Latest news with #R-S.C.
Politico
3 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
MAGA right attacks Zohran Mamdani's religion following his win
Prominent MAGA-aligned commentators launched xenophobic attacks on Zohran Mamdani over the 33-year-old state lawmaker's Muslim religion following his apparent Democratic primary win in the New York City mayoral race. In a series of posts, conservative social media personality Laura Loomer wrote 'New York City will be destroyed,' Muslims will start 'committing jihad all over New York' and that 'NYC is about to see 9/11 2.0.' If elected in November, Mamdani would become the first Muslim mayor in New York City's history. And while many conservatives have criticized Mamdani's progressive policies, others have taken aim at Mamdani for his religion. '24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11,' conservative activist Charlie Kirk posted on X, referencing the number of people killed in New York. 'Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.' 'New York City has fallen,' Donald Trump Jr. wrote, quoting a post by Michael Malice about when New Yorkers 'endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.' 'After 9/11 we said 'Never Forget.' I think we sadly have forgotten,' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted on X Wednesday, accompanied by a photo of Mamdani. Mamdani's campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the statements. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won 43.5 percent of first-place votes in New York's ranked-choice voting system. Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the once-favorite to take the primary, conceded to Mamdani Tuesday night. However, the city board of elections is not expected to finalize results until early July, once ranked-choice votes are tabulated. During the primary some of Mamdani's critics, including a super PAC backing Cuomo, said he either emboldens antisemitism or has himself espoused antisemitic views, in particular over his stance on Israel. He has repeatedly criticized Israel's actions in Gaza, and in a June interview with The Bulwark, Mamdani said the phrase 'globalize the intifada' represented 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.' Mamdani drew heavy criticism for the statement, marking a tension point in a primary election in a city with large populations of Muslim and Jewish residents. He has repeatedly pushed back against the antisemitism label, decrying violence against Jews in the country. 'I've said at every opportunity that there is no room for antisemitism in this city, in this country,' he said at an emotional press conference in the closing days of the race, adding the reason he does not have a more 'visceral reaction' to being labeled that is because it has 'been colored by the fact that when I speak, especially when I speak with emotion, I am then characterized by those same rivals as being a monster.' At the same press conference, he said he has faced significant attacks because of his religion. 'I get messages that say, 'The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.' I get threats on my life, on the people that I love. And I try not to talk about it,' he said at that press conference.
The Hill
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Five reasons Trump should renew US engagement in NATO
At next week's NATO Annual Summit in the Netherlands, leaders of the 32 alliance members will come together to discuss priorities and the way ahead for NATO at a time when Russia and China pose pressing security threats. President Trump should pivot towards strengthening the transatlantic organization — here are the five reasons why. First, Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing the United States. He does not want peace in Ukraine. Russia is the antagonist in this conflict, and conditions for Ukraine are slowly worsening with each passing day. To end this trajectory, options are to punish Russia financially or to strengthen Ukraine militarily. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) recently met with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and wholeheartedly believe Putin is preparing for a new offensive, despite the high costs. More to the point, a June 2 meeting between Ukrainian and Russian officials in Istanbul, ostensibly to end the war, ended abruptly after less than 90 minutes with no real discussion about peace. If Trump draws back from the negotiations without demonstrating strength towards Russia, Putin will get exactly what he wants — in the end, control over Ukraine and a reformatting of Europe's security structure. Second, NATO has stood by the U.S., and Trump should be proud to return the favor with respect to transatlantic security. The only time NATO invoked Article V (treating an attack on one member as an attack on all) was right after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. If the U.S. fails to remain engaged in NATO, the world could see an escalation to the war more broadly on the European continent. Europe will take more responsibility for its own security, but it needs time to build credible conventional forces and will still depend on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Trade between the U.S. and the European Union is one of the most expansive in terms of absolute dollars on the global stage coming in at $975 billion in 2024. Market disruptions would be cataclysmic if war expanded to include countries on NATO's eastern flank. Russia will seek to test the resolve of the alliance if it perceives that the U.S. is doubting its commitments. Accordingly, the U.S. must maintain at least a credible forward presence of its military alongside our allies to deter Russia's ambitions from moving westward and strongly uphold Article V. The alternative hurt both the U.S. and European Union economically. Third, a robust relationship with NATO will leave Trump with a freer hand to deal with China. Continuous Chinese military capability and capacities are an increasing threat. On one side, China wants to be a large economic partner to both Europe and the U.S. On the other hand, its security policy actions are detrimental to a constructive relationship with the West. The strategic partnership between China and Russia should be monitored closely — not least the Chinese support enabling Russia's war in Ukraine. U.S. engagement with NATO will improve coordination to deal with this dual threat. Fourth, NATO engagement will provide the U.S. with improved collective intelligence sharing. Joint and combined Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance is an important capability to forewarn NATO (including the U.S.) of impending threats. Moreover, NATO members each have unique intelligence gathering capabilities and, as was the case in the leadup to the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, NATO countries should be transparent with the processed intelligence they prepare. Unlike China and Russia, the U.S. benefits from a wide intelligence network, and this collective intelligence sharing could be quite useful regarding antagonistic states, terrorism and President Trump's Golden Dome initiative. U.S. engagement at the summit should press NATO countries to continue to be transparent with intelligence sharing, especially on threats to Alliance member countries. Fifth, NATO engagement will help enhance cyber capabilities — another asymmetric capability that all adversaries of the United States use, as highlighted in the most recent Annual Threat Assessment. Moving beyond cyber defense, discussion at The Hague Summit should press for computer network operations, and more specifically computer network attack and computer network exploitation capabilities. Adversaries such as Russia and questionable actors such as China are using these tools against NATO members and allies alike. Not only does NATO benefit, but all member countries, especially the United States, would realize advantages as well. The fact that the NATO alliance has survived more than 75 years is quite significant. That said, the alliance cannot rest on its laurels. The U.S. plays a pivotal part in moving forward with serious discussion regarding these five issues. The security of both the U.S. and Europe is at stake. Tom Røseth, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the Norwegian Defence University College and founder of its Ukraine Program. He is coauthor of 'The 'Five Eyes' Intelligence Sharing Relationship: A Contemporary Perspective.' John Weaver, DPA, is a professor of Intelligence Analysis at York College and author of 'NATO in Contemporary Times: Purpose, Relevance, Future.'
