foreignpolicy--2020-02-06--Europe’s Post-Brexit Future Is Looking Scary

Elvis has left the building , and Britain has left the European Union .
Although a few pundits claimed it would never actually occur , Brexit did in fact happen .
The full ramifications won ’ t be known for some time , but the EU slogan of “ ever-deeper union ” clearly took a hit on Jan. 31 .
This setback is the latest in a series of body blows that the EU has endured over the past two decades .
The first was the Balkan Wars of the 1990s , where the EU proved unable to handle the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The next blow was the protracted eurozone crisis , which led to severe economic hardships in several countries , fueled considerable resentment between creditor and debtor nations , and ate up vast amounts of time and political capital .
The third was the 2015 refugee crisis , which exposed deep divisions within the EU and gave far-right nationalist movements and illiberal leaders like Hungary ’ s Viktor Orban a major boost .
Brexit came next , followed by U.S. President Donald Trump , whose hostility to the EU and repeated threats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European capitals .
Past U.S. presidents have complained that NATO members weren ’ t pulling their weight , but none of them ever made a credible threat to actually withdraw from the alliance .
Trump is different : nobody in Europe is completely sure he won ’ t get up some morning and decide to take the United States out of NATO .
For those of us who admire the values the European Union stands for and its many achievements over the years , these developments are deeply disheartening .
For an eloquent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the columnist Roger Cohen ’ s eulogy here .
But I fear the problems Europe is facing go far beyond Britain ’ s decision to leave and raise serious questions about Europe ’ s future role in world politics .
They also cast further doubts about the future of trans-Atlantic relations .
The problem is inherently structural : Apart from trade negotiations , where the EU generally speaks with one voice , the bloc is neither designed for nor capable of producing a united policy on major strategic questions and backing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vast oceans of ink have been spilled describing the desirability of a “ common foreign and security policy , ” and the EU has tried to manufacture the appearance of unity by creating a quasi-foreign ministry ( the European External Action Service ) and appointing a high representative for foreign affairs as its supposedly official voice .
But at the end of the day , the member states have jealously guarded their own foreign-policy prerogatives and declined to equip the External Action Service or the high representative with the capacity to do much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When it comes to foreign policy—and especially national security policy—Europe today remains a collection of sovereign states whose interests often diverge , and that lack the hard power that is often needed to get things done .
Take the question of Iran .
The Trump administration foolishly walked away from the multilateral deal that had successfully capped Iran ’ s nuclear program , a decision that the European signatories failed to dissuade Trump from taking .
They knew it was a blunder , and they made a few feeble attempts to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States threatened to impose secondary sanctions on European firms or banks doing business with Iran , the proud nations of Europe promptly caved .
This sort of bullying may eventually persuade any number of countries to create alternatives to the dollar-dominated financial order , but in the short term , the United States had the leverage , and bullying worked .
Or take the continuing civil war in Libya .
Because Libya is an important transit point for migrants and refugees trying to get to Europe from various parts of Africa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem for Europe .
That is why German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently convened a summit meeting in Berlin to devise a cease-fire among the warring factions in Libya .
The summit produced an agreement that promptly broke down , as such agreements often do .
The underlying problem , however , is that neither Germany nor anyone else in Europe has the capacity to enforce any agreement that might be reached in the future , or even much leverage over the warring parties .
To the extent that outside powers have any sway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia and Turkey and several Gulf states , not the EU or any of its members .
Then there ’ s Europe ’ s policy toward Russia .
French President Emmanuel Macron is increasingly worried about China , and he seems to want to mend fences with Moscow to wean it away from Beijing .
This is sound geopolitics from France ’ s perspective but anathema to Poland and some nations in Eastern Europe .
How can Europe have a “ common foreign and security policy ” when it can ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important neighbor ?
Alas , Europe ’ s problems are bigger than just these conflicts of interest .
Europe is also facing a long-term demographic crisis , the full impact of which is still not fully appreciated .
It is now the world ’ s oldest continent , with a median age close to 45 , and its working-age population is projected to decline by some 50 million people by 2035 .
In the east , this problem has been compounded by emigration , with young people heading elsewhere in search of economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its population since 2013 , and Bulgaria ’ s current population is projected to drop by 23 percent by 2050 .
Fewer young people means slower economic growth , which means fewer economic opportunities , which in turn encourages more emigration , while an increasingly older population imposes greater health care burdens on societies whose economies are less and less productive .
Older populations also tend to be more religious , more sympathetic to nationalist appeals , and less committed to the EU ’ s liberal ideals , creating further troubles for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one solution to Europe ’ s demographic crisis would be to encourage greater immigration from abroad .
But as the 2015 refugee crisis suggests , bringing in even small numbers of immigrants can have unpredictable political consequences .
Given the difficulties that European nations have had in assimilating immigrants in the past , and the clear opposition to it from xenophobic nationalists , it is hard to see this as an easy fix .
Bottom line : Although Europe remains a wealthy continent with a large , mostly integrated market , its overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years to come .
The core problem , however , is that Europe thought it could transcend power politics , build a thriving liberal society , and get away without an independent European approach to world affairs .
During the Cold War , the limitations of this approach were masked by the overwhelming role of the United States : The EU didn ’ t need a comprehensive or coherent foreign policy , because security issues were handled by NATO , and the United States ran the show .
Even so , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capable military forces of their own , as part of NATO ’ s collective effort to deter Soviet aggression in Europe .
When the Cold War ended , however , Europeans quickly decided that civilian power would be sufficient ( and maybe even superior ) to the hard power that Americans prized .
Germany had more than 500,000 well-equipped soldiers in its armed forces in 1985 ; it has only 180,000 less-than-well-armed troops today .
If Americans erred by assuming that complex world problems could be solved either by blowing things up or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europeans mistakenly concluded that diplomacy and law were enough and that hard power wasn ’ t necessary .
Although this idealistic formula left Europeans vulnerable to the consequences of U.S. mistakes ( see under : Iraq ) , it was sustainable as long as Washington was still willing to be on the front lines of European defense .
It is increasingly untenable , however , because the United States ’ strategic attention has shifted away from Europe , and it is not going to shift back .
And the problem isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Europe is no longer , so to say , at the center of world events .
The United States ’ focus on Europe is declining—that will be the case under any president.
” Her solution is “ more Europe ” —progress toward banking union , efforts to catch up in digital technology , renewed initiatives to streamline decisions in Brussels , etc .
But these and other reforms will not solve the fundamental problem : None of Europe ’ s separate states are true great powers anymore , and their relative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age and shrink .
A truly united Europe would be a formidable agglomeration , but the EU is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to developing either a unified foreign-policy vision or acquiring the capabilities needed to stand up to strong powers or to shape events in Europe ’ s immediate vicinity .
As for trans-Atlantic relations , the result is something of a paradox .
As long as Europe remains divided and punching below its weight , Americans will take it for granted , bully it when they are so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to contribute to its security .
If Europe were to shake off its malaise and become more capable , Washington would no doubt see it as a more valuable partner , but in that case Europe wouldn ’ t need much if any U.S. protection .
In other words , a weak , increasingly elderly , and politically divided Europe isn ’ t worth spending much time or effort to protect , and strong , vibrant , and cohesive Europe might be well worth defending but won ’ t need U.S. help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to be upbeat about the future of the trans-Atlantic partnership .
Unless , as I ’ ve argued before , Europe and the United States fashion a new trans-Atlantic bargain over China .
Europe would agree to take primary responsibility for its own security , with the United States remaining formally in NATO as defender of last resort but not as first responder .
This arrangement would leave the United States free to focus on Asia as the balance of world power shifts in that direction .
In exchange , Europe would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vis-à-vis China and , in particular , to deny China easy access to advanced technologies or other capabilities that might have significant national security implications .
Neutrality is not an option : If Sino-American competition heats up and Europe tries to remain aloof , Americans will rightly conclude that NATO has outlived its usefulness and pull out .
Whether Europe accepts the terms of this new trans-Atlantic bargain will be up to the EU , although its decision will undoubtedly be affected by how Washington and Beijing behave in the years ahead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can not imagine any other way to keep the trans-Atlantic partnership together over the longer term .

