This article attempts contributing to the debate and discussing some aspects of the evolutionary preocesses and the search for new possible models by a few countries that are dissatisfied with the unipolar system and the world dominated by the United States. The United States has outstretched its political and economic interests around the world, China has similarly and strategically extended its tentacles across both the Atlantic and the Pacific. It has moved south conquering Africa, and intensifying commercial operations in the Central Asia regions including the former Soviet republics – the backyard of the Russian Federation. That however, Russia considered itself as a global power. While still struggling and raising shoulders, many experts say, it has little global influence and authoritarian compared to China.

Despite its large population of 1.5 billion which many have considered as an impediment, China’s domestic economic reforms and collaborative strategic diplomacy with external countries have made it attain superpower status over the United States. While United States influence is rapidly fading away, China has indeed taken up both the challenges and unique opportunities to strengthen its position, especially its trade, investment and economic muscles.

Monitoring mainstream news and information reports indicated that Russia has been teaming up with China and India (and that could be interpreted as BRICS platform initiative) and a few other external countries in the process of establishing a new global economic system. On the other hand, its aim is to break the unipolar system, and defeat American hegemony around the world. Some experts have argued that successive White House administrations have maintained the status quo. Due to socialist economic planning and their advancement of the notions of international cooperation and peace even among states with varying social systems, there has been tremendous progress in the areas of international solidarity.

The Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) grouping is a manifestation of the role of Beijing, Moscow and Pretoria along with the other states which have varied in regard to their political orientation in recent years. These new alliances are perceived as a threat to the role of the United States, Britain and the Europen Union since they are not participant-members and cannot directly impact the agendas and goals established by the BRICS.

But a careful study and analysis monitored by this author vividly show that Russia has some limitations. Its external economic footprints is comparatively weak. And its external policies are hardly promoting its economic models. The geopolitical reordering of the world cannot simply be achieved through war or challenging the West’s political influence in its various global domains. The economic component is possibly the most significant of the ongoing tug of war between Russia and its western detractors.

In the global South for instance, Russia is still struggling to win the hearts of leaders. It however needs an excellent broad public outreach policies to permeate the message of new global order, at least, to the middle class. It has to enlist the understanding of its aims using the communication tools in addition to its own diplomatic statements and globe-throttling juicy rhetoric. Russia has to invest in all these if it really wanted to succeed in leading the world.

As Dr. Ramzy Baroud, a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle, wrote recently “the Middle East, especially the Gulf region, is vital for the current global economic order and is equally critical for any future reshaping of that order. If Moscow is to succeed in redefining the role of Arab economies vis-à-vis the global economy, it would most likely succeed in ensuring that a multipolar economic world takes form. Russia is clearly invested in a new global economic system, but without isolating itself in the process.”

In the past few months, Russia exited many international organizations, instead of sustaining its membership and using those plaform to propagate its new global mission. Some experts and academics describe Russia making a desperate attempt at reversing the alarming trend in the world’s economic affairs. In order to win this battle, Russia needs a designed geopolitical outreach scheme and strategies for exert economic influence to match its dreams. It has rather gone into self-isolation, with much heavy-handed criticisms against the United States and Europe. 

With the rapid geopolitical changes leading to repartitioning and creating new global order, and Russia, over the course of the last decade, has been desirously strengthening its Greater Eurasian Union alongside with others, such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and BRICS. The Greater Eurasian Union focuses on the economic integration and supporting economic development among the members, and expected to build its structure and method of functions by replicating the European Union. 

The CSTO, a military alliance consisting of mostly the former Soviet republics (Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), and signed the Collective Security Treaty in 1992. Its primary task is to collectively depend the territorial sovereignty of these member states.

The BRICS member countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) collectively represent about 26% of the world’s geographic area and are home to 2.88 billion people, about 42% of the world’s population. Historically, the first meeting of the group began in St Petersburg in 2005. It was called RIC, which stood for Russia, India and China. Then, Brazil and subsequently South Africa joined later, which is why now it is referred to as BRICS.

South Africa was a late minor addition to the group, to add a “bridgehead to Africa” says Charles Robertson, Chief Economist at Renaissance Capital. All the BRICS countries are facing economic challenges that need addressing urgently. The BRICS is keenly aware of the importance of contributing to Africa’s development agenda. 

