Biden’s assertion reflects his administration’s recognition that the U.S. must apply a more robust deterrence to Beijing given its worsening military intimidation of Taiwan. That harassment is rooted in China’s concerns that the island is on an irreversible course toward independence.

“I think we can all be pretty certain at this point that it was not a gaffe — four times in a row … [means] what’s happening is there are people in the administration who think that by demonstrating a greater willingness to defend Taiwan, that’ll help reestablish deterrence,” said Oriana Skylar Mastro, center fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Biden’s pledge of U.S. military defense of Taiwan breaks new ground in his administration’s willingness to take a more uncompromising approach to the possibility of Chinese aggression. And it reflects deepening concerns about Beijing’s intentions following the live-fire military drills it launched around the island after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s contentious Taiwan visit last month, as well as ongoing violations by Chinese military aircraft of the median line between Taiwan and China.

“No previous president has chosen to prejudge the decision that he will take in the event of a hypothetical Chinese military action,” Daniel Russel, former assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs and vice president for international security and diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute, told POLITICO. “[It] doesn’t really have the hallmark of an off-the-cuff remark — this was a sit-down interview in which it seemed the White House would have understood that this topic would be certainly fair game and one would have expected to prepare the president for the answer that he wanted to give.”

Face-off over Taiwan

Biden’s remarks sparked cheers in Taipei.

“[Taiwan] extends its sincere appreciation to President Biden for once again emphasizing the staunch and rock-solid US security commitment to Taiwan,” the island’s Foreign Affairs Ministry said in a statement on Monday.

But his comments infuriated Beijing.

“The U.S. remarks … severely violate the commitment the U.S. made not to support Taiwan independence,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said on Monday.

The Chinese Communist Party considers “reunification with Taiwan,” a territory that the CCP has never ruled a “historical task.” It’s also key to Xi Jinping’s credibility as he seeks a third term as China’s leader next month. Liu Jieyi, director of the Chinese government’s Taiwan Affairs Office, in July described “national reunification” — Beijing’s shorthand for a Taiwan takeover — as an “inevitable requirement” of Xi’s hawkish “national rejuvenation” policy.

“We will not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures,” said a Chinese government white paper on Taiwan published last month.

The U.S. relationship with Taiwan is spelled out in the U.S.-China Three Communiqués, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the 1982 Six Assurances. The TRA commits the U.S. “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.” None of those documents specifically obligate the U.S. to military intervention to protect Taiwan in the face of a Chinese invasion. But the TRA suggests an active U.S. role in maintaining the island’s status quo.

Some Republican lawmakers welcomed Biden’s comments.

“I’m glad the president has once again taken a clear position on Taiwan’s defense. … I hope this is the end of flip flopping on U.S. security interests for Taiwan,” Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

No surprises in Beijing

White House officials rushed to defuse Beijing’s anger by insisting that Biden’s remarks were in line with U.S. commitment in the Three Communiqués.

“The president’s remarks speak for themselves, [and] I do think our policy has been consistent and is unchanged and will continue,” Kurt Campbell, the U.S. National Security Council’s Indo-Pacific coordinator, said on Monday at a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event.

That response reflects an effort by the administration to warn Beijing of the potential consequences of an attack on Taiwan while insisting that the U.S. remains committed to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

“Call it a two-pronged approach in terms of the administration statements and the President’s speech on this … to increase the deterrent effect on China and enable us to keep tensions at a somewhat reduced level,” Ret. Vice Adm. Robert Murrett, professor of practice at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School for professional public policy, said in an interview.

Biden’s comments will come as no surprise to the People’s Liberation Army, whose planning for possible military action against Taiwan has long factored in the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

“The PRC is pretty well convinced that we would come to Taiwan’s aid and I think they’re planning on the assumption … so I’m not sure how much [Biden’s statement] adds to deterrence,” Aaron Friedberg, former deputy assistant for national security affairs in the Office of the Vice President and professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, told POLITICO.

Bluster and danger

Biden’s comments have prompted calls from some China experts for the administration to rethink existing U.S. government commitments to China regarding Taiwan’s status due to Beijing’s worsening bellicosity toward the island.