Elvis has left the building, and Britain has left the European Union. Although a few pundits claimed it would never actually occur, Brexit did in fact happen. The full ramifications won’t be known for some time, but the EU slogan of “ever-deeper union” clearly took a hit on Jan. 31.
Elvis has left the building, and Britain has left the European Union. Although a few pundits claimed it would never actually occur, Brexit did in fact happen. The full ramifications won’t be known for some time, but the EU slogan of “ever-deeper union” clearly took a hit on Jan. 31.
This setback is the latest in a series of body blows that the EU has endured over the past two decades. The first was the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, where the EU proved unable to handle the conflict without calling in the United States. The next blow was the protracted eurozone crisis, which led to severe economic hardships in several countries, fueled considerable resentment between creditor and debtor nations, and ate up vast amounts of time and political capital. The third was the 2015 refugee crisis, which exposed deep divisions within the EU and gave far-right nationalist movements and illiberal leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orban a major boost.
Brexit came next, followed by U.S. President Donald Trump, whose hostility to the EU and repeated threats to leave NATO have sent shock waves through European capitals. Past U.S. presidents have complained that NATO members weren’t pulling their weight, but none of them ever made a credible threat to actually withdraw from the alliance. Trump is different: nobody in Europe is completely sure he won’t get up some morning and decide to take the United States out of NATO.
For those of us who admire the values the European Union stands for and its many achievements over the years, these developments are deeply disheartening. For an eloquent but gloomy reflection along these lines, see the columnist Roger Cohen’s eulogy here. But I fear the problems Europe is facing go far beyond Britain’s decision to leave and raise serious questions about Europe’s future role in world politics. They also cast further doubts about the future of trans-Atlantic relations.
The problem is inherently structural: Apart from trade negotiations, where the EU generally speaks with one voice, the bloc is neither designed for nor capable of producing a united policy on major strategic questions and backing that policy up with the requisite capabilities. Vast oceans of ink have been spilled describing the desirability of a “common foreign and security policy,” and the EU has tried to manufacture the appearance of unity by creating a quasi-foreign ministry (the European External Action Service) and appointing a high representative for foreign affairs as its supposedly official voice. But at the end of the day, the member states have jealously guarded their own foreign-policy prerogatives and declined to equip the External Action Service or the high representative with the capacity to do much more than hold meetings and make speeches. When it comes to foreign policy—and especially national security policy—Europe today remains a collection of sovereign states whose interests often diverge, and that lack the hard power that is often needed to get things done.
Take the question of Iran. The Trump administration foolishly walked away from the multilateral deal that had successfully capped Iran’s nuclear program, a decision that the European signatories failed to dissuade Trump from taking. They knew it was a blunder, and they made a few feeble attempts to keep the deal alive. But when the United States threatened to impose secondary sanctions on European firms or banks doing business with Iran, the proud nations of Europe promptly caved. This sort of bullying may eventually persuade any number of countries to create alternatives to the dollar-dominated financial order, but in the short term, the United States had the leverage, and bullying worked.
Or take the continuing civil war in Libya. Because Libya is an important transit point for migrants and refugees trying to get to Europe from various parts of Africa, continued anarchy there is also a serious problem for Europe. That is why German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently convened a summit meeting in Berlin to devise a cease-fire among the warring factions in Libya. The summit produced an agreement that promptly broke down, as such agreements often do. The underlying problem, however, is that neither Germany nor anyone else in Europe has the capacity to enforce any agreement that might be reached in the future, or even much leverage over the warring parties. To the extent that outside powers have any sway over the Libyan situation, it is Russia and Turkey and several Gulf states, not the EU or any of its members.
Then there’s Europe’s policy toward Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron is increasingly worried about China, and he seems to want to mend fences with Moscow to wean it away from Beijing. This is sound geopolitics from France’s perspective but anathema to Poland and some nations in Eastern Europe. How can Europe have a “common foreign and security policy” when it can’t even agree on its approach to a strategically important neighbor?
Alas, Europe’s problems are bigger than just these conflicts of interest. Europe is also facing a long-term demographic crisis, the full impact of which is still not fully appreciated. It is now the world’s oldest continent, with a median age close to 45, and its working-age population is projected to decline by some 50 million people by 2035. In the east, this problem has been compounded by emigration, with young people heading elsewhere in search of economic opportunities. Croatia has lost 5 percent of its population since 2013, and Bulgaria’s current population is projected to drop by 23 percent by 2050. Fewer young people means slower economic growth, which means fewer economic opportunities, which in turn encourages more emigration, while an increasingly older population imposes greater health care burdens on societies whose economies are less and less productive. Older populations also tend to be more religious, more sympathetic to nationalist appeals, and less committed to the EU’s liberal ideals, creating further troubles for the EU vision.
In theory, one solution to Europe’s demographic crisis would be to encourage greater immigration from abroad. But as the 2015 refugee crisis suggests, bringing in even small numbers of immigrants can have unpredictable political consequences. Given the difficulties that European nations have had in assimilating immigrants in the past, and the clear opposition to it from xenophobic nationalists, it is hard to see this as an easy fix. Bottom line: Although Europe remains a wealthy continent with a large, mostly integrated market, its overall power is destined to decline further in the years to come.
The core problem, however, is that Europe thought it could transcend power politics, build a thriving liberal society, and get away without an independent European approach to world affairs. During the Cold War, the limitations of this approach were masked by the overwhelming role of the United States: The EU didn’t need a comprehensive or coherent foreign policy, because security issues were handled by NATO, and the United States ran the show. Even so, the major European powers still had competent and capable military forces of their own, as part of NATO’s collective effort to deter Soviet aggression in Europe.
When the Cold War ended, however, Europeans quickly decided that civilian power would be sufficient (and maybe even superior) to the hard power that Americans prized. Germany had more than 500,000 well-equipped soldiers in its armed forces in 1985; it has only 180,000 less-than-well-armed troops today. If Americans erred by assuming that complex world problems could be solved either by blowing things up or toppling tyrants (or both), Europeans mistakenly concluded that diplomacy and law were enough and that hard power wasn’t necessary.
Although this idealistic formula left Europeans vulnerable to the consequences of U.S. mistakes (see under: Iraq), it was sustainable as long as Washington was still willing to be on the front lines of European defense. It is increasingly untenable, however, because the United States’ strategic attention has shifted away from Europe, and it is not going to shift back. And the problem isn’t just Trump. As Merkel recently acknowledged, “Europe is no longer, so to say, at the center of world events. The United States’ focus on Europe is declining—that will be the case under any president.”
Her solution is “more Europe”—progress toward banking union, efforts to catch up in digital technology, renewed initiatives to streamline decisions in Brussels, etc. But these and other reforms will not solve the fundamental problem: None of Europe’s separate states are true great powers anymore, and their relative position will erode further as their populations age and shrink. A truly united Europe would be a formidable agglomeration, but the EU is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to developing either a unified foreign-policy vision or acquiring the capabilities needed to stand up to strong powers or to shape events in Europe’s immediate vicinity.
As for trans-Atlantic relations, the result is something of a paradox. As long as Europe remains divided and punching below its weight, Americans will take it for granted, bully it when they are so inclined, and see less and less reason to contribute to its security. If Europe were to shake off its malaise and become more capable, Washington would no doubt see it as a more valuable partner, but in that case Europe wouldn’t need much if any U.S. protection. In other words, a weak, increasingly elderly, and politically divided Europe isn’t worth spending much time or effort to protect, and strong, vibrant, and cohesive Europe might be well worth defending but won’t need U.S. help. Either way, it’s hard to be upbeat about the future of the trans-Atlantic partnership.
Unless, as I’ve argued before, Europe and the United States fashion a new trans-Atlantic bargain over China. Europe would agree to take primary responsibility for its own security, with the United States remaining formally in NATO as defender of last resort but not as first responder. This arrangement would leave the United States free to focus on Asia as the balance of world power shifts in that direction. In exchange, Europe would agree to align with the United States vis-à-vis China and, in particular, to deny China easy access to advanced technologies or other capabilities that might have significant national security implications. Neutrality is not an option: If Sino-American competition heats up and Europe tries to remain aloof, Americans will rightly conclude that NATO has outlived its usefulness and pull out.
Whether Europe accepts the terms of this new trans-Atlantic bargain will be up to the EU, although its decision will undoubtedly be affected by how Washington and Beijing behave in the years ahead. But from where I sit today, I cannot imagine any other way to keep the trans-Atlantic partnership together over the longer term.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-06--United States Issues Warning to Russia Over Syria Policy