“So, it could expand because the BRICS are under-represented in the global financial architecture. Europe and the United States dominate institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and to some extent many others,” explained Robertson.

According to him, “Russia and others in the BRICS would like to see larger power centres emerge to offer an alternative to that Western dominated construct. That is reasonable enough – providing there are countries with the money to backstop the new institutions, such as China supporting the BRICS bank, and if the countries offer an alternative vision that provides benefits to new members.”

“Now is a very good time to show that BRICS members and relations between them are an alternative to the format existing in the West,” Executive Director at the Russian National Committee for BRICS Research, Professor Georgy Toloraya, told the Kommersant, a Russian daily business newspaper, adding that “BRICS favours order, compliance with agreements and development.”

Moreover, plans are in store to expand the group to include Argentina, Turkey, Indonesia and some other African countries. According to Toloraya, India is currently opposed to expanding BRICS fearing that new members will support China. On the other hand, Moscow argues that “the entrance ticket” to the group is independence and sovereignty, and under no circumstances, potential candidates be called China’s satellites.

There are not so many countries like that—they would include Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, Egypt and Iran. But then, there are certain political requirements for new members, including recognition of BRICS values and core foreign policy principles, he said, and added “initially, the goals and tasks were very modest, primarily focusing on the economy and the coordination of efforts toward attaining more ambitious goals.”

Understandably some leaders are advocating for multipolar system. Primarily due to geopolitical tensions, rivalry differences and competition to lead the world, Russia is currently pushing an initiative for creating a group. In June 2022, Russian State Duma (the lower house of parliament) Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin wrote on Telegram that the United States and its allies are destroying economic ties by their sanctions policy, but at the same time creating new points of growth in other countries.

“The move by Washington and its allies to cut the existing economic ties has created new points of growth in the world,” he pointed out. According to the parliament speaker, Western sanctions are leading to the establishment of another group of eight nations – China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Iran and Turkey – that is 24.4% ahead of the old group of developed countries in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and purchasing power parity.

“The United States, with its own hands, has created conditions for countries willing to build an equal dialogue and mutually beneficial relations to actually establish a new G8 group with Russia,” Volodin noted.

Understandably, there is a Group of Seven (G-7), an inter-governmental political forum, that includes highly developed countries. These are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. In addition, the European Union is a non-enumerated member. Its members are the world’s largest IMF advanced economies and wealthiest liberal democracies.

According to reports, the group is officially organized around shared values of pluralism and representative government. As of 2020, the collective group accounts for over 50 percent of global net wealth (which is US$418 trillion), 32 to 46 percent of global gross domestic product, and approximately 770 million people or 10 percent of the world’s population.

Its members are great powers in global affairs and maintain mutually close political, economic, social, legal, environmental, military, religious, cultural, and diplomatic relations. From 2022, Germany has taken over the rotating presidency of the G-7, following the presidency of the United Kingdom.

Russia dismembered itself from the group. This prompted the U.S. President Donald Trump’s reiteration that Russia should be readmitted to the group, instigation of a trade war with China, increased tensions in Iran, Trump’s alleged reluctance to attend the conference and a number of international crises made the 2019 G7 meeting in Biarritz, France the most divided since its inception. 

Following Trump’s previous rescinding of his signature to a joint communiqué agreed in 2018 due to an alleged slight from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, French President Emmanuel Macron agreed that the group would not issue a joint communiqué at the Biarritz conference. Since then, Russia has remained critical about the group, basing its argument that the G-7 has no relevance to exist as there the members meet at Group of Twenty (G-20).

Similarly to the above argument, if the establishment of another new Group of Eight nations – China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Iran and Turkey – and compared to BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, it follows that BRICS will have to be absorbed by the new Group of Eight organization, and thus pushing out South Africa. 

Lucio Blanco Pitlo III, a Research Fellow at the Asia-Pacific Pathways to Progress Foundation, argued that the already established BRICS may have better chances of enticing new members. The new members could be Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and Thailand that participated in recent consultations. 

