countries in Europe were financially dependent on Russia but aren’t anymore. Germany for instance. It made a decision however painful it was; it ceased buying Russian gas, made financial institutions leave, revisited the decade-long ban on exporting weapons to war zones.

Why can’t Austria follow in Germany’s moral footsteps? Why isn’t the right rhetoric reinforced with the right steps in the energy and financial market? Why is the Austrian Minister of Defense refusing us de-mining equipment saying it could be used “for military purposes?” Which military purposes? Winning the war against the aggressor? Making sure that fewer Ukrainian civilians and soldiers die from the mines of the aggressor who invaded their country? What kind of hypocrisy is this?

Do you have answers to these questions?

It’s all explained with Austria’s neutrality. They say they can’t change it, because it’s the law. Well, it was a law in Sweden and Finland, too.

Austrians believe that they know the secret of happiness in life: “I won’t bother you. You don’t bother me.” And yes, it worked for them splendidly throughout their modern history. But ever since they entered the EU, it has become more and more obvious what a lie it is. You can’t be neutral and at the same time pursue EU’s common foreign and security policy. Austria is secure, not because it bothers nobody, but because it’s surrounded by NATO. In other words, while they criticize NATO and proudly claim their neutrality, they have a nice life under the NATO umbrella.

Sweden and Finland have not been used the word “neutral” about themselves for many years, although, of course, it was stipulated in their fundamental documents. Why? Because it was clear how wrong it was. Austria, on the other hand, still clings to this concept. Among other things neutrality gives them a backdoor for their conscience, a loophole for bad decisions. You can do bad things, such as  war profiteering, without feeling bad about yourself. You just say: “I’m neutral!”  

Is this all happening because of Russian influence?

I think it’s happening out of habit. Austria doesn’t want to say adieu to the world that made it rich and beautiful. They hold on to a world that doesn’t exist anymore. If they’re a “bridge” – it’s a bridge to nowhere, to a black hole that produces only wars, corruption and human suffering.

Now the pro-Russian Freedom Party is gaining popularity in Austria and there are even fears that it may win the 2024 election. What could this lead to if they get a majority?

The Freedom Party of Austria is a successor of two political projects created after the Second World War for former Nazi functionaries. They’re the successors of those who burned Ukraine to the ground 80 years ago. No wonder that these people speak and act as agents of those trying to burn Ukraine to the ground now. It should be obvious how historically wrong it is. I hope the Austrians will understand and consider this when voting next year.

How should Ukraine and the world act now to prevent Austria from turning into another Hungary?

This is not our decision, but a decision of Austrian voters. I don’t see a desire on the part of Austrians to turn into Hungary. I don’t see their willingness to become a pariah on the European continent. It is important for Austria to be part of Europe’s mainstream. And Hungary is clearly anything but mainstream. Therefore, I hope the fears of them becoming a new Hungary are exaggerated.

Source: Kyiv Post

The post ‘The Barbaric Policy of Putin Pursued at Expense of Austrian Finances’ – Former Ukrainian Ambassador appeared first on Policy Print.

Source: Slash Dot

The post US Looks to Restrict China’s Access to Cloud Computing to Protect Advanced Technology appeared first on Policy Print.

Despite his alliance with abortion-rights supporters and L.G.B.T.Q. advocates, the president has deftly avoided becoming enmeshed in battles over hotly contested social issues.

President Biden memorably jumped the gun on Barack Obama in endorsing same-sex marriage more than a decade ago, but at a June fund-raiser near San Francisco, he couldn’t recall the letters L.G.B.T.Q.

And even as the Democratic Party makes the fight for abortion rights central to its political message, Mr. Biden last week declared himself “not big on abortion.”

At a moment when the American political parties are trading fierce fire from the trenches of a war over social and cultural policy, the president is staying out of the fray.

White, male, 80 years old and not particularly up-to-date on the language of the left, Mr. Biden has largely avoided becoming enmeshed in contemporary battles over gender, abortion and other hotly contested social issues — even as he does things like hosting what he called “the largest Pride Month celebration ever held at the White House.”

Republicans have tried to pull him in, but appear to recognize the difficulty: When G.O.P. presidential candidates vow to end what they derisively call “woke” culture, they often aim their barbs not directly at Mr. Biden but at big corporations like Disney and BlackRock or the vast “administrative state” of the federal government. Republican strategists say most of their party’s message on abortion and transgender issues is aimed at primary voters, while Mr. Biden is seen as far more vulnerable in a general election on the economy, crime and immigration.

Mr. Biden’s armor against cultural attacks might seem unlikely for a president who has strongly advocated for L.G.B.T.Q. people, the leader of a party whose fortunes ride on the wave of abortion politics, and a man who owes his presidency to unbending support from Black Democratic primary voters.