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : The U.S. issues a warning to Russia amid rising tensions in Syria , the WHO calls for funds to combat the outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus , and White House advisor Jared Kushner presents Trump ’ s Middle East peace plan to the U.N. Security Council .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
The United States has warned Russia over its policy in Syria , where U.S. officials say Russian forces are violating the terms of a cease-fire agreement and posing a challenge to U.S. troops in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States have called for the U.N. Security Council to meet today about the situation in Idlib province , where Russian-backed Syrian government forces are engaged in a campaign to take back the area—the country ’ s last rebel stronghold .
Russia has filled the vacuum left by the U.S. withdrawal from the area : There are no U.S. troops on the ground in Idlib , in Syria ’ s northwest .
The increasing violence there has raised tensions between Russia and Turkey , which backs some rebel groups .
The Syrian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cease-fire , including one brokered by Russia and Turkey last month .
Turkey fears an influx of refugees as hundreds of thousands of Syrians head for the Turkish border .
Tense standoffs .
The warning comes as Russian military contractors have engaged in standoffs with U.S. troops in northeast Syria , increasing tensions and concerns that the encounters could escalate , the Wall Street Journal reports .
“ These are not daily occurrences , but they have been increasing number , and thus it is troubling , ” James Jeffrey , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday .
WHO asks for funds to fight new coronavirus .
The chief of the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called for $ 675 million to help countries address the outbreak of the new coronavirus that originated in Wuhan , China .
The WHO , which will convene hundreds of experts in Geneva next week , hopes to speed up research into drugs and a vaccine to fight the virus .
On Wednesday , China recorded 73 new deaths—the biggest jump since the outbreak began—bringing the total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new fatalities were in Hubei province , which remains under mass quarantine .
Japan has the largest number of confirmed cases outside China—33—and Senior Japanese officials are already warning that the outbreak could disrupt the 2020 Tokyo Olympics .
Meanwhile , misinformation and conspiracy theories about the Wuhan virus are still spreading online , testing the major social media companies in the United States , Justin Ling writes for FP .
Kushner briefs U.N. on Middle East plan .
Jared Kushner , senior White House advisor and U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council today to present the Middle East peace plan unveiled at the White House last week .
In New York , Kushner will hear the positions of the other council members .
The European Union rejected parts of the plan on Tuesday , particularly the final borders of a Palestinian state and the status of Jerusalem .
Kushner ’ s appearance comes just days before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to visit the United Nations and express his opposition to the plan .
Plane crashes off runway in Istanbul .
A plane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airport left the runway after landing amid heavy winds late on Wednesday , breaking into three pieces .
The accident killed three and injured 179 of the 183 people on board .
The Pegasus Airlines plane was a Boeing 737 , adding to the number of deadly accidents involving Boeing jets over the last year .
( The company posted its first annual loss in more than two decades last week . )
After the crash , flights were diverted to another Istanbul airport , with flag carrier Turkish Airlines cancelling flights to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diplomats ’ job security .
Increasingly , the ambassadors appointed by Trump to run U.S. embassies abroad are pushing out their deputy chiefs of mission in unusually high numbers , officials say .
The deputies are often career diplomats , again raising questions for the State Department about alleged mismanagement by political donors-turned-ambassadors , FP ’ s Robbie Gramer reports .
Tensions in Cyprus .
In an interview with the Guardian , Mustafa Akinci , the president of Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus , said that the divided island could face permanent partition if Greek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an “ equitable ” federal solution .
The Republic of Cyprus belongs to the EU while the Turkish-controlled government in the north is recognized only by Ankara .
As he met his Greek Cypriot counterpart in the U.N.-controlled buffer zone , Akinci argued that the solution is reunification under a federal “ roof.
” Without such a compromise , he warned that the north would grow increasingly dependent on Turkey and could end up as a de facto Turkish province .
Brazil ’ s new indigenous affairs minister .
Brazil ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former Christian missionary , Ricardo Lopes Dias , to run its indigenous affairs agency on Wednesday .
Officials within the agency have protested , saying that Dias , who previously evangelized in remote communities , could cause “ irreparable damage ” to isolated groups in Brazil ’ s Amazon region .
Future EU member states .
France has welcomed proposed changes to the European Union ’ s accession process months after President Emmanuel Macron blocked the beginning of negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania .
The proposals have raised hope among four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopes to eventually admit to the bloc .
A British-led team of scientists is planning a five-week diving expedition into a “ Midnight Zone ” in the Indian Ocean , the Associated Press reports .
Working with the governments of the Seychelles and the Maldives , they plan to assess deep-sea wildlife and the effects of climate change .
To go below 1,000 meters , the scientists will use one of the most advanced submarines in the world , the “ Limiting Factor.
” For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: The U.S. issues a warning to Russia amid rising tensions in Syria , the WHO calls for funds to combat the outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus , and White House advisor Jared Kushner presents Trump’s Middle East peace plan to the U.N. Security Council.
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: The U.S. issues a warning to Russia amid rising tensions in Syria, the WHO calls for funds to combat the outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus, and White House advisor Jared Kushner presents Trump’s Middle East peace plan to the U.N. Security Council.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
U.S. Censures Russia Over Idlib Campaign
The United States has warned Russia over its policy in Syria, where U.S. officials say Russian forces are violating the terms of a cease-fire agreement and posing a challenge to U.S. troops in the region. France, Britain, and the United States have called for the U.N. Security Council to meet today about the situation in Idlib province, where Russian-backed Syrian government forces are engaged in a campaign to take back the area—the country’s last rebel stronghold.
Russia has filled the vacuum left by the U.S. withdrawal from the area: There are no U.S. troops on the ground in Idlib, in Syria’s northwest. The increasing violence there has raised tensions between Russia and Turkey, which backs some rebel groups. The Syrian military offensive comes despite several attempts at a cease-fire, including one brokered by Russia and Turkey last month. Turkey fears an influx of refugees as hundreds of thousands of Syrians head for the Turkish border.
Tense standoffs. The warning comes as Russian military contractors have engaged in standoffs with U.S. troops in northeast Syria, increasing tensions and concerns that the encounters could escalate, the Wall Street Journal reports. “These are not daily occurrences, but they have been increasing number, and thus it is troubling,” James Jeffrey, the U.S. special envoy for Syria engagement said Wednesday.
What We’re Following Today
WHO asks for funds to fight new coronavirus. The chief of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called for $675 million to help countries address the outbreak of the new coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China. The WHO, which will convene hundreds of experts in Geneva next week, hopes to speed up research into drugs and a vaccine to fight the virus.
On Wednesday, China recorded 73 new deaths—the biggest jump since the outbreak began—bringing the total to 563. Almost all of the new fatalities were in Hubei province, which remains under mass quarantine. Japan has the largest number of confirmed cases outside China—33—and Senior Japanese officials are already warning that the outbreak could disrupt the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
Meanwhile, misinformation and conspiracy theories about the Wuhan virus are still spreading online, testing the major social media companies in the United States, Justin Ling writes for FP.
Kushner briefs U.N. on Middle East plan. Jared Kushner, senior White House advisor and U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, appears before the U.N. Security Council today to present the Middle East peace plan unveiled at the White House last week. In New York, Kushner will hear the positions of the other council members. The European Union rejected parts of the plan on Tuesday, particularly the final borders of a Palestinian state and the status of Jerusalem. Kushner’s appearance comes just days before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to visit the United Nations and express his opposition to the plan.
Plane crashes off runway in Istanbul. A plane flying into Istanbul’s Sabiha Gokcen airport left the runway after landing amid heavy winds late on Wednesday, breaking into three pieces. The accident killed three and injured 179 of the 183 people on board. The Pegasus Airlines plane was a Boeing 737, adding to the number of deadly accidents involving Boeing jets over the last year. (The company posted its first annual loss in more than two decades last week.) After the crash, flights were diverted to another Istanbul airport, with flag carrier Turkish Airlines cancelling flights to and from Sabiha Gokcen.
Keep an Eye On
U.S. career diplomats’ job security. Increasingly, the ambassadors appointed by Trump to run U.S. embassies abroad are pushing out their deputy chiefs of mission in unusually high numbers, officials say. The deputies are often career diplomats, again raising questions for the State Department about alleged mismanagement by political donors-turned-ambassadors, FP’s Robbie Gramer reports.
Tensions in Cyprus. In an interview with the Guardian, Mustafa Akinci, the president of Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus, said that the divided island could face permanent partition if Greek and Turkish Cypriots can’t agree on an “equitable” federal solution. The Republic of Cyprus belongs to the EU while the Turkish-controlled government in the north is recognized only by Ankara. As he met his Greek Cypriot counterpart in the U.N.-controlled buffer zone, Akinci argued that the solution is reunification under a federal “roof.” Without such a compromise, he warned that the north would grow increasingly dependent on Turkey and could end up as a de facto Turkish province.
Brazil’s new indigenous affairs minister. Brazil’s government is drawing criticism after it appointed a former Christian missionary, Ricardo Lopes Dias, to run its indigenous affairs agency on Wednesday. Officials within the agency have protested, saying that Dias, who previously evangelized in remote communities, could cause “irreparable damage” to isolated groups in Brazil’s Amazon region.
Future EU member states. France has welcomed proposed changes to the European Union’s accession process months after President Emmanuel Macron blocked the beginning of negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania. The proposals have raised hope among four other Balkan countries, which the EU hopes to eventually admit to the bloc.
Odds and Ends
A British-led team of scientists is planning a five-week diving expedition into a “Midnight Zone” in the Indian Ocean, the Associated Press reports. Working with the governments of the Seychelles and the Maldives, they plan to assess deep-sea wildlife and the effects of climate change. To go below 1,000 meters, the scientists will use one of the most advanced submarines in the world, the “Limiting Factor.”
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.