“So far, everything Xi has done since 2012 is to make it even less desirable for Taiwan to be part of his grand ‘rejuvenation’ experiment,” David R. Stilwell, former assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said in an interview. “The question is, why do we continue to insist on this one China policy? Why don’t we update it?”

Beijing has long warned that any attempt by the U.S. to try to alter the status quo across the Taiwan Strait would reap a fierce response.

“The Taiwan question is the most important and most sensitive issue at the very heart of China-U.S. relations,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement last month. The ministry has warned that any U.S. moves to change its relationship with Taiwan are “like playing with fire, are extremely dangerous.”

That may be more than bluster.

“Each action on the part of the U.S. or on the part of the president of the United States that seems to reaffirm the worst-case scenario in Beijing’s eyes strengthens their hostility, their paranoia, their anger [and] reinforces their most extreme right-wing elements,” Russel said. “It works against the prospect of any kind of reconciliation or of cooperation between us, and accelerates the downward spiral of strategic rivalry.”

The Biden administration’s challenge is to balance its desire to deter a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan with a clear understanding of its willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure to keep the island out of Beijing’s clutches.

“Most people assume the U.S. will do something to defend Taiwan. The big question is, what are the costs we’re really willing to pay?” Stanford’s Skylar Mastro said. “Are we going to stick it out after 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 casualties? There’s nothing about Biden’s statement that adds any clarity to the Chinese on that issue.”

>>> ad: Don't Miss Today's BEST Amazon Deals!
Originally Appeared Here

As he stood before the coffin, Biden took a deep breath before making the sign of the cross and then placing his hand over his heart. With the visit, the president and first lady Jill Biden, became the latest — and highest-profile — visitors to the royal lying in state that has drawn thousands of people in queues stretching for miles.

“She was the same in person as her image,” Biden said Sunday after signing a condolence book for her. “Decent, honorable and all about service.”

Biden’s itinerary is being closely watched by the British public, from his arrival on Air Force One on Saturday night, to which British officials he chooses to engage, to his use of the presidential limousine known as “The Beast” while other world leaders are relegated to buses.

>>> ad: Don't Miss Today's BEST Amazon Deals!
Originally Appeared Here

Chinese rights activists overseas have told RFA that they are concerned but unsurprised at recent allegations that an agent of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was working at Twitter, saying such infiltration is part of Beijing’s global influence operation.

The FBI informed Twitter of at least one Chinese agent among its employees, according to U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, while hacker and whistleblower Peiter Zatko said the company’s lax security sparked fears that personal data on Chinese users was being collected by authorities in China.

Zatko, Twitter’s former head of security,  made the allegations during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, detailing internal clashes between some who sought advertising revenue from China, and others who were concerned about doing business inside China amid rising geopolitical tensions.

“This was a big internal conundrum,” Zatko told the hearing, adding that Twitter appeared reluctant to turn away from China.

“In a nutshell, if we were already in bed, it would be problematic if we lost that revenue stream,” he said.

Zatko said the FBI had told the company that China’s secret service, the Ministry of State Security, had an agent on the payroll.

A Twitter spokesperson said Twitter’s hiring process was independent of foreign influence, and that access to personal data was subject to stringent controls, adding that Zatko’s allegations were “riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies.”

France-based commentator Wang Longmeng said the CCP has long targeted Western social media platforms to wage its overseas influence campaigns, and that some of the company’s regional executives have close ties to the CCP, including Kathy Chen.

A Twitter logo is displayed on a mobile phone in an August 2020 file photo. Credit: AFP

Whistleblowers

Chen’s 2016 appointment as Twitter’s managing director for Greater China raised concerns in particular, as it emerged she had served as a software engineer in the People’s Liberation Army’s strategic missile force.

“Kathy Chen, who had a military background, joined [the company], then Fei-fei Li became an independent director,” Wang said. “The CCP’s infiltration of Western media is one of its key strategies.”

“It’s not surprising that the whistleblower revealed there are Chinese agents at Twitter, because there have been suspensions and deleted accounts, and yet Twitter still allows CCP diplomats to spread rumors and lies,” he said.

