US ambassador to Russia leaves Moscow
Lynne Tracy, the US ambassador to Russia, is leaving Moscow, her embassy said on Friday, noting she had served through one of the most strained periods in relations between Moscow and Washington.
The departure of a career diplomat appointed under the administration of former president Joe Biden comes as Russia and the United States discuss a potential reset in their ties which sharply deteriorated after Moscow launched its full-scale war in Ukraine in 2022.
President Donald Trump has said there are potentially big investment deals to be struck, but is growing increasingly frustrated that his efforts to broker a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine have so far not resulted in a meaningful ceasefire.
'I am proud to have represented my country in Moscow during such a challenging time. As I leave Russia, I know that my colleagues at the embassy will continue to work to improve our relations and maintain ties with the Russian people,' the embassy cited Tracy as saying in a statement.
It said Tracy's time in post had been marked by her belief that meaningful dialogue was important even during difficult times, the embassy said.
The embassy said earlier this month that Tracy, who arrived in Moscow in January 2023 and was greeted by protesters chanting anti-US slogans when she went to the Foreign Ministry to present her credentials, would leave her post soon.
Her successor has not been publicly named.
Her tenure is similar in duration to her predecessor, John Sullivan, who served as ambassador for two years and seven months from February 2020 to September 2022.
Tracy was notably involved in efforts to win the release of US citizens jailed in Russia, including journalist Evan Gershkovich and former marine Paul Whelan, who were eventually freed in August 2024 as part of a big East-West prisoner swap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Missile exchanges may have ended — but questions remain
As befits 21st century diplomacy, US President Donald Trump announced a complete and total ceasefire between Iran and Israel on social media, congratulating 'everyone' for this, especially himself. After regrettable violations within the first few hours of the truce, which needlessly caused more loss of life, the deal to end this 12-day war seems to be holding. It is probably the first good news for the region in months, as both sworn enemies have given way to pressure exerted by Washington and are holding fire, at least for now. Until the ceasefire was agreed there was a danger the region might become embroiled in a long war of attrition. Now that the missile and drone exchanges have ended, one inevitable question is whether this costly affair could have been prevented — not just as a hypothetical exercise, but as a lesson in how to avoid another military confrontation between two of the most powerful militaries in the region. Could diplomacy have achieved the same, or even better, results, without inflicting death, destruction, and psychological scars on both combatants? The build-up to these 12 days of hostilities began more than a quarter of the century ago, and some might argue as far back as 1979 when the Iranian revolution rather artificially marked Israel, for its close relations with both the toppled shah and the US, as an enemy. History will look back at this deep enmity and might struggle to find objective reasons for it. Initially this hostility served the revolution as a tool for consolidating its hold on power at home and suppressing opposition. In turn, it also helped to propel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power as Israel's defender against the Iranian threat, both conventional and potentially nuclear. Time will possibly reveal how close Iran was to assembling a nuclear bomb, and most analysts agree that the US decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal in 2018, during Trump's first term, removed the shackles from Iran's uranium enrichment program, bringing it closer to weapons grade. It is hardly believable that the Tehran regime should have invested such huge resources only for civilian use. It is also the case that in forming and leading the so-called axis of resistance, Iran, through its proxies in the region, posed a threat to stability sufficient to eventually merit a response. Ultimately, despite being a source of major disruption, even a lethal one in the case of Hamas, and to a lesser extent Hezbollah, it could not match Israel's military capabilities, especially when the latter was backed by the US and other allies. On this occasion, Netanyahu managed also to lure Trump to act against his instincts and use military force. For the US leader the dilemma was between maintaining his posture as a president who brings an end to wars, and the temptation to deliver an almost risk-free strike against Iran's main nuclear sites after Israel's air force had eliminated the country's air defense capabilities. Could diplomacy have achieved the same, or even better, results? Yossi Mekelberg The latter then gained the upper hand, enabling Trump, in a matter of days, to potentially inflict a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear program, especially in Fordow, where it is believed more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent was stored, and then lean on both sides to stop the hostilities. When both violated the ceasefire, Trump was furious, telling the media in no uncertain terms that 'we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what ... they're doing.' Yet, his criticism of Israel was far more robust, including a demand that Netanyahu order its pilots to return from another mission immediately. Allowing Iran a symbolic attack on US military bases in Qatar without any loss of life permitted an act of theater that allowed Tehran to save face after weeks of humiliation during which it lost many of its military chiefs and top