In fact, UAE along with Bangladesh and Uruguay became the first expansion members of BRICS’ National Development Bank (NDB), last September. But the timing makes parties cautious. With no permanent secretariat and a fixed hub, at least the NDB fixed its headquarters in Shanghai, and further establish its regional offices in South Africa (Johannesburg).

As the world is facing massive challenges, it also requires international collaboration and cooperative solutions, importantly not to grossly endanger the economic prospects of poor and underdeveloped countries. Here live millions and millions of impoverished population.

Indonesia is hosting the G-20 summit in Bali this November and is doing its best to insulate the meeting from politics. Whether Indonesia is capable to arbitrate between angry clashing superpowers is simply unpredictable. The chances of a sudden rapprochement between the United States and China – let alone between the US and Russia – are exceedingly low.

Russia and China’s strategic alliance is strengthening and China has resisted so many attempts for excluding Russia from international organizations. Both are staunch members of BRICS. On the other hand, China’s push for expanding BRICS’s roster may alleviate external pressures on its relations with Russia and its own actions in disputed spaces with neighbours. 

The author of this article has contacted several experts on this question. But for Dr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, an Associate Professor at O. P. Jindal Global University in Sonipat, Haryana, China and India border conflict will continue influencing BRICS. However, India and China are cooperating to develop alternate financial structures, cohesive guidelines within Asia and the global south on many issues such as trade, investment and developing an understanding so that dominance of the of west could be reduced to a minimum in global financial architecture, he said and added, “the foundation of cooperation in BRICS brings potential resources and critical development requirements under one umbrella.”

Questions about the future of BRICS are bound to be there especially when a new world order is being discussed. Drawing insipration from Quad plus, BRICS countries are also discussing BRICS plus format. The formation of new grouping G-8 is primarily a fusion of BRICS and VISTA (Vietnam, Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey, Argentina). The formation is primarily to connect BRICS to middle income and middle power countries, according his explanation.

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Jha concluded his argument: “This geopolitical configuration is in exploratory phases, undoubtedly meant to bring a new axis of Russia-China but inclusion of Mexico , Indonesia and Turkey has its own strategic baggage. How much successful this grouping would be is still a matter a conjecture. From geopolitical point of view, much would depend on how sanctions on Russia shapes up and the post-coronavirus recovery of China.”

Professor Aslan Abashidze, Head of the Department of International Law of the Russian University of Peoples’ Friendship and Member of the Scientific Advisory Board under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained to the author of this article that in general, international associations in the form of international intergovernmental organizations or integration associations emerge on the basis of prerequisites that may be of a different nature: political, defensive, cultural, et cetera.  

The emergence of such “para-organizations” as the Group of Seven (G-7), Group of Eight (G-8), Group of Twenty (G-20) is associated with the inability of international institutions of the global level to meet the increased needs of modern development in the face of growing challenges in the form of pandemics, financial crisis et cetera.  

The invitation and then exclusion of Russia from the Group of Seven (G-7) and similar unilateral restrictive measures of the “collective” West headed by the United States control all institutions of global control, including the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Recontruction and Development, force other states that are not inferior in their raw material, human and intellectual potentials to the United States and the European Union to seek their own development path. 

Therefore, it does not matter whether BRICS, or the unification of China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Iran and Turkey, will be more viable or not. The main thing is that the process of searching for new models by the states dissatisfied with the United States policy has started, which means the end of the dominance of the United States in all spheres of international relations. At some point, the West, headed by the United States, will have to negotiate new models of international economic and other relations, based on new international treaties that ensure equality of all states. 

According to Professor Abashidze’s conclusion is that “until this is achieved at the global level, Russia, China and India will establish trade relations on national currencies and therefore it will be attractive and beneficial to other states, not only from the Asia-Pacific region, but also from Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.”  

Whether Russia, China and India and a number of countries, there are arguably variations in political, economic and cultural capabilities. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin last year explained in one of his speeches that after the collapse of the Soviet era, Russia has to begin from the scratch. It was the ideological confrontation between the West and the East that gave birth to Soviet era. Lenin spoke about the birthmarks of capitalism, he reminded, and added that “It cannot be said that we have lived these past 30 years in a full-fledged market economy. In fact, we are only gradually building it, and its institutions. Russia had to do it from the ground up, starting from a clean slate. Of course, we are doing this, taking into consideration, developments around the world. After all, after almost one hundred years of a state-planned economy, transitioning to a market economy is not easy.”