China bans Twitter, Facebook and other U.S. social media firms, but government agencies and diplomats use the platforms to reach an international audience

Rights activist Zhou Fengsuo, a former student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen protests and the chairman of Humanitarian China, said the U.S. government hasn’t responded adequately to the problem.

“Zoom closed our Zoom account for commemorating the June 4 [Tiananmen massacre], and the Zoom employee who was later indicted was part of China’s state security police,” Zhou told RFA.

“This has also been played out several times at Twitter, with Kathy Chen, who everyone knows has a military background, hired as managing director for the Greater China region, and then Fei-fei Li’s appointment to the board,” he said. “She has previously expressed her loyalty to the CCP.”

“The United States has done nothing to remedy the situation,” Zhou said. “It selectively ignores this massive problem of high-tech companies colluding with the CCP because they want to do business in China.”

“I have been calling on the U.S. government to investigate all high-tech companies,” he said.

Blocking of sites

A blogger known as “the Voice of Surfing” said there are other examples of pro-CCP bias on the platform, including the blocking and banning of the Great Translation Movement, which provides uncensored examples of social media comment from China’s tightly controlled internet.

“The Great Translation Movement, which uses Twitter as its main platform, has been repeatedly banned by Twitter officials for violations of the rules,” the blogger said.

“With Twitter management infiltrated by CCP forces, employees often take a pro-China stance when it comes to Chinese censorship on the platform,” they said. 

“They help the CCP’s United Front Work Department to tell good stories about China, and use their positions to suppress dissent against the Chinese government.”

“This shameless practice is also happening on other platforms that have been infiltrated by the CCP.”

The blogger said many Chinese rights activists who use Twitter have been subsequently summoned by state security police for posting politically sensitive material, yet the company has remained silent on how much user data is being leaked to the Chinese government.

“We often hear about Chinese users being ‘invited to tea’ by the local police because of politically sensitive remarks on Twitter, but Twitter officials have never responded to questions about the disclosure of users’ personal information [to the Chinese authorities],” they said.

“Under the influence of CCP capital, Twitter has moved closer to Weibo.”

Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.

>>> ad: Don't Miss Today's BEST Amazon Deals!
Originally Appeared Here

WASHINGTON — Flush with success in northeast Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky is pressing President Biden for a new and more powerful weapon: a missile system with a range of 190 miles, which could reach far into Russian territory.

Mr. Zelensky insists to U.S. officials that he has no intention of striking Russian cities or aiming at civilian targets, even though President Vladimir V. Putin’s forces have hit apartment blocks, theaters and hospitals in Ukraine throughout the war. The weapon, Mr. Zelensky says, is critical to launching a wider counteroffensive, perhaps early next year.

Mr. Biden is resisting, in part because he is convinced that over the past seven months, he has successfully signaled to Mr. Putin that he does not want a broader war with the Russians — he just wants them to get out of Ukraine.

A shipment of long-range guided missiles, which could also give Ukraine new options for striking Crimea, the territory Russia annexed in 2014, would likely be seen by Moscow as a major provocation, Mr. Biden has concluded.

“We’re trying to avoid World War III,” Mr. Biden often reminds his aides, echoing a statement he has made publicly as well.

Senior aides to the president also say that when Mr. Biden asked the Pentagon in recent weeks how much the longer-range missile systems would help Ukrainian forces during the next stage of the war, he was told the benefits would be minimal. That led him to conclude, they said, that it was not worth the risk.

The argument over the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, comes at a critical moment, when officials in the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies appear more concerned than ever that Mr. Putin could escalate the war to compensate for his humiliating retreat.

They do not know what form that escalation might take. But many of the options they are preparing for are bleak: more indiscriminate bombardment of Ukrainian cities, a campaign to kill senior Ukrainian leaders, or an attack on supply hubs outside Ukraine — located in NATO countries like Poland and Romania — that are channeling extraordinary quantities of arms, ammunition and military equipment into the country.