Trump Unbound

Maybe it was the way they leapt to their feet to applaud as one , like Stalinist apparatchiks—all those Republican senators and members of congress Donald Trump now owns—as the U.S. president offered up one obvious misrepresentation after another in his State of the Union address on Tuesday .
Or maybe it was that his adoring defenders did the same at the rambling 63-minute victory speech Trump delivered at the White House on Thursday , following what he called “ total acquittal ” by the U.S. Senate .
But as a tumultuous week in Washington neared its end , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learned any lessons from his impeachment ordeal—as his few Republican critics once hopefully suggested—except that he remains surrounded in his mind by political enemies , whom he called on Thursday “ horrible , ” “ sick , ” and “ very evil.
” And what of the charges against him , which even Sen. Mitt Romney thought were serious enough that the Utah Republican bravely became the lone U.S. senator in history to vote to remove a president of his own party ?
Worse for the president ’ s Democratic adversaries , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s favor as the 2020 election campaign got formally underway this week .
Even as the U.S. Senate gave Trump virtual carte blanche to do as he pleases by acquitting him of impeachment charges on Wednesday , he hit his highest approval rating ever—49 percent according to a new Gallup poll .
Meanwhile , the Democrats proved embarrassingly incompetent in Iowa , with a vote tally rife with delays and errors and the candidate perceived as their most electable standard-bearer , former Vice President Joe Biden , fading fast .
As Trump said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a line that has already become a popular Republican 2020 refrain , “ The Democrats can ’ t count some simple votes , yet they want to take over your health care.
” Indeed , the Democratic debacle in the Iowa caucuses seemed symbolic of a broader disarray in the party , which can ’ t settle on a clear favorite with only nine months to go before Election Day .
With results mostly counted after four days of confusion , the outcome there was evenly divided between the old and the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vermont , 78 , and the Indiana moderate Pete Buttigieg , 38 , who appeared locked in a virtual tie for the lead , with Biden well behind .
But both had meager pluralities of about a quarter of the vote .
Pollsters and pundits predicted further trouble for Biden , the former front-runner , in next Tuesday ’ s New Hampshire primary , which could mean serious problems for him even in states he was expected to win handily down the line , like South Carolina .
Many party establishment figures believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views turn off many mainstream voters , nor Buttigieg , who polls suggest faces an uphill climb in the general election because he is an unexperienced newcomer and married to another man , can defeat Trump in November .
The other leading candidate in Iowa , Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , is also seen as too progressive in her views to win over many moderates and independents .
“ We ’ re gon na win a lot of seats , ” an ebullient Trump announced on Thursday .
So , many pundits are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an even more untrammeled Trump might look like .
This week gave some hints .
He will go after his political enemies with relish and utter abandon .
And he will blame them for every misdirection while claiming credit for every positive development .
Even his State of the Union was shamelessly solipsistic , as if the United States had never enjoyed a single good moment before he appeared on the scene , and Trump alone had brought the nation back from the brink , the sole author of what he called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though economists say the U.S. economy is in the middle of a boom initiated by former President Barack Obama ) .
“ It is very scary to contemplate Trump unbound , ” Trump biographer Michael D ’ Antonio told Foreign Policy .
“ Trump in a second term could weaponize the Department of Justice against his critics and opponents .
… He might also look for ways to defy the Constitution , perhaps by refusing to leave office because of some ‘ emergency.
’ ” Another Trump biographer , Gwenda Blair , suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosophy he recorded in his first book , The Art of the Deal , in 1987 .
“ It ’ s ‘ whatever you can get away with , do it , ’ ” she said .
“ That was the first full version of ‘ brag about it , don ’ t just do it.
’ Leap past ordinary constraints , ethics , morality .
And those who are hung up on those things are losers .
He ’ s never deviated from that plan .
And people love that.
” Above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ harnessed a sense of grievance , ” Blair added .
She said that if Bernie Sanders , who like Trump has spent a career feeling aggrieved over being ignored by the mainstream , becomes the Democratic nominee , the 2020 race will be largely about the politics of grievance .
And an electorate that may never be able to reconcile its various grievances .
That possibility in turn raises the question of whether , facing possibly four more years of what already seem to be insuperable political divisions—even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s speech on national TV—Americans will be able to “ keep ” their republic after all , a question raised by several Democratic House managers during impeachment , invoking Benjamin Franklin ’ s famous remark .
( Asked by a bystander outside Independence Hall what government the Continental Congress had just created , Franklin allegedly replied : “ A republic , if you can keep it.
” ) What ’ s going to happen to America ’ s nearly 244-year-old grand experiment ?
Can the world ’ s lone superpower long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internally ?
Pick your historical paradigm .
The fall of Rome .
The eclipse of the British Imperium .
Twilight of the Gods .
Or maybe just more decadence , division , and drift , a further erosion of institutions Americans once thought sacrosanct , and a world that throws up its hands in disgust .