On other way round, it is necessary to take a closer look at approach, economic capability and the services by the Chinese. China has such a diverse landscape, with investment and trade around the world. According to the World Bank, China has the largest economy and one of the world’s foremost infrastructural giants. China is the world’s largest exporter and second-largest importer of goods.

China holds 17.7% of the world’s total wealth, the second largest share held by any country. It has the world’s largest banking sector, with assets of $40 trillion and the world’s top 4 largest banks all being in China. In 2019, China overtook the US as the home to the highest number of rich people in the world, according to the global wealth report by Credit Suisse. It has the highest number of rich people in the world’s top 10% of wealth since 2019. There were 658 Chinese billionaires and 3.5 million millionaires.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has expanded significantly over the last six years and, as of April 2020, includes 138 countries and 30 international organizations. Along with Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, China is a member of the BRICS group of emerging major economies.

Nearly all the experts contacted for this article have the arguable points. They acknowledged the fact that the countries seeking multipolar system have to address problems of the less developed world. In addition, judging from their lengthy discussions, one key factual description is given – the western dominance and imperial approach of the United States. These imperialist endeavors aimed at maintaining the political and economic domination of the world’s population has created enormous difficulties for peoples globally including the working class, nationally oppressed and impoverished living within the western capitalist countries.

The emerging new coalition group is feasible and coming up at the crucial time when over the last two decades, the United States, Britain, the European Union (EU) countries and their allies globally, have been embroiled in numerous imperialist interventions resulting in destabilization, military interventions, proxy wars and the expansion of western imperialism throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Related

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

Placeholder while article actions load

Two months after rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to help President Donald Trump stay in office, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, attended a gathering of right-wing activists where a speaker declared to roaring applause that Trump was still the “legitimate president,” a video recording of the event shows.

“There is a robbery that is going on in this country right now,” pastor and conservative radio personality C.L. Bryant told the crowd, according to video posted to Facebook by an attendee. “In fact, I say it to you and I’ll say it loud and clear, and I’m not ashamed to say it. I won’t bite my tongue. I do believe that Donald John Trump is the only legitimate president.”

The event on March 6, 2021, was a meeting of Frontliners for Liberty. The group vaulted from obscurity to national attention last week with the disclosure that Thomas had invited pro-Trump lawyer John Eastman to speak to its members in December 2020.

The revelation, originating from emails that a judge ordered Eastman to turn over to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, showed that Thomas was in contact with Eastman, a key legal architect of the attempt to subvert the election. The judge, David O. Carter of the Central District of California, wrote in a June 7 opinion that the emails, including two in which the group’s “high-profile leader” invited Eastman to speak — were relevant to the committee’s work.

While text messages and emails unearthed in recent weeks have shown that Thomas was involved in those efforts before Jan. 6, her attendance at the Orlando gathering indicates that her alliance with election deniers continued even after Joe Biden was inaugurated. Frontliners has hosted hard-right lawmakers, insisted on strict secrecy and proclaimed that the nation’s top enemy is the “radical fascist left,” according to social media posts, court filings and interviews with several people involved in the group.

One photograph from the Orlando event shows Bryant posing with Thomas. Others show Thomas wearing a name tag decorated with a yellow ribbon she and others wore saying “Trouble Maker.”

Thomas did not respond to messages seeking comment. Bryant also did not respond to a request for comment.

Thomas’s role in Frontliners was confirmed Thursday, when Eastman published an email in which she invited him to speak to the group on Dec. 8, 2020. The email was one of many Eastman had sought to shield related to the group, which was not identified in court filings. Eastman argued that releasing them to the committee would violate participants’ First Amendment rights.

The group said it operated in what was understood to be a “cone of silence,’” Eastman wrote in a May filing. He quoted an email he had received from the group as saying, “We are careful about who is on the phone and who is in the room and we do not leak what happens, what is said or who is in the meeting — ever!”