scientists, exposing the level of Israel's penetration to nearly every government department, scientific institution, and military command. Nevertheless, Israel's vulnerability was also exposed by its failure to sufficiently protect its civilian population, revealing a severe shortage of adequate shelters as their enemy hit hospitals, the main international airport, and even oil refineries in Haifa. What emerged quickly was the difference between the open-ended conflict that Israel embarked on and Washington's priorities. Israel had many far-reaching objectives beyond Iran's nuclear program, including degrading its conventional military power, and instigating regime change. For Trump, however, it was simply about setting back the nuclear program and returning to the negotiating table. The war with Iran gave Netanyahu a new lease of life. A man who had barely talked to the Israeli media or mixed with people in public, especially since Oct. 7, suddenly could not stop himself from doing both, including visiting sites that were hit by Iranian missiles. But 21 months after the massacre, incapable and unwilling to take responsibility, he still has not visited the communities that were destroyed there. Yet the destruction caused by Iran gave him much-needed justification to continue the war before Trump put a stop to the conflict, and the photo-ops were exactly what he needed considering his high level of disapproval among voters. After this brief bout of fighting, Netanyahu's Likud party is doing slightly better in the polls, which might tempt him to call a snap election, but in the meantime, he will have to convince Israel's voters that the outcome of this war justified the unprecedented terrifying 12 days that they endured. Can he, together with Trump, also translate military achievements into a diplomatic success, one that ensures both that future uranium enrichment is limited to what is needed for civil use, and that Tehran ceases its meddling in the affairs of other countries? This remains an open question, but the next task for Israel's prime minister is to explain to the electorate why the war in Gaza is still raging and 50 hostages are still in captivity.
Al Arabiya
7 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Senators Prep for a Weekend of Work to Meet Trump's Deadline for Passing His Tax and Spending Cuts
The Senate is expected to work through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain, and there is a long path ahead with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. 'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up even as he sometimes gives mixed signals allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the grandstanders among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful celebration for our country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives worried about the nation's debt are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict Byrd Rule, named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53–47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said. One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000. The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators say that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. 'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are very close to finishing up. 'We would still like to meet that July Fourth self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La. With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers.
Al Arabiya
9 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
California Governor Newson files $787 million defamation suit against Fox News
California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit Friday against broadcaster Fox News, claiming defamation after alleged purposeful misrepresentation of details of a phone call with US President Donald Trump earlier this month. The suit seeks $787 million in damages and was filed in a Delaware court, where Fox News is registered as a corporation. Trump and Newsom spoke on the phone in the early hours of June 7 Washington time, but the pair did not address protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids occurring throughout Los Angeles, according to the lawsuit. Later that day, Republican Trump ordered thousands of National Guard troops to deploy to the city in response to the protests, against the wishes of the Democratic governor. Trump said during a June 10 White House press conference that he talked with Newsom 'a day ago' -- a claim the California politician quickly refuted on social media. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote on X. In response, Fox News host Jesse Watters claimed Newsom was lying about the call. Another Fox News reporter, John Roberts, said Trump sent him a call log to prove Newsom was lying, but the screenshot he provided showed the call happened on June 7. 'Rather than leave the matter alone, or simply provide the facts, Fox News chose to defame Governor Newsom, branding him a liar,' the lawsuit said. Newsom told broadcaster MeidasTouch he was used to criticism from Fox News, 'but this crossed the line -- journalistic lines, ethical lines, defamation, malice.' The lawsuit said Fox News deliberately mislead viewers about the call to harm Newsom's career, saying those who watched Watters's report would be less likely to support his future campaigns. Fox News called the lawsuit a 'publicity stunt.' It said in a statement to AFP that the legal action 'is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him.' Newsom in a statement compared his case to a 2023 lawsuit against Fox News filed by election technology company Dominion Voting Systems, which said the broadcaster knowingly spread lies that its voting machines swayed the 2020 presidential election against Trump. The amount Newsom's lawsuit seeks in damages, $787 million, is nearly the same as the amount Fox News paid in a settlement to Dominion.
