I am the FIRST!!!
regular 4 post ff
infinite scroll 4 pff
Aug. 21, 2020 12:11AM EST
Trump administration pushes for election-year nuclear arms accord with Russia
Negotiations resumed in Vienna this week on a top Trump priority and potential election year twist: a U.S.-Russia nuclear agreement.
Why it matters: In the next several months, President Trump and Vladimir Putin could either sign a framework for the future of arms control or put the last major treaty constraining the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals on course for expiration in February.
- Trump has had a striking number of calls with Putin recently, and speaks often of wanting to avoid an "arms race."
What they’re saying: The man tasked with delivering a deal, U.S. arms control envoy Marshall Billingslea, spoke with Axios shortly after returning from Vienna.
- Billingslea presented Russia with America's conditions for a deal, based on a “clear mandate” from Trump.
- Now, Billingslea says, “the ball is in Russia’s court.”
The big picture: The Russians want to extend the 2011 New START treaty. The Trump administration is "ambivalent" its looming expiration, Billingslea says, but will agree to an extension if Russia signs onto its ambitious framework for a future nuclear treaty.
- That treaty must enable more stringent inspections and, unlike past treaties, cover all nuclear weapons, including Russia’s new shorter-range systems.
- Crucially, in Billingslea’s view, it must constrain China, which is currently building up its far smaller arsenal.
- “The New START treaty is the last nuclear arms accord that can be conducted with the Cold War, bipolar mindset,” Billingslea says. “That approach is no longer applicable in a world where the Chinese Communist Party is arms racing.”
Data: Federation of American Scientists; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios
Driving the news: The Trump administration has abandoned its demand that China be involved in any nuclear talks. It's now aiming to reach a political accord with Russia, and then pressure China to join talks and eventually a treaty.
- “There has been a shift,” Billingslea acknowledges.
- It's been driven in part by Trump’s conversations with Putin, and perhaps by his desire for a nuclear summit before November — something national security adviser Robert O’Brien recently confirmed was a possibility.
Where things stand: Any deal appears a long way off. While Billingslea says the only question is "political will in Moscow," his Russian counterpart says the sides' priorities "differ significantly.”
- For one thing, Russia wants France and the U.K. involved in future multilateral talks, not just China.
- Billingslea also confirms that Russia raised “a range of issues with U.S. capabilities” in Vienna, but says Moscow's non-nuclear concerns — missile defense, NATO activities — aren't on the table for this particular deal.
What to watch: The Russians will likely come back with counterproposals, says Rose Gottemoeller, who served as the lead U.S. negotiator on New START.
- There can be complications on the U.S. side as well. Gottemoeller notes that the Air Force and Navy both expressed concerns during the New START process about allowing inspectors the sort of access Billingslea seems to be proposing.
- And while Billingslea says he'll only bring a good agreement back to Trump, it's clear the president wants a deal. “At some point, Trump might just say, 'get it done, you don’t have any more time,’” Gottemoeller says.
Worth noting: Joe Biden has said he'd extend New START if elected. Billingslea says that's no surprise, and he denies that it weakens his negotiating position.
- Any future administration will have to face the same reality, he says: “China is surging … and a bilateral nuclear arms accord does nothing to tackle that problem.”
Go deeper: The arms control era may be ending
Keep reading...Show less
Aug. 18, 2021 08:02PM EST
Exclusive: Inside the White House scramble to protect Afghan allies
The Biden administration was scrambling to clear a backlog of thousands of Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applications to the U.S. that had piled up in Afghanistan for a year after in-person interviews with applicants were suspended.
The big picture: They felt they were starting to make some progress — until Kabul suddenly fell — two senior officials familiar with the situation tell Axios.
Driving the news: These officials' accounts of the bureaucratic, national security and health-related obstacles involved in protecting some of the most vulnerable and deserving Afghans may serve as a preview of testimony to come, as lawmakers and the American people demand answers about the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Why it matters: A years-long operation to protect people who'd worked with U.S. troops over two decades instantly morphed into a frantic and massive airlift operation, with thousands of Afghans still in limbo.
- It's leaving many vulnerable to torture or death by the Taliban and has called into question the reliability of American commitments.
Behind the scenes: The two officials, who spoke with Axios on condition of anonymity, said that in-person interviews — a crucial step in the visa application process — were suspended at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in March of 2020 under the Trump administration due to COVID-19 protocols.
- They said they were resumed in Biden's second week in office.
"Alarmed" was the emotion one of the officials used to describe the feeling when they found that "there was no plan from the Trump administration on how to move Afghan civilians out of the country, even though they had committed to leaving the country by May 1. So we began building one from scratch."
- The National Security Council held dozens of inter-agency meetings throughout the spring to figure out how to improve the SIV program. The administration worked with Congress to simplify a 14-step application process. And officials doubled the number of officials in Kabul handling the visa applications.
- By May, they had cut the average time for SIV approval — from more than two years to less than one year — but with Biden calling for withdrawal by Aug. 31 the math still didn't work.
A fresh coronavirus outbreak in the Kabul Embassy halted in-person interviews again for three weeks at the end of June.
- The State Department eventually managed to carry out virtual interviews.
What's next: The next steps for Afghan SIV applicants who are able to reach the airport in Kabul will depend on where they fall in the application process. Those who have not yet been interviewed will likely be sent to third countries like Qatar or Albania, one of the officials said.
- There are around 20,000 Afghans in the SIV pipeline. Around 2,000 people, including applicants and their families, have already been brought to the U.S., and an additional 800 will arrive in the coming days, State Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman said in a Wednesday briefing.
The bottom line: The SIV process was not designed for a mass evacuation of thousands of people at a time.
- Even though the U.S. has secured the airport in Kabul and resumed evacuation flights, it is still a dangerous journey for those who are not yet at the airport or in the city.
- In order for Afghans who don't qualify for the SIV program to attain prioritized refugee status and be resettled in the U.S. they have to manage to leave Afghanistan — a difficult feat with the Taliban controlling land borders.
What to watch: 831 applications were approved in the first week in August, up from 100 per week in March, one official said.
- But the embassy was forced to close, injecting even more chaos into the process as the U.S. determines who is and is not eligible to board a flight out from Hamid Karzai International Airport.
Go deeper: How Kabul fell so fast
Keep reading...Show less
Dec. 08, 2024 10:04PM EST