Eastman on Thursday downplayed the significance of the invitation, writing that Thomas had asked him to give an “update about election litigation to a group she met with periodically.” He wrote that he did not discuss “any matters pending or likely to come before the court” with Thomas or her husband.

The committee has not released any Frontliners emails. It has requested an interview with Thomas and asked her to turn over communications with a range of people, including pro-Trump lawyers, members of Congress and Justice Department employees. Thomas told the conservative Daily Caller last week that she looks forward to meeting with the committee and “can’t wait to clear up misconceptions.”

Revelations about Thomas’s activities have highlighted potential conflicts of interest that her husband faces in deciding cases about the 2020 election and attempts to subvert it. Clarence Thomas has not recused himself from any of those cases — including one in January in which he was the lone justice to back a request from Trump to block the release of White House documents related to Jan. 6.

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not respond to questions for Clarence Thomas.

Ginni Thomas has said she keeps her work separate from her husband’s.

Members described Frontliners for Liberty as a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists. The conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks provides significant institutional support, including briefing the group’s members and hosting “fly-ins,” when members convene in person, according to former New Mexico lawmaker Janice Arnold-Jones and a second person familiar with Frontliners’ operations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on behalf of the group.

FreedomWorks “partners with” Frontliners, but the two are separate entities, FreedomWorks spokesman Peter Vicenzi wrote in emails to The Washington Post.

“Ginni Thomas, for years, has been an invaluable ally to our activist community when it comes to engaging on shared issues,” Vicenzi wrote. “Thomas herself has been a steadfast conservative activist and FreedomWorks is proud to work with her.”

In her email invitation to Eastman, Thomas copied another recipient and said that person — whose name was redacted — was assisting with meeting arrangements because “I am on sabbatical until this election stuff is resolved.” It is not clear how her role on sabbatical differed from what it had been previously.

Arnold-Jones told the The Post that Thomas was not the group’s sole leader. “It is more spread out than that,” she said in an interview. “She’s part of it. Occasionally, we see Ginni.”

Arnold-Jones said the group maintains strict confidentiality, “so people can say what they need to say.” She said the group serves a critical networking function, connecting activists across states to lawmakers and other decision-makers. But such details are shared discreetly, she said. “When the information is shared, they don’t send out a big old letter that says, ‘Here’s their phone number.’ ”

Frontliners for Liberty does not have a web presence except for a private Facebook group of about 50 people that was established in August 2020 and administered by Ginni Thomas and Stephanie Miller Coleman, the widow of one of Clarence Thomas’s former clerks. Coleman did not respond to a request seeking comment.

The Post viewed the public-facing description of the Facebook group last week. It has since been removed from public view. The group was described as “a new collaborative, liberty-focused, action-oriented group of state leaders representing grassroots armies to CONNECT, INFORM and ACTIVATE each other weekly to preserve constitutional governance.”

The banner at the top of the page read: “The enemy of America … is the radical fascist left.”

Coleman’s personal Facebook page featured pictures of herself with Ginni and Clarence Thomas and other high-profile Washington figures, including Trump’s former White House strategist, Stephen K. Bannon. In a 2015 photo, Coleman poses with Ginni Thomas, who is wearing a pin that says “I [heart] my husband” and a name tag identifying the event they were attending as “Thomas Clerk World Retreat.”

Clarence Thomas’s former clerks communicate on an email list known as Thomas Clerk World, The Post has previously reported. In the weeks after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Ginni Thomas apologized to those on the email list for a rift that developed among them after her pro-Trump advocacy and endorsement of his Jan. 6 rally. Eastman is a former Thomas clerk.

Since The Post viewed Coleman’s photographs last week, she made most of her Facebook page private.

During his speech at the March gathering in Orlando, Bryant said the nation is embroiled in “spiritual warfare” and urged attendees to “stand and defend this republic.” He decried changing definitions of marriage, family and gender, and he returned repeatedly to the notion that the presidency had been stolen.

“It was a theft, I tell you. It was the greatest theft that America has ever experienced. But yet here we sit, with a person in the White House who is fraudulently there,” Bryant said. “My friends, you must not be afraid to say it. You must not be afraid to speak it.”