This account of the administration’s effort to control escalation in the war is based on conversations with more than a dozen senior American officials as they struggle to calibrate the next steps — hoping to build on Ukraine’s advances without triggering a wider conflict. It comes as the Ukrainians have gained momentum and the Russians, for now, are still in disarray.

American officials believe they have, so far, succeeded at “boiling the frog” — increasing their military, intelligence and economic assistance to Ukraine step by step, without provoking Moscow into large-scale retaliation with any major single move.

They say that Mr. Putin almost certainly would have pushed back hard if Washington had, at the outset of the war, provided Ukraine with the kind of support it is getting now, such as intelligence that has allowed Ukraine to kill Russian generals and target arms depots, tanks and Russian air defenses with precision-guided rocket attacks. Instead, the Americans believe their incremental strategy, and refusal to give Ukraine advanced weapons or aircraft that could reach deep into Russia, has put guardrails on the conflict.

But Mr. Putin has grown increasingly frustrated as his military struggles.

“We are, indeed, responding rather restrainedly, but that’s for the time being,” Mr. Putin said on Friday, after attending a regional summit in Uzbekistan. “If the situation continues to develop in this way, the answer will be more serious.”

The Biden Presidency

With midterm elections approaching, here’s where President Biden stands.

He claimed that Ukraine was trying to carry out “terrorist acts” in Russia, and described recent Russian cruise missile attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure as “warning strikes.”

The same day, speaking at an intelligence conference in Washington, the deputy director of the C.I.A., David S. Cohen, said Mr. Putin would be asking his military leaders “what has happened, why it is happening, what can we do to push back and to retain our position.”

“I don’t think we should underestimate Putin’s adherence to his original objective, which was to control Ukraine,” Mr. Cohen said. He added: “We should not underestimate his risk appetite.”

Colin H. Kahl, under secretary of defense for policy, said in a statement to The New York Times on Friday that “Ukraine’s success on the battlefield could cause Russia to feel backed into a corner, and that is something we must remain mindful of.”

But he said that while the United States is committed to providing Ukraine with the equipment it needs to counter Russian aggression, the Pentagon has assessed that Ukraine does not need the ATACMS for “targets that are directly relevant to the current fight.”

On Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans have expressed support for preventing the war in Ukraine from spilling into a wider conflict. But many lawmakers said the Biden administration was being overly cautious in denying Ukraine additional advanced weaponry.

Ukraine has called for much greater Western assistance, like fighter jets, tanks, and long-range missiles. Although Mr. Zelensky has asked for ATACMS, the Pentagon has instead provided thousands of satellite-guided rockets and 16 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers, or HIMARS, to fire them. Those rockets have struck more than 400 Russian ammunition depots, command posts and radars.

The HIMARS can carry six guided rockets at a time, each of which can strike targets nearly 50 miles away — a range that Pentagon officials say covers the vast majority of Ukraine’s intended targets. By comparison, a HIMARS launcher can carry only one of the larger ATACMS missiles at a time before needing to reload.

Critics say the military aid that the West has provided until now has been enough for Ukraine to stay in the fight but not to win.

Representative Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who serves on both the House intelligence and armed services committees, said the United States should send ATACMS to Ukraine.

“Sure, escalation remains a concern, and we have to be mindful of that threat,” said Mr. Crow, a former Army Ranger. “But I don’t think providing ATACMS is substantively escalatory. We need to provide what Ukraine needs to win.”

An increased flow of arms and advice now, said some former officials, is vital to help the Ukrainians capitalize on the counter offensive and survive the coming winter.

“We have a window of opportunity,” said Evelyn Farkas, the executive director of the McCain Institute and a former senior defense official during the Obama administration, speaking at an intelligence and security summit in Washington. “I worry that if we don’t provide the Ukrainians with the weapons they need to push back further, get more territory, they will not be strong enough at the negotiating table and the Russians may regroup.”

Some American officials express concern that the most dangerous moments are yet to come, even as Mr. Putin has avoided escalating the war in ways that have, at times, baffled Western officials.