Maybe it was the way they leapt to their feet to applaud as one, like Stalinist apparatchiks—all those Republican senators and members of Congress Donald Trump now owns—as the U.S. president offered up one obvious misrepresentation after another in his State of the Union address on Tuesday. Or maybe it was that his adoring defenders did the same at the rambling 63-minute victory speech Trump delivered at the White House on Thursday, following what he called “total acquittal” by the U.S. Senate.
Maybe it was the way they leapt to their feet to applaud as one, like Stalinist apparatchiks—all those Republican senators and members of Congress Donald Trump now owns—as the U.S. president offered up one obvious misrepresentation after another in his State of the Union address on Tuesday. Or maybe it was that his adoring defenders did the same at the rambling 63-minute victory speech Trump delivered at the White House on Thursday, following what he called “total acquittal” by the U.S. Senate.
But as a tumultuous week in Washington neared its end, it was unsettlingly clear that Trump had not learned any lessons from his impeachment ordeal—as his few Republican critics once hopefully suggested—except that he remains surrounded in his mind by political enemies, whom he called on Thursday “horrible,” “sick,” and “very evil.” And what of the charges against him, that he had abused his power as president to further his personal political interests, which even Sen. Mitt Romney thought were serious enough that the Utah Republican bravely became the lone U.S. senator in history to vote to remove a president of his own party?
“It’s all bullshit,” Trump told a national television audience. By the next day, Friday, the president had begun exacting vengeance on those perceived enemies. He fired two key witnesses against him during the impeachment hearings last fall, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council aide who testified that Trump’s infamous July 25 phone call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which Vindman was listening on, was “improper.”
Worse for the president’s Democratic adversaries, the odds may have turned in Trump’s favor as the 2020 election campaign got formally underway this week. Even as the U.S. Senate gave Trump virtual carte blanche to do as he pleases by acquitting him of impeachment charges on Wednesday, he hit his highest approval rating ever—49 percent according to a new Gallup poll. Meanwhile, the Democrats proved embarrassingly incompetent in Iowa, with a vote tally rife with delays and errors and the candidate long perceived as their most electable standard-bearer, former Vice President Joe Biden, fading fast.
As Trump said in the East Room, trying out a line that has already become a popular Republican 2020 refrain, “The Democrats can’t count some simple votes, yet they want to take over your health care.”
Indeed, the Democratic debacle in the Iowa caucuses seemed symbolic of a broader disarray in the party, which can’t settle on a clear favorite with only nine months to go before Election Day. With results mostly counted after four days of confusion, the outcome there was evenly divided between the old and the new, between ultra-progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, 78, and the Indiana moderate Pete Buttigieg, 38, who appeared locked in a virtual tie for the lead, with Biden well behind. But both had meager pluralities of about a quarter of the vote. Pollsters and pundits predicted further trouble for Biden, the former front-runner, in next Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, which could mean serious problems for him even in states he was expected to win handily down the line, like South Carolina.
Many party establishment figures believe that neither Sanders, whose extremely liberal views turn off many mainstream voters, nor Buttigieg, who polls suggest faces an uphill climb in the general election because he is an unexperienced newcomer and married to another man, can defeat Trump in November. The other leading candidate in Iowa, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, is also seen as too progressive in her views to win over many moderates and independents.
“We’re gonna win a lot of seats,” an ebullient Trump announced on Thursday.
So, many pundits are beginning to wonder what four more years of an even more untrammeled Trump might look like. This week gave some hints. He will go after his political enemies with relish and utter abandon. And he will blame them for every misdirection while claiming credit for every positive development. Even his State of the Union was shamelessly solipsistic, as if the United States had never enjoyed a single good moment before he appeared on the scene, and Trump alone had brought the nation back from the brink, the sole author of what he called the “great American comeback” (though economists say the U.S. economy is in the middle of a boom initiated by former President Barack Obama).
“It is very scary to contemplate Trump unbound,” Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio told Foreign Policy. “Trump in a second term could weaponize the Department of Justice against his critics and opponents. … He might also look for ways to defy the Constitution, perhaps by refusing to leave office because of some ‘emergency.’”
Another Trump biographer, Gwenda Blair, suggested the president is now living out the philosophy he recorded in his first book, The Art of the Deal, in 1987. “It’s ‘whatever you can get away with, do it,’” she said. “That was the first full version of ‘brag about it, don’t just do it.’ Leap past ordinary constraints, ethics, morality. And those who are hung up on those things are losers. He’s never deviated from that plan. And people love that.”
Above all, Trump during his career has “harnessed a sense of grievance,” Blair added. She said that if Bernie Sanders, who like Trump has spent a career feeling aggrieved over being ignored by the mainstream, becomes the Democratic nominee, the 2020 race will be largely about the politics of grievance. And an electorate that may never be able to reconcile its various grievances.
That possibility in turn raises the question of whether, facing possibly four more years of what already seem to be insuperable political divisions—even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lost her famous cool, ripping up Trump’s speech on national TV—Americans will be able to “keep” their republic after all, a question raised by several Democratic House managers during impeachment, invoking Benjamin Franklin’s famous remark. (Asked by a bystander outside Independence Hall what government the Continental Congress had just created, Franklin allegedly replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”)
What’s going to happen to America’s nearly 244-year-old grand experiment? Can the world’s lone superpower long endure when it is being torn apart internally? Pick your historical paradigm. The fall of Rome. The eclipse of the British Imperium. Twilight of the Gods. Or maybe just more decadence, division, and drift, a further erosion of institutions Americans once thought sacrosanct, and a world that throws up its hands in disgust.
Feb. 7: This story has been updated.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-06--Wuhan Gets Its First Virus Martyr