Yet despite adopting positions over the years that pushed Democrats — and then the country — to embrace more liberal attitudes on social issues, Mr. Biden has kept himself at arm’s length from elements of his party that could pose him political problems. In June, the White House said it had barred a transgender activist who went topless at its Pride event.

And while Mr. Biden’s age has become one of his chief political weaknesses, both his allies and adversaries say it also helps insulate him from cultural attacks by Republicans.

“Everybody wants to talk about how old Joe Biden is, but the truth of the matter is it’s his age and his experience that allow him to be who he is and allow him to say the things and to help people in a way that nobody else can,” said Henry R. Muñoz III, a former Democratic National Committee finance director. Mr. Muñoz, who is gay, had Mr. Biden serve as his wedding officiant in 2017.

Much of Mr. Biden’s loyalty from L.G.B.T.Q. Democrats stems from his 2012 endorsement of same-sex marriages when Mr. Obama was still officially opposed to them. Mr. Biden’s position was seen as politically risky at the time, before the Supreme Court in 2015 recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry, but has evolved into something he bragged about during his 2020 campaign.

He has also been on the forefront of recognizing transgender rights. In his first week in office, Mr. Biden ended the Trump-era ban on transgender troops in the military. In December, he signed into law federal protections for same-sex marriages.

At the same time, Mr. Biden has not adopted the terminology of progressive activists or allowed himself to be drawn into public debates that might leave him outside the political mainstream. On Thursday, after the Supreme Court’s major ruling ending affirmative action in college admissions, a reporter asked him, “Is this a rogue court?”

Pausing to think for a moment, Mr. Biden responded, “This is not a normal court.”

He also does not always remember the words most American politicians use to describe L.G.B.T.Q. people. At the fund-raiser near San Francisco last month, Mr. Biden lamented the Supreme Court’s decision last year that ended the national right to an abortion and suggested the court was coming for gay rights next.

Paraphrasing two of the conservative justices, he said: “There’s no constitutional right in the law for H-B, excuse me, for gay, lesbian, you know, the whole, the whole group. There’s no constitutional protection.”

During a stop at the Iowa State Fair during his 2020 campaign, a conservative provocateur trailing the Democratic presidential candidates asked Mr. Biden, “How many genders are there?”

Mr. Biden replied: “There are at least three. Don’t play games with me, kid.”

Then, perhaps not realizing that his inquisitor was a right-wing activist, Mr. Biden added: “By the way, first one to come out for marriage was me.”

Sarah McBride, a Delaware state senator who recently began a campaign to become the first transgender member of Congress, said Mr. Biden’s language gave him the ability to solidify Democrats behind a progressive social agenda and “reach communities and demographics that are not yet fully in the coalition.”

“He’s not getting caught up on rhetoric that isn’t understandable for your middle-of-the-road voter,” Ms. McBride said.

She also pointed to Mr. Biden’s age as helpful for making Democrats’ case on social issues without alienating skeptical voters.

“His background allows him to say things that I think would be heard as more radical if they were said by a younger politician,” she said.

As majorities of Americans have accepted gay marriage, social conservatives have made opposition to transgender rights a mainstay of their politics. And Republicans running to displace Mr. Biden have tended to focus on energizing G.O.P. primary voters rather than making a villain out of the president.

“It’s hard to paint an 80-year-old white man as a flaming woke warrior,” said Whit Ayres, a longtime pollster for Republican candidates.

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is perhaps the leading purveyor of Republicans’ anti-“woke” message, throwing barbs both online and in speeches. On Friday, his campaign cast even Mr. Trump as too liberal on L.G.B.T.Q. issues in a provocative video posted on Twitter.

At a June rally in Tulsa, Okla., Mr. DeSantis described being approached by military veterans who don’t want their children and grandchildren joining the armed forces because of liberal policy changes instituted by Democrats — though the governor blamed Mr. Obama as much as he did Mr. Biden.

“A woke military is not going to be a strong military,” Mr. DeSantis said. “You got to get the politicization out of it. And on Day 1, we’re ripping out all the Obama-Biden policies to woke-ify the military.”

Mr. Biden has never presented as a left-wing culture warrior. A Catholic, he has long been wary about jumping headlong into fights over abortion rights. Even as his campaign and party are preparing to make his re-election bid a referendum on Republican efforts to further restrict abortion, Mr. Biden proclaimed to a crowd of donors in suburban Washington that he himself was not eager to do so.

“You know, I happen to be a practicing Catholic,” Mr. Biden said last week. “I’m not big on abortion. But guess what? Roe v. Wade got it right.”

That stance has long caused some consternation among Democrats. It took until June 2019, weeks after beginning his 2020 campaign and under immense pressure from allies in his party, for Mr. Biden to renounce his long-held support for banning federal funding for abortions.