He has made only limited attempts to destroy critical infrastructure or to target Ukrainian government buildings. He has not attacked the supply hubs outside Ukraine. While he has directed low-level cyberattacks against Ukrainian targets every week, they have been relatively unsophisticated, especially when compared to capabilities that Russia has shown it has, including in the SolarWinds attack on American government and commercial systems that was discovered just before Mr. Biden took office.

Some officials have expressed concern Mr. Putin could detonate a tactical nuclear weapon — perhaps in a demonstration blast over the Black Sea or Arctic Ocean, or in Ukrainian territory. But there is no evidence that he is moving those weapons, officials say, or preparing such a strike.

One senior intelligence official said there was a debate underway inside American intelligence agencies over whether Mr. Putin believes such a step would risk Russia’s alienation from the countries it needs most — especially China — or whether he is holding the option in reserve.

Mr. Biden addressed the issue directly in an interview with CBS for “60 Minutes,” scheduled for broadcast on Sunday, when he warned that turning to nuclear or other unconventional weapons would “change the face of war unlike anything since World War II,’’ an apparent reference to the American use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

“They’ll become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been,’’ Mr. Biden said, in an excerpt released by CBS. “And depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response would occur.”

That last statement appeared to refer to discussion inside the American defense community about how to respond to a demonstration blast — more akin to a nuclear test, though one conducted to warn of potential escalation — versus a strike on a populated part of Ukraine.

Mr. Putin, despite his early setbacks, appeared generally satisfied with how the war was going in recent months, content to give his army the time to make slow progress as it pummeled Ukrainian lines with a brutal artillery campaign.

But as he made clear on Friday, he is content no more. American officials say Moscow is even more ready to blame the United States for its troubles than it was earlier in the war.

“The disclosures that the U.S. intelligence is helping the Ukrainian side has shifted the Russian narrative even more to the message: We are fighting NATO now,” said Larissa Doroshenko, a researcher at Northeastern University.

There also are signs that Mr. Putin could be worried about his own political standing. Public criticism in Russia is on the rise in the aftermath of the counteroffensive. Commentators have, mostly, avoided any direct critique of Mr. Putin. But some academic experts see harsh assessments of the Russian military command as an implicit criticism of Mr. Putin.

The troubles facing Mr. Putin — from mounting criticism to the Ukrainian military strength — mean that his escalation calculus could change.

That has made the decision on longer-range weaponry particularly difficult.

The recent rhetoric out of Russia may well be designed to make the United States think twice about the ATACMS. The missiles would allow Ukraine to strike deeper into Russia or Crimea. Mr. Zelensky has vowed to take back the peninsula, and has carried out stunning attacks against Russian targets there in recent weeks.

Still, the missiles would not allow the Ukrainians to break the defensive lines that the Russians are trying now to rebuild. And some experts caution that they are unlikely to tip the balance in the war.

Throughout the war, U.S. intelligence has proved adept at learning Russian military plans, but its track record on Mr. Putin’s intentions is more mixed.

Intelligence officials have said publicly that Mr. Putin’s war aims remain the same from the beginning of the war — which include the removal of Mr. Zelensky.

In response to the recent setbacks, Mr. Putin could also consider some kind of additional military mobilization, according to U.S. officials. Mr. Putin has so far been unwilling to trigger a full mobilization. But military experts said he could call up more reservists, or men who have previously served in the military — which would be less politically fraught and could bring forces to the battlefield quicker.

What Mr. Putin decides to do could depend on his assessment of his own strength at home, how quickly he thinks Ukraine can regroup and attempt another counteroffensive — and what he can do to deter, rather than encourage, further American support.

>>> ad: Don't Miss Today's BEST Amazon Deals!
Originally Appeared Here

In a significant ruling involving lawsuits over “forever chemicals” in firefighting foam, a federal judge refused to grant summary judgment to 3M and other companies, based on a government-contractor defense.

Friday’s ruling allows lawsuits to move forward alleging aqueous film-forming foams made by 3M and others contained toxic chemicals, called perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or PFOA and PFOS, which contaminated local drinking water supplies.

>>> ad: Don't Miss Today's BEST Amazon Deals!
Originally Appeared Here