Wuhan Gets Its First Virus Martyr

Wuhan Gets Its First Virus Martyr The coronavirus that first erupted in the central Chinese city of Wuhan only made global news in late January .
But Li Wenliang tried to raise the alarm on it in December .
He was one of eight doctors who posted accounts of the virus online , fearing that it showed human-to-human transmission .
The response from the local government was to send police to threaten him and force him to sign a statement saying he wouldn ’ t make further trouble .
The written statement said , “ We solemnly warn you : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such impertinence , and continue this illegal activity , you will be brought to justice—is that understood ?
” Li is now dead .
His death was reported this morning by multiple outlets , including the highly respected Caixin and the party-owned Global Times .
As news of his death spread like wildfire on social media , however , previous reports were deleted , as were threads about him—one of which had recorded 5 million comments—and the claim was put out that he had been “ resuscitated ” though was still “ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Li was truly lingering on the edge of death .
Or it may be that the government was terrified of the possibility of making a martyr .
There are claims that Li ’ s body was literally strapped back into life support when the extent of public anger online became clear .
In the end , his employer stated he had died at 2:58 am Friday .
Li was confirmed to have the virus on Feb. 1 .
At just 34 years old , Li is one of the youngest known victims of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first medical worker to die , which was the 62-year-old Liang Wudong , and he will not be the last .
There are estimates that over 500 health care workers are already infected .
It may be that official media is struggling to find a line to tell his story .
While the whistleblowers have won applause from a central government eager to blame the local authorities for the failure , spreading news of his death is clearly much riskier , especially as Beijing cracks down on journalists , doctors , and ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s death is not just because of the coronavirus .
As the Confucian philosopher Mencius asked , “ Is there any difference between killing a man with a stick and with a sword ?
… Is there any difference between doing it with a sword and with governmental measures ?
” The cover-up of the potential epidemic that Li and the others attempted to raise the alert on helped kill him—just as surely as it has helped condemn , so far , hundreds of others to death .
China puts special emphasis on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every old country , there ’ s a premodern tradition of people supposedly sacrificing themselves for the sake of the people or the kingdom , from the Warring States poet Qu Yuan to Yue Fei , executed during Song Dynasty intrigues .
Those praised as historic martyrs are usually men , although sometimes women are included , most frequently as “ pious widows ” who killed themselves rather than remarry .
And as in every new country—for the People ’ s Republic dates only to 1949—there ’ s a modern tradition of sacrifice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s case , the Communist Party .
Martyrs were fodder for the revolution .
The term “ martyr ” is routinely used in Chinese to refer to any wartime death , and martyrs ’ cemeteries are common across the country .
Individual tales of sacrifice are a standard part of the school curriculum , from soldiers jumping on grenades to firefighters dying in forest blazes .
Much of this heroism was real , but much of it was also imaginary .
The Maoist cult doubled down on it ; even in peacetime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Chinese historians and skeptics began to question it online in recent years , however , the Communist Party reacted fiercely , passing laws making it illegal to call these mythical accounts into doubt .
This tradition of national sacrifice has always been a cultivated one .
It ’ s regularly referred to in propaganda today .
In describing the foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying ’ s comments on Wuhan , the Chinese state outlet Xinhua wrote that “ sacrificing one ’ s small family for the big family and putting the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hallmark of the Chinese nation and a strong bond uniting all Chinese people.
” Historically , that ’ s a highly questionable claim .
The idea that the nation and the party came before family was one drilled into the population by the Communists—to the extent that two days after the Tangshan earthquake of 1976 , for example , the cadre Che Zhengming was being celebrated on the front page of People ’ s Daily for rescuing senior party staff while leaving his children to die .
As elsewhere , the notion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reach most people until the 19th century or later , and Chinese were no more given to national sacrifice than people in any other country .
It was the literati , those most invested in the imperial system , who were most dedicated to the idea of sacrificing themselves for it , not the common people .
Underneath that tradition of national martyrdom , however , there has always been a hidden current of dissident sacrifice .
Sometimes these figures end up being ( usually briefly ) celebrated nationally , such as Lin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote her last letters in her own blood .
Sometimes , like the man who stood holding his shopping bags before a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square , even their names are unknown , and they ’ re celebrated more outside than inside the country .
The tradition of heroes killed unjustly goes back a long way , too .
The third Ming Emperor murdered the Confucian scholars who opposed his usurpation of the throne ; his grandson put statues up celebrating their sacrifice .
Li ’ s image is being pinned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sign , and censors are taking it down as fast as it goes up .
The government has a tough decision .
Does it embrace the image of a man official decisions helped kill , hoping to pin the blame entirely on the failures of the Wuhan authorities ?
Or does it keep removing his name and image , silencing the stories of another potential martyr ?

The coronavirus that first erupted in the central Chinese city of Wuhan only made global news in late January. But Li Wenliang tried to raise the alarm on it in December. He was one of eight doctors who posted accounts of the virus online, fearing that it showed human-to-human transmission. The response from the local government was to send police to threaten him and force him to sign a statement saying he wouldn’t make further trouble. The written statement said, “We solemnly warn you: If you keep being stubborn, with such impertinence, and continue this illegal activity, you will be brought to justice—is that understood?”
The coronavirus that first erupted in the central Chinese city of Wuhan only made global news in late January. But Li Wenliang tried to raise the alarm on it in December. He was one of eight doctors who posted accounts of the virus online, fearing that it showed human-to-human transmission. The response from the local government was to send police to threaten him and force him to sign a statement saying he wouldn’t make further trouble. The written statement said, “We solemnly warn you: If you keep being stubborn, with such impertinence, and continue this illegal activity, you will be brought to justice—is that understood?”
Li is now dead. His death was reported this morning by multiple outlets, including the highly respected Caixin and the party-owned Global Times. As news of his death spread like wildfire on social media, however, previous reports were deleted, as were threads about him—one of which had recorded 5 million comments—and the claim was put out that he had been “resuscitated” though was still “in critical condition.” It may be that Li was truly lingering on the edge of death. Or it may be that the government was terrified of the possibility of making a martyr. There are claims that Li’s body was literally strapped back into life support when the extent of public anger online became clear. In the end, his employer stated he had died at 2:58 am Friday.
Li was confirmed to have the virus on Feb. 1. At just 34 years old, Li is one of the youngest known victims of the coronavirus. He is not the first medical worker to die, which was the 62-year-old Liang Wudong, and he will not be the last. There are estimates that over 500 health care workers are already infected. It may be that official media is struggling to find a line to tell his story. While the whistleblowers have won applause from a central government eager to blame the local authorities for the failure, spreading news of his death is clearly much riskier, especially as Beijing cracks down on journalists, doctors, and ordinary citizens speaking out.
But Li’s death is not just because of the coronavirus. As the Confucian philosopher Mencius asked, “Is there any difference between killing a man with a stick and with a sword? … Is there any difference between doing it with a sword and with governmental measures?” The cover-up of the potential epidemic that Li and the others attempted to raise the alert on helped kill him—just as surely as it has helped condemn, so far, hundreds of others to death.
China puts special emphasis on its tradition of martyrdom. As with every old country, there’s a premodern tradition of people supposedly sacrificing themselves for the sake of the people or the kingdom, from the Warring States poet Qu Yuan to Yue Fei, executed during Song Dynasty intrigues. Those praised as historic martyrs are usually men, although sometimes women are included, most frequently as “pious widows” who killed themselves rather than remarry. And as in every new country—for the People’s Republic dates only to 1949—there’s a modern tradition of sacrifice for the nation and, in China’s case, the Communist Party.
Martyrs were fodder for the revolution. The term “martyr” is routinely used in Chinese to refer to any wartime death, and martyrs’ cemeteries are common across the country. Individual tales of sacrifice are a standard part of the school curriculum, from soldiers jumping on grenades to firefighters dying in forest blazes. Much of this heroism was real, but much of it was also imaginary. The Maoist cult doubled down on it; even in peacetime, martyrs had to be created. When Chinese historians and skeptics began to question it online in recent years, however, the Communist Party reacted fiercely, passing laws making it illegal to call these mythical accounts into doubt.
This tradition of national sacrifice has always been a cultivated one. It’s regularly referred to in propaganda today. In describing the foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying’s comments on Wuhan, the Chinese state outlet Xinhua wrote that “sacrificing one’s small family for the big family and putting the country before oneself has always been a spiritual hallmark of the Chinese nation and a strong bond uniting all Chinese people.”
Historically, that’s a highly questionable claim. The idea that the nation and the party came before family was one drilled into the population by the Communists—to the extent that two days after the Tangshan earthquake of 1976, for example, the cadre Che Zhengming was being celebrated on the front page of People’s Daily for rescuing senior party staff while leaving his children to die. As elsewhere, the notion of the “nation” didn’t reach most people until the 19th century or later, and Chinese were no more given to national sacrifice than people in any other country. It was the literati, those most invested in the imperial system, who were most dedicated to the idea of sacrificing themselves for it, not the common people.
Underneath that tradition of national martyrdom, however, there has always been a hidden current of dissident sacrifice. Sometimes these figures end up being (usually briefly) celebrated nationally, such as Lin Zhao, a Cultural Revolution dissident who wrote her last letters in her own blood. Sometimes, like the man who stood holding his shopping bags before a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square, even their names are unknown, and they’re celebrated more outside than inside the country. The tradition of heroes killed unjustly goes back a long way, too. The third Ming Emperor murdered the Confucian scholars who opposed his usurpation of the throne; his grandson put statues up celebrating their sacrifice.
Li’s image is being pinned online alongside the statement he was forced to sign, and censors are taking it down as fast as it goes up. The government has a tough decision. Does it embrace the image of a man official decisions helped kill, hoping to pin the blame entirely on the failures of the Wuhan authorities? Or does it keep removing his name and image, silencing the stories of another potential martyr?