Renee Bracey Sherman, the founder of We Testify, a group that shares women’s stories of having abortions, said Mr. Biden would need to adopt a more forceful position in favor of abortion rights to energize liberal voters in 2024. She suggested that in the same way Mr. Biden hosts championship sports teams at the White House, he should invite women who have had abortions to come and tell their stories.

“The midterms show that Americans love abortion,” Ms. Bracey Sherman said. “Abortion has a higher approval rating than he does. He should be riding the abortion wave.”

Source: New York Times

The post Biden Sidesteps Any Notion That He’s a ‘Flaming Woke Warrior’ appeared first on Policy Print.

US President Joe Biden will host his Argentine counterpart in Washington next week after a planned meeting was postponed last year, the White House has announced.

Biden’s meeting with President Alberto Fernandez will be held on the sidelines of the second Summit for Democracy on March 29, White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement on Saturday.

Biden and Fernandez had originally been set to meet in July last year. That meeting was postponed after the US president tested positive for Covid-19.

The two leaders will “celebrate 200 years of bilateral relations” and discuss subjects including minerals, climate change, space and technology, the statement said.

“They will also discuss economic cooperation, as well as their shared values of inclusion, democracy, and the protection of human rights.”

The Summit for Democracy will take place on March 28-30, co-hosted by the United States, Costa Rica, the Netherlands, South Korea and Zambia.

The first iteration of the summit was held in 2021 and was spearheaded by Biden, who has made the contest between democracies and autocracies, such as China and Russia, a central theme of his administration.

Source : Brecorder

The post Biden to Meet With Argentina President During Democracy Summit appeared first on Policy Print.

Defense policy legislation that’s headed to President Joe Biden’s desk will earn the commander in chief’s signature, but he’s not going to like it.

The National Defense Authorization Act, which outlines military spending and policy priorities each year, will force the administration to roll back a requirement that troops get vaccinated against Covid, a provision on which Biden’s Republican detractors have already declared victory.

But the bill — which on Thursday passed a Democratic-led Congress — is also a bipartisan rebuke of Biden’s military budget and a raft of other plans. It prescribes $45 billion more for national defense spending than the administration proposed, reverses efforts to kill a new nuclear missile and scrambles Pentagon efforts to retire a number of ships and aircraft to save money.

A U.S. official told POLITICO that the $858 billion defense bill is “clearly” being seen as a swipe at the administration.

“There are too many targeted provisions in the legislation that it cannot possibly not be — and the left appears to have taken them without a fight, in order to just get it passed, and to fund the important work of the Defense Department,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. Congress must still enact separate legislation to fund the Pentagon.

But Biden won’t hazard a veto of the measure, which would jeopardize a 61-year streak of defense policy legislation becoming law each year.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday that Biden will sign the bill “later this week,” noting that each NDAA “has some provisions we support and some we do not.”

For many on Capitol Hill, the amount of ink spilled to counter Biden’s plans is just another chapter of Congress exercising its prerogatives. Outgoing House Armed Services Chair Adam Smith (D-Wash.) argued that, while the administration may not be pleased with where the bill landed on vaccines and other issues, “every bill has something in it the administration doesn’t like.”

“They don’t like it, but nobody gets everything they want in this life,” Smith said. “So I think we reached a very reasonable set of compromises and produced a very good product.”

Here are some of the big changes Congress spearheaded in the just-passed defense bill:

Repealing the vaccine mandate

By signing the bill, Biden will be forced to agree to a repeal of the Pentagon’s policy requiring troops to receive the Covid vaccine or face expulsion from the military.

The repeal is a victory for Republicans who pushed to do away with the policy during negotiations on a final defense bill. Conservatives have hammered the administration for forcing out thousands of military personnel and piling onto an already rough recruiting environment.

Rescinding the August 2021 mandate is a black eye for Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who still back the policy as a matter of health and readiness for the armed forces.

“[Biden] still believes that repealing the mandate is a mistake,” White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters recently. He added that locking down a defense bill and funding for the military “is obviously of prime importance.”

But Democrats who hold majorities in the House and Senate ultimately agreed to the provision, with some lawmakers conceding it’s appropriate to revisit the policy.

The bill, however, doesn’t prohibit a new vaccine requirement in the coming months, meaning Austin could implement a new policy when the 2021 directive is repealed. Doing so, however, would spark a battle with the Republican-controlled House next year.

Democrats also rejected a GOP push to reinstate troops who didn’t get the shot, a proposal that could be a fault line in next year’s deliberations.

Supersizing the Pentagon budget

Both parties roundly rejected Biden’s $813 billion military spending plan as too low to meet worldwide threats and counter the impacts of inflation on the Pentagon.