Bryant, urging the crowd to action, asked: “What are you prepared to do?” He added: “I believe Ginni asked this question. Are we just going to leave here with the rah rah, go on about our business? … When you leave here tonight, what are you prepared to do?”

It is not clear whether he was referring to Ginni Thomas. Photographs from the event show her speaking with a microphone at an outdoor gathering.

The video was posted on the Facebook account belonging to John Di Lemme, a podcast host and founder of the Conservative Business Journal.

Di Lemme told The Post that he is not associated with Frontliners but heard Bryant’s speech after he and his wife dropped by to have lunch and dinner with a friend who was attending the meeting.

Attendees at the Orlando gathering included a wide range of FreedomWorks staff, from a grass-roots organizer who later pleaded guilty to unlawfully demonstrating in the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot to senior economist Stephen Moore, who was tapped by Trump for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board but withdrew from consideration following bipartisan criticism of his comments about women.

Other attendees included former state lawmakers, political candidates and conservative activists such as Ron Armstrong, a Michigan businessman who rose to national prominence for leading protests against coronavirus restrictions, and Brian Camenker, president of MassResistance, which has been designated as an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Moore said he delivers remarks at many such events and didn’t remember details about the group.

Armstrong told The Post he recalled Thomas giving welcome remarks in Orlando because she’s “obviously someone people care about and would want to say hello or welcome.” He said Frontliners brings together activists on a range of issues and has no central organizational structure. The Post located no corporate records for the group.

“Frontliners isn’t anything,” he said. “All that is is a group of people that coalesce around messages and causes and make sure we’re working together.”

Camenker did not respond to a request for comment.

Susan Voyles, a longtime conservative activist in Georgia, said she attended the March conference in her capacity as president of the Georgia chapter of the conservative Eagle Forum and saw Thomas there. Voyles said the meeting was focused primarily on education issues highlighted by the pandemic.

In August, several months after the Orlando gathering, Armstrong posted to Facebook a letter from the Michigan Frontliners for Freedom Group to state legislators demanding a “forensic audit” of the 2020 election. Armstrong said the state group is distinct from the national collective.

A Frontliners event in October featured an appearance by Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.), one of the leading election deniers in Congress, according to a photograph he posted to Twitter. Merissa Hamilton, identified as a FreedomWorks grass-roots director on LinkedIn, tweeted another photo on the same day, apparently from the same event. It included an image of three other Republican members of Congress who played key roles in pushing falsehoods about the 2020 election: Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (Colo.).

“Congressman @replouiegohmert, Congresswoman @mtgreenee, and Congresswoman @laurenboebert at @FreedomWorks Frontliners for Liberty,” the tweet read, according to a version preserved by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

Hamilton did not respond to a request for comment, and neither did spokespeople for Gosar, Gohmert, Greene and Boebert.

Alice Crites, Amy Gardner and Carol Leonnig contributed to this report.

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

To the editor: Harry Litman believes in the need for society to repudiate the “Big Lie”, but his column mainly discusses criminal prosecution of former President Trump.

How would a trial help turn deniers towards the truth? The Big Liars would only dig in deeper with a larger stage.

I think President Biden should preemptively pardon Trump. A pardon is an olive branch that also presupposes Trump’s guilt. The Big Lie should be left alone to fall on the feebleness of its own legs.

We should let Biden, not Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland, shepherd the best interests of the country, and like it or not that might mean a pardon.

Robert Fox, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Recall that 48 years ago, former President Richard Nixon was pardoned after the Watergate scandal, which denied the country closure for his crimes and their attempted coverup.

As a result, many still see Nixon as a great president. He thus became a role model for Trump and his henchman Roger Stone. It proved that some in our country are indeed “above the law.”

Nixon’s pardon left an open door for future scoundrels in high office to break the law and evade accountability. Perhaps, had Nixon been indicted and tried, it would have given pause to Trump and his advisors before they planned their insurrection.

Alfred Sils, Woodland Hills

..

To the editor: Litman says there is enough evidence to criminally prosecute Trump based on what appear to be the many crimes uncovered by the House Jan. 6 committee.