foreignpolicy--2020-02-06--Boris Johnson Bows to Trump on the Middle East

Boris Johnson Bows to Trump on the Middle East On Feb. 4 , Josep Borrell , the European Union ’ s foreign-policy chief , caused a stir when he condemned U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s recently unveiled plan for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
He said that future Israeli annexations of West Bank settlements “ could not pass unchallenged , ” and he reiterated the EU ’ s commitment to a viable two-state solution .
His statement stood in stark contrast to the way the British government has responded to news of the Trump deal .
Speaking in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that , while “ no peace plan is perfect , ” the Trump administration ’ s plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has its “ merits.
” Meanwhile , the U.K. foreign secretary , Dominic Raab , described the plan as “ clearly a serious proposal , reflecting extensive time and effort.
” A close look , of course , shows that Trump ’ s plan would certainly not help the cause of peace .
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that it could turn Israel into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benjamin Netanyahu has raised concerns in the past about Israel becoming a binational state , a fate that could come to pass if Israel is given a green light to annex the Jordan Valley and all its settlements on the West Bank .
A poll by the Israel Democracy Institute think tank found that about half of Jewish Israelis viewed the deal as U.S. interference in the Israeli elections next month .
At the same time , supporters of Netanyahu in the Likud party have wasted no time in pocketing Johnson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East Johnson ’ s support for the plan may cause , then , his stance is not particularly surprising .
After Britain ’ s departure from the EU late last month , his statement may be viewed as an attempt to curry favor with the U.S. president at a time when the country is increasingly dependent on the good graces of the United States in reaching a trade deal .
Before Trump entered the White House and Brexit was a done deal , the United Kingdom had adhered closely to the position of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting a viable two-state solution , opposing the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank , and backing the nuclear deal with Iran and other major powers in 2015 .
When Trump started making threats to withdraw from the nuclear agreement in the spring of 2018 , for example , Johnson , then the British foreign minister , even joined French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in last-ditch attempts to persuade the president to remain a signatory despite Israel ’ s dissatisfaction with the deal .
Johnson flipped positions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Iran nuclear agreement to be replaced by a “ Trump deal.
” In such pronouncements , Johnson and his team are trying to balance several imperatives .
The United Kingdom ’ s policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been strongly influenced by the sensitivities of the country ’ s moderate Arab allies .
It was not that long ago that Britain was wary of having too close a relationship with Israel for fear of upsetting moderate Arab opinion .
Indeed , it was the very fact that Britain was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 .
The same year , U.K. Prime Minister Edward Heath refused to supply spare parts for Israel ’ s Centurion tanks or provide landing rights to U.S. military supply planes en route to Israel during the Yom Kippur War .
The United Kingdom was cagey about being identified publicly as a supporter of Israel because of fears about damage to its strategic and commercial interests in the Arab world , when Cold War tensions were at their height and the United Kingdom was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House ’ s reluctance under U.S. President Ronald Reagan to condemn Israel ’ s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 , British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher scrawled in pen on a diplomatic cable received from Washington : “ The U.S. just does not realise the resentment she is causing in the Middle East.
” Thatcher feared that the Soviet Union and other radical forces would gain influence in the Arab world from Washington ’ s readiness to support Israeli actions .
Yet much has changed in the interim .
The fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bahrain , and Oman were present at the unveiling of Trump ’ s peace plan speaks volumes .
The Palestinian Authority has likewise expressed its disappointment over the reluctance of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait , and Qatar to criticize the Trump plan .
( The Arab League has now issued a public condemnation of it . )
Simply put , the United Kingdom today no longer fears a backlash from its Arab friends over support for Israel and U.S. policy in the region—because those allies , too , are moving closer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s backing of Trump in some ways echoes its decision to go along with the Carter administration ’ s Israel-Egypt peace treaty signed on March 26 , 1979 .
The Arab world was fiercely opposed to the deal , viewing it as a betrayal of the Palestinians , and even some leading officials in Britain ’ s Foreign Office were concerned that the peace treaty would damage British interests in the Middle East .
However , then-British Prime Minister James Callaghan played a quiet mediating role behind the scenes in persuading Israeli Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Anwar Sadat .
This was not lost on President Jimmy Carter , who thanked Callaghan for his efforts .
The Thatcher government likewise gave its support for the U.S. bombing raid on Libya in April 1986 following Libyan involvement in terrorist attacks on U.S. service members .
Thatcher sought to use her support for the Reagan administration to bolster her own country ’ s political standing and argue for stronger U.S. engagement in the Middle East peace process .
While the United States was less inclined to heed Thatcher ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payoff for Britain emerged in the form of U.S. action against Irish Republican Army terrorism , with its approval of the U.K.-U.S .
Extradition Treaty .
As Reagan pointed out in a speech that May , “ rejection of this treaty would be an affront to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher , one European leader who , at great political risk , stood shoulder to shoulder with us during our operations against [ Muammar al- ] Qaddafi ’ s terrorism.
” More recently , in 2003 , British Prime Minister Tony Blair supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war in Iraq .
Although history has not been kind to Blair over his support for the invasion , there is substantial evidence suggesting that his support for the United States over Iraq resulted in Bush ’ s announcement in March 2003 of the Roadmap for peace based on the vision of a two-state solution .
These days , the United Kingdom is back to needing the United States ’ support again .
Some ardent Brexiteers have argued that Britain ’ s withdrawal from Europe will give it the freedom and independence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thereby strengthening the special relationship .
However , this argument ignores the major concessions—including perhaps on policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that the United Kingdom will be likely to make in order to secure such a deal .
In the cases of Callaghan , Thatcher , and Blair , the United Kingdom could at least claim that its influence counted for something , that its close relationship with the United States was taken seriously in the Middle East , and that its position in Europe gave it heft .
Today , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international standing is further diminished .
The country continues to express public support for a viable two-state solution , but its backing of the Trump administration ’ s Middle East plan undermines this position .
Indeed , in 2020 , the United Kingdom ’ s alignment with the United States appears to be more an expression of its diminished power than its ability to play a constructive role on the world stage .