Instead, Congress endorsed that hefty $45 billion increase to Biden’s budget, which already would have boosted defense by about $30 billion over last year’s level. The final bill amounts to an increase of roughly $75 billion, or nearly 10 percent, from the previous year.

The additional money went toward buying more weapons as well as efforts to blunt the effects of inflation on Pentagon programs, troops and construction.

This marks the second straight year that Congress has significantly rewritten Biden’s budget. Defense legislation approved last year authorized an increase of $25 billion to the administration’s first proposal. It’s a pattern Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who is set to chair House Armed Services next year, chalked up to Congress and the White House rarely seeing eye to eye on federal spending.

“I’ve been doing this 20 years,” Rogers said. “Every year we get a budget proposal from the president — doesn’t matter if it’s a Democrat or Republican — and we put it in a drawer and say, ‘Thank you.’ And then we write the budget.”

“I’ve never had a president’s budget, that I’ve seen, that came close to meeting the needs of the department,” he said.

The legislation only authorizes funding, however, and must be followed by an appropriations measure to make the increase a reality. Congress is set to clear a full-year funding package this week that adheres to the increase in the NDAA.

Nuclear weapons plans

Congress foiled one of the few major changes Biden proposed to the nuclear arsenal, keeping alive a sea-launched cruise missile first proposed by the Trump administration.

Proponents of canceling the developmental program criticized it as costly, destabilizing and redundant, because Biden kept low-yield nukes fielded by the Trump administration deployed aboard ballistic missile submarines. A 2021 report by the Congressional Budget Office estimated the missile will cost $10 billion through 2030.

But lawmakers ultimately authorized $45 million to continue the program after top military brass, including Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley, publicly expressed support for the weapon, in a split with Austin and other top civilians who argued the missile isn’t needed.

Biden, a longtime proponent of reining in nuclear weapons’ role in foreign policy, has largely stayed the course on nuclear policy halfway through his term, endorsing the wholesale overhaul of all three legs of the U.S. arsenal.

Lawmakers also voted to require the Pentagon to keep most of its inventory of B83 nuclear gravity bombs, which Biden proposed retiring. The agreement prohibits retiring or deactivating more than 25 percent of the stockpile until the Pentagon provides Congress with a study on how it will field capabilities to strike hard and buried targets.

More ships and planes

Navy shipbuilding efforts are on track to expand once again amid bipartisan criticism that the service’s budgets don’t match plans to grow the fleet. Lawmakers authorized $32.6 billion to buy new ships, boosting the budget by $4.7 billion and ordering up three new hulls the Navy didn’t ask for.

The additions include a third unrequested Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, which the White House said it “strongly opposes” when the House approved it. Navy leaders have questioned whether a strained shipbuilding base can handle a rate of three destroyers per year. The bill also set a legal floor of 31 amphibious warships for the Navy, which the administration also opposes, arguing it would “unduly constrain” military planning.

Congress also threw a wrench into Navy plans to retire two dozen ships. The move was aimed at saving money but it also drew criticism on Capitol Hill because the plans would have scrapped some troubled littoral combat ships relatively early in their service lives.

The compromise bill ultimately bars the Navy from retiring a dozen warships it had planned to decommission, including five littoral combat ships and a Ticonderoga-class cruiser.

The legislation also crimps efforts by the Pentagon to retire dozens of aircraft. It jams up the administration’s plans to retire Navy EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets, requiring the service to maintain a fleet of at least 158 aircraft through fiscal 2027. The bill similarly blocks efforts by the Air Force to retire some F-22 fighters through fiscal 2027.

Lawmakers also limited the Air Force’s ability to reduce its fleet of E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System planes below a certain level. Those restrictions would be eased if the service submits an acquisition strategy or awards a contract for its successor, the E-7 Wedgetail.

Lawmakers, meanwhile, boosted procurement for a swath of aircraft across the military services. Most notably, Armed Services leaders approved $666 million for eight Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets the Navy didn’t seek in its budget, keeping the production line active.

Extremism in the ranks

The final bill largely eschews issues related to the Pentagon’s efforts to root out extremism, but the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report accompanying its version of the bill calls for those plans to be curtailed, though the language is nonbinding.

The report language was added by Republicans with the backing of Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). It argues that the low instances of extremism in the ranks “does not warrant a Department-wide effort.” It further argues that the Pentagon anti-extremism effort “is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately.”

The measures preview a coming battle between Republicans and the Biden administration over a slew of personnel policies they contend are a distraction from the military’s warfighting mission and will likely be put under a microscope when the GOP controls the House next year.

Source: Politico

The post Five ways lawmakers smacked down Biden’s Pentagon plans appeared first on Policy Print.