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - From Odesa with love: Ukraine fights on with or without the US
The city of Odesa, once the pearl of the Black Sea and host to nearly 1,000 attendees during this year's Black Sea Forum, has regained its luster. Aside from smatterings of plywood-covered windows and burned-out or partially destroyed buildings, one would be hard pressed to think that it was in a country under siege, fighting for its collective life. This city is enjoying, under the circumstances, a fairly normal existence. The streets are pristine, unlike in too many American cities. Much of the architecture is Russo-French in design, dating back to the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. But most impressive are the Ukrainians. Determined to win this war, one is reminded of the stubborn British enduring the Blitz and Hitler's relentless attacks. This seemingly boundless display of optimism extends to the taxi drivers, restaurants and hotel staff, and the non-conference-attending civilians I encountered during my time here. The message is clear and is echoed by most of the European delegates who attended from parliaments and ministries of government, including the military, as well as the private sector, media and academia: Russia is a menace. If not stopped in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is determined to wreck NATO and reestablish a new and greater Soviet Union-like empire. And America is unconscious or blind to this threat. On one hand, the war in Ukraine is not atop the list of things worrying most Americans. As someone in the distant past remarked, 'it's the economy, stupid.' On the other hand, the behavior of the current president fills the media and the airwaves on a daily basis, often blocking out other news and reporting. Yes, a growing percentage of Americans of both political parties say they support Ukraine, a statistic that is widely used here as evidence that the U.S. can and should do more. Yet, when pressed as to what that support should be in specific terms, from equipping Ukraine with the most modern weapons, to rebuilding a country largely still suffering the ravages of war, to the question of whether to send U.S. troops to the region or not, that consensus quickly dissipates. At this writing, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others have gained the support of some 80 of their colleagues to impose sanctions on Russia. Has that chamber suddenly grown a backbone to take on Donald Trump, who so far has dominated Congress in ways Lyndon Johnson would envy? That said, I take the Ukrainian rationale to smash Russia now before it becomes too great a threat — and many would argue that this view has taken hold across Ukraine — with a bit of cold water. I believe we in the West are exaggerating Russia's ability to mount a broader military assault; certainly, for now and for the foreseeable future, while it rebuilds a force that has reportedly taken nearly a million casualties. To be sure, a supermajority of Ukrainians do not accept that Putin's appetite will be satisfied if he perseveres in this war. But the fact is, the acidic warning that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the United States is being a friend or ally may apply here. Millions of Vietnamese, Afghans and Iraqis would not disagree with that observation. Will Ukraine be next is a tragic question that must be addressed. Many of us in the relatively small foreign and defense policy world argued that wars are often lost by getting too little too late; meaning that from Russia's February 2022 invasion (which, for too long, Trump incredibly blamed on Ukraine) the U.S. has not supplied enough weapons and sinews of war to enable the Ukrainian military to turn the tide of battle beyond halting, and in some places, reversing Russian gains. But that is the past. What next? Despite my dissenting analysis of Putin's military muscle, what Russia has done has to be reversed. That almost certainly will not happen. Now, Trump will decide Ukraine's fate for better, or more likely, worse. Tragedy can be defined as a collision with reality. There was every reason to support Ukraine while some exit strategy could be developed. Now it appears the Trump exit strategy will leave it up to the two combatants — Russia and Ukraine — to end the war. Should that be the case, we should not be surprised by the outcome. And frankly if that does happen, Americans should be ashamed. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
03-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
From Odesa with love: Ukraine fights on with or without the US
The city of Odesa, once the pearl of the Black Sea and host to nearly 1,000 attendees during this year's Black Sea Forum, has regained its luster. Aside from smatterings of plywood-covered windows and burned-out or partially destroyed buildings, one would be hard pressed to think that it was in a country under siege, fighting for its collective life. This city is enjoying, under the circumstances, a fairly normal existence. The streets are pristine, unlike in too many American cities. Much of the architecture is Russo-French in design, dating back to the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. But most impressive are the Ukrainians. Determined to win this war, one is reminded of the stubborn British enduring the Blitz and Hitler's relentless attacks. This seemingly boundless display of optimism extends to the taxi drivers, restaurants and hotel staff, and the non-conference-attending civilians I encountered during my time here. The message is clear and is echoed by most of the European delegates who attended from parliaments and ministries of government, including