To be sure, Trump attempted a coup, inspired an insurrection and attempted to thwart the constitutional duties of Congress.

However, the “Big Lie” has created the “big divide” that is not going away anytime soon. A criminal prosecution of Trump would only inflame his base to more bad action. Having established the record, Congress can be certain of history’s judgment and hopefully of the electorate’s as well.

Meanwhile, a tax evasion trial in New York would be perfect.

Bill Robinson, San Clemente

..

To the editor: As bad as Jan. 6, 2021 was, even worse is the fact that about a third of the American people don’t care and might even embrace the coup.

Citizens of many other countries have blindly and passionately supported grossly immoral and despotic leaders, and now it’s happening to us. It is truly a time for prayer.

Linda Mele Johnson, Long Beach

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

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is drafting plans to drop off migrants in American towns hours past the U.S.-Mexico border, Republican lawmakers say.

The potential policy is one way DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is seeking to ease the influx of migrants to U.S. border towns, according to a report from the New York Post. Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, sent a letter to Mayorkas expressing his concern about the government sending waves of migrants to San Angelo, Texas, a town he represents.

“San Angelo is a welcoming community, but the locality has not volunteered for this mission, nor are they responsible for the burdens of the border crisis,” Pfluger wrote in the letter.

“This situation is a direct result of DHS’ shortsighted policies that encourage more illegal immigration and the agency’s failure to establish operational control of the southern border,” he added.

BORDER PATROL ARRESTS OF MIGRANTS ON TERROR WATCH LIST AT SOUTHERN BORDER SPIKE UNDER BIDEN

Pfluger added that he only found out about the DHS plans after local law enforcement in San Angelo informed him.

MIGRANT ENCOUNTERS AT SOUTHERN BORDER HIT NEW RECORD IN MAY AS NUMBERS KEEP RISING

The potential bus campaign comes months after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sent busses of migrants to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. in protest against the Biden administration’s immigration policies.

“Texans demand and deserve an aggressive, comprehensive strategy to secure our border—not President Biden’s lackluster leadership,” Abbott said in a statement at the time. “As the federal government continues to roll back commonsense policies that once kept our communities safe, our local law enforcement has stepped up to protect Texans from dangerous criminals, deadly drugs, and illegal contraband flooding into the Lone Star State.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

To date, Abbott has sent roughly 65 busses of migrants to the U.S. capital, amounting to more than 2,000 people.

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

KYIV, Ukraine — 

U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink said she set out five immediate goals upon her return to Kyiv in a discussion with VOA this week in Kyiv.

Brink, who was confirmed as ambassador to Ukraine in May, discussed U.S. support for Ukraine, priorities and the challenges amid Russia’s ongoing invasion with VOA Eastern Europe Bureau Chief Myroslava Gongadze.

She said she set five immediate goals in reopening the U.S. Embassy in May, from helping Ukraine defend itself to reopening the embassy.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

VOA: Can you tell us how you came here during a time of war? And what are the challenges right now in front of this country and in front of the United States supporting this country?

U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink: I can’t tell you how proud I am to be here and to be back as the U.S. ambassador and to be working with a fantastic team of Americans and Ukrainian staff, so the challenges in front of Ukraine and us are enormous.

When I came I, I set out five goals, immediate goals that we had, and the first is to help Ukraine defend itself. The second is to help ensure accountability and justice for war crimes and atrocities.

The third is to help ensure that humanitarian assistance, especially U.S.-funded assistance, gets to targeted recipients, especially in conflict zones. The fourth is to oversee this massive amount of U.S. assistance and to provide the appropriate oversight from here at post in Kyiv.

And the last and the most fun is to bring our team back together, the Americans and the Ukrainian that make up the embassy and to rebuild our platform. So yes, the challenges in front of Ukraine are very big and in front of all of us, but we are really determined and ready to meet them.

VOA: President (Joe) Biden yesterday announced the additional funding for Ukraine. The United States have been the biggest supporter of Ukraine militarily and financially. You mentioned overseeing how the money is used in this country. What kind of system do you have right now to oversee the money?

Brink: So, there are long-established systems for all of the assistance that we give, including security assistance. And what we’re doing now is just making sure … we are playing the appropriate role we need to play here in Kyiv but working with the Ministry of Defense and other parts of the Ukrainian government, so it’s important for that. We’re here for that and other reasons. But I’m confident that we will be able to do this.

VOA: Is there any special envoy to oversee the support that the United States is giving to Ukraine?

Brink: The way we are doing it is that we’ll have our embassy — and so, I’m really happy to be here as the ambassador — and then I will have specific staff and including senior staff that are dedicated to these goals, and more.

VOA: And (Ukrainian) President (Volodymyr) Zelenskyy kind of hinted that the United States is not giving enough or is giving too late. How would you comment on his position?

Brink: Well, I would say that since the beginning of the war and even before, we have been totally focused on getting Ukraine the security items in the weapons that they need as soon as possible. And this is actually my number one focus in coming here. I do think that there were some problems early on, and I’m just here to make sure that everything that we are doing is directly supporting Ukrainians on the front lines and also helping Ukraine improve its battlefield position, which we also believe will help its negotiating position at a time when that is appropriate.

VOA: How is your relationship with the Ukrainian government right now? Do you work on all the levels of Ukrainian government?

Brink: Yes, I think one of the things that I’ve noticed more than anything having been a diplomat for 25 years is the overwhelming and positive support that I have received from the government, from people outside of government, from the population, and also the support from back home, including the public in my part of the Midwest.

So, I’m really grateful for that. … I think we understand this is incredibly important for Ukraine and Ukraine’s future in existence, but I believe it’s also incredibly important to European security and to the United States that we do not allow borders to be changed by force.

VOA: How do you generally see this war? And there’s different tactics and different strategies that the United States and other Western countries are using, and, obviously, the United States is taking leadership in building this coalition against Russia. However, Ukrainians are suffering, and as the war is prolonged, how do you see it ending? Do you see a possible peace negotiation?

Brink: Well, (U.S.) Secretary (of State Antony) Blinken has said we are leaving it up to the Ukrainians as to at what time Ukraine would want to negotiate at the conclusion of the war. I know that President Biden has pointed out how President Zelenskyy has said all wars end in negotiation. But again, we’re leaving that timing and content up to the Ukrainians.

VOA: What are the United States’ expectations from Ukraine at this point? Before the war, there were talks about the anti-corruption efforts and so on. What are they looking for?

Brink: I might put it a little different way. I think those of us who are such strong supporters within the U.S. government, within the American population, for Ukraine, support Ukraine because we see, or we think we see, and understand the future that Ukrainians want. And that is a future where Ukraine is free, independent, prosperous, sovereign and gets to decide its own future. To us, as Americans, it really appeals to also who we are. So, what I would hope, what I plan to do and what we are doing is supporting Ukraine in this immediate task of prevailing in its effort to defend itself that is crucially important. I think everybody would agree. And I think the government here and the people here would agree that another important task is and will be and will remain the reform effort, which will secure Ukraine for a future for Ukrainian children and their children.

VOA: And this war is not only about Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for a bigger goal, for democracy. Is Ukraine fighting for European values as well? If Ukraine fell, what could be the consequences?

Brink: Well, Ukraine won’t fail, and we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. And as I mentioned, this is obviously very important to Ukraine, and it’s also really important to European security. It’s really important to America, because, as President Biden has said, it’s both morally outrageous what has happened, this unprovoked, unjustified attack on a sovereign nation. But it also is in America’s vital interest to have peace and security in Europe. So, this is something that has repercussions that go well beyond Ukraine. And for this reason, we all understand very much what’s at stake. And that’s why we’re here to help Ukraine prevail.

VOA: And one more question about the rebuilding efforts in Ukraine. How do you see this process going forward? And do you already have a set coalition to do that?

Brink: Well, I know there’s a conference that’s coming up in Lugano (Switzerland) in July to talk about this process. I believe that my government in my country will want to support Ukraine in every way possible. I think we will also want Ukraine to take the lead in terms of how best to do that reconstruction. And from what I hear from the government leadership, it’s very focused on reform. Focused on building the Ukraine for the future, which I think is something we all can support.

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