the military, as well as the private sector, media and academia: Russia is a menace. If not stopped in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is determined to wreck NATO and reestablish a new and greater Soviet Union-like empire. And America is unconscious or blind to this threat. On one hand, the war in Ukraine is not atop the list of things worrying most Americans. As someone in the distant past remarked, 'it's the economy, stupid.' On the other hand, the behavior of the current president fills the media and the airwaves on a daily basis, often blocking out other news and reporting. Yes, a growing percentage of Americans of both political parties say they support Ukraine, a statistic that is widely used here as evidence that the U.S. can and should do more. Yet, when pressed as to what that support should be in specific terms, from equipping Ukraine with the most modern weapons, to rebuilding a country largely still suffering the ravages of war, to the question of whether to send U.S. troops to the region or not, that consensus quickly dissipates. At this writing, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others have gained the support of some 80 of their colleagues to impose sanctions on Russia. Has that chamber suddenly grown a backbone to take on Donald Trump, who so far has dominated Congress in ways Lyndon Johnson would envy? That said, I take the Ukrainian rationale to smash Russia now before it becomes too great a threat — and many would argue that this view has taken hold across Ukraine — with a bit of cold water. I believe we in the West are exaggerating Russia's ability to mount a broader military assault; certainly, for now and for the foreseeable future, while it rebuilds a force that has reportedly taken nearly a million casualties. To be sure, a supermajority of Ukrainians do not accept that Putin's appetite will be satisfied if he perseveres in this war. But the fact is, the acidic warning that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the United States is being a friend or ally may apply here. Millions of Vietnamese, Afghans and Iraqis would not disagree with that observation. Will Ukraine be next is a tragic question that must be addressed. Many of us in the relatively small foreign and defense policy world argued that wars are often lost by getting too little too late; meaning that from Russia's February 2022 invasion (which, for too long, Trump incredibly blamed on Ukraine) the U.S. has not supplied enough weapons and sinews of war to enable the Ukrainian military to turn the tide of battle beyond halting, and in some places, reversing Russian gains. But that is the past. What next? Despite my dissenting analysis of Putin's military muscle, what Russia has done has to be reversed. That almost certainly will not happen. Now, Trump will decide Ukraine's fate for better, or more likely, worse. Tragedy can be defined as a collision with reality. There was every reason to support Ukraine while some exit strategy could be developed. Now it appears the Trump exit strategy will leave it up to the two combatants — Russia and Ukraine — to end the war. Should that be the case, we should not be surprised by the outcome. And frankly if that does happen, Americans should be ashamed. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.'
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Graham, Blumenthal meet with Zelensky in Ukraine
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday after a wave of Kremlin attacks last weekend. The three leaders discussed a legislative initiative to strengthen U.S. sanctions against Russia and ongoing peace negotiations according to Zelensky's office. 'Ukraine's fight is our fight. Our national security is at stake because [Russian President] Vladimir Putin will keep going and his aggression will continue not just against Ukraine but against our allies and we will be obligated by our treaty to put troops on the ground,' Blumenthal said in a Friday video post on the social media platform X. 'Now is the time to stop Putin, now is the time to support Ukraine and I'm inspired by the continuing bravery and strength of the Ukrainian people,' he added. In response to the over three-years long war, Graham has pushed ahead a bill in the upper chamber seeking to increase sanctions on Russia in an effort to tame their aggression in Eastern Europe. Despite 82 co-sponsors for Graham's bill, lawmakers said they will wait to put the bill on the floor until President Trump approves of harsher measures. The president has signaled that he is nearing his edge with Putin, who ordered strikes in Kyiv over the weekend. 'He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever,' Trump said in a Truth Social post. 'I've always said that he wants ALL of Ukraine, not just a piece of it, and maybe that's proving to be right, but if he does, it will lead to the downfall of Russia!' The president said Putin had 'gone absolutely crazy' while slamming Zelensky for his rhetoric on the war. Still, Trump told reporters that he was only 'considering' sanctions. Ceasefire talks are slated to take place in Istanbul early next week, but Zelensky says Putin has shown no real desire for the bloodshed to end. 'The President noted that Ukraine remains ready for constructive negotiations, but the Russian side cannot even define the agenda of the meeting planned for June 2 in Istanbul,' Zelensky's office wrote in a Friday release. 'Russia shows a desire for peace only in statements, while instead preparing for new offensive operations,' it continued. To date, more than 500,000 soldiers have been injured or killed in the Russia-Ukraine war. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