On Feb. 4, Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign-policy chief, caused a stir when he condemned U.S. President Donald Trump’s recently unveiled plan for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said that future Israeli annexations of West Bank settlements “ could not pass unchallenged ,” and he reiterated the EU’s commitment to a viable two-state solution.
On Feb. 4, Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign-policy chief, caused a stir when he condemned U.S. President Donald Trump’s recently unveiled plan for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said that future Israeli annexations of West Bank settlements “could not pass unchallenged,” and he reiterated the EU’s commitment to a viable two-state solution.
His statement stood in stark contrast to the way the British government has responded to news of the Trump deal. Speaking in the House of Commons on Jan. 29, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that, while “no peace plan is perfect,” the Trump administration’s plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has its “merits.” Meanwhile, the U.K. foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, described the plan as “clearly a serious proposal, reflecting extensive time and effort.”
A close look, of course, shows that Trump’s plan would certainly not help the cause of peace. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that it could turn Israel into an apartheid state. Even current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has raised concerns in the past about Israel becoming a binational state, a fate that could come to pass if Israel is given a green light to annex the Jordan Valley and all its settlements on the West Bank. A poll by the Israel Democracy Institute think tank found that about half of Jewish Israelis viewed the deal as U.S. interference in the Israeli elections next month. At the same time, supporters of Netanyahu in the Likud party have wasted no time in pocketing Johnson’s support.
Whatever damage to the Middle East Johnson’s support for the plan may cause, then, his stance is not particularly surprising. After Britain’s departure from the EU late last month, his statement may be viewed as an attempt to curry favor with the U.S. president at a time when the country is increasingly dependent on the good graces of the United States in reaching a trade deal.
Before Trump entered the White House and Brexit was a done deal, the United Kingdom had adhered closely to the position of its European partners on Israel, consistently supporting a viable two-state solution, opposing the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and backing the nuclear deal with Iran and other major powers in 2015. When Trump started making threats to withdraw from the nuclear agreement in the spring of 2018, for example, Johnson, then the British foreign minister, even joined French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in last-ditch attempts to persuade the president to remain a signatory despite Israel’s dissatisfaction with the deal. Johnson flipped positions in January this year when he called for the Iran nuclear agreement to be replaced by a “Trump deal.”
In such pronouncements, Johnson and his team are trying to balance several imperatives. The United Kingdom’s policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been strongly influenced by the sensitivities of the country’s moderate Arab allies. It was not that long ago that Britain was wary of having too close a relationship with Israel for fear of upsetting moderate Arab opinion.
Indeed, it was the very fact that Britain was a declining power that brought about its membership in what was then the European Economic Community in 1973. The same year, U.K. Prime Minister Edward Heath refused to supply spare parts for Israel’s Centurion tanks or provide landing rights to U.S. military supply planes en route to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The United Kingdom was cagey about being identified publicly as a supporter of Israel because of fears about damage to its strategic and commercial interests in the Arab world, when Cold War tensions were at their height and the United Kingdom was overly reliant on Arab oil. Following the White House’s reluctance under U.S. President Ronald Reagan to condemn Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher scrawled in pen on a diplomatic cable received from Washington: “The U.S. just does not realise the resentment she is causing in the Middle East.” Thatcher feared that the Soviet Union and other radical forces would gain influence in the Arab world from Washington’s readiness to support Israeli actions.
Yet much has changed in the interim. The fact that envoys from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman were present at the unveiling of Trump’s peace plan speaks volumes. The Palestinian Authority has likewise expressed its disappointment over the reluctance of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar to criticize the Trump plan. (The Arab League has now issued a public condemnation of it.) Simply put, the United Kingdom today no longer fears a backlash from its Arab friends over support for Israel and U.S. policy in the region—because those allies, too, are moving closer to the U.S. position.
The U.K.’s backing of Trump in some ways echoes its decision to go along with the Carter administration’s Israel-Egypt peace treaty signed on March 26, 1979. The Arab world was fiercely opposed to the deal, viewing it as a betrayal of the Palestinians, and even some leading officials in Britain’s Foreign Office were concerned that the peace treaty would damage British interests in the Middle East. However, then-British Prime Minister James Callaghan played a quiet mediating role behind the scenes in persuading Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to compromise with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat. This was not lost on President Jimmy Carter, who thanked Callaghan for his efforts.
The Thatcher government likewise gave its support for the U.S. bombing raid on Libya in April 1986 following Libyan involvement in terrorist attacks on U.S. service members. Thatcher sought to use her support for the Reagan administration to bolster her own country’s political standing and argue for stronger U.S. engagement in the Middle East peace process. While the United States was less inclined to heed Thatcher’s arguments over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the payoff for Britain emerged in the form of U.S. action against Irish Republican Army terrorism, with its approval of the U.K.-U.S. Extradition Treaty. As Reagan pointed out in a speech that May, “rejection of this treaty would be an affront to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, one European leader who, at great political risk, stood shoulder to shoulder with us during our operations against [Muammar al-]Qaddafi’s terrorism.”
More recently, in 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair supported the George W. Bush administration’s war in Iraq. Although history has not been kind to Blair over his support for the invasion, there is substantial evidence suggesting that his support for the United States over Iraq resulted in Bush’s announcement in March 2003 of the Roadmap for peace based on the vision of a two-state solution.
These days, the United Kingdom is back to needing the United States’ support again. Some ardent Brexiteers have argued that Britain’s withdrawal from Europe will give it the freedom and independence to win a free trade deal with Washington, thereby strengthening the special relationship. However, this argument ignores the major concessions—including perhaps on policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that the United Kingdom will be likely to make in order to secure such a deal.
In the cases of Callaghan, Thatcher, and Blair, the United Kingdom could at least claim that its influence counted for something, that its close relationship with the United States was taken seriously in the Middle East, and that its position in Europe gave it heft. Today, in the wake of Brexit, Britain’s international standing is further diminished. The country continues to express public support for a viable two-state solution, but its backing of the Trump administration’s Middle East plan undermines this position. Indeed, in 2020, the United Kingdom’s alignment with the United States appears to be more an expression of its diminished power than its ability to play a constructive role on the world stage.


foreignpolicy--2020-02-06--Russia Gains Ground in Syria

Russia Gains Ground in Syria

Welcome to Foreign Policy ’ s Security Brief .
What ’ s on tap today : Russian forces are extending their reach in Syria , the Pentagon is set to release its budget proposal , and more tensions emerge between career diplomats and Trump appointees in the U.S. State Department .
Before we get started , we have an important announcement .
Thursday , Feb. 13 will be the final edition of Security Brief Plus , but we are excited to introduce new benefits in its place .
Monday ’ s Security Brief newsletter will move to Thursdays beginning Feb. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moves and major events .
Premium subscribers and FP Insiders can now get email alerts as soon as FP publishes defense and security news .
Sign up here to receive the email alerts .
( You must be logged into your ForeignPolicy.com account to activate your alerts ) .
If you would like to receive Security Brief in your inbox , please sign up here .
The trend heightens the risk of a showdown between the United States and Russia as the Syrian conflict drags into its ninth year .
On “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , Russian forces “ have tried to come deep into the area where we and the [ Syrian Democratic Forces ] are patrolling.
” He added : “ These are not daily occurrences but they have been increasing in number , and thus is troubling.
” Assault on Idlib .
Russia ’ s extended reach adds a new layer of complexity to the crisis in northwest Syria , where some 150,000 civilians have fled in the past two weeks amid the new government offensive .
Jeffrey warned that the renewed fighting could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian and Hezbollah forces are also “ actively involved in supporting ” the Syrian offensive , according to Jeffrey .
“ This is a dangerous conflict .
It needs to be brought to an end .
Russia needs to change its policies , ” he said .
Pentagon budget preview .
The Pentagon is poised to release its budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 next Monday , and officials promise that it will include billions of dollars of internal savings .
As part of Defense Secretary Mark Esper ’ s review of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense agencies outside of the military departments—the Pentagon has found $ 5.7 billion in efficiencies that it plans to reallocate toward new priorities such as hypersonics , artificial intelligence , and 5G communications technology , Defense News reports .
News is starting to trickle out ahead of the official budget rollout , including Lara Seligman ’ s exclusive report on the Air Force ’ s plan to cut hundreds of legacy fighters and bombers over the next five years .
Meanwhile , Bloomberg reports that the Navy is requesting more ships in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get to a fleet of 355 .
The total budget request is expected to be $ 740 billion—essentially unchanged from 2020 ’ s $ 738 billion and part of the two-year budget deal U.S. lawmakers reached last summer .
Ukraine developments .
U.S. President Donald Trump has been acquitted of two charges brought against him in his impeachment trial , but the controversy that sparked the attempt to remove him from office keeps following him .
CNN reported that days before the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine , and were shocked at the Office of Management and Budget ’ s repeated refusal to do so .
Meanwhile , Marie Yovanovitch , the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted from her job by associates of Trump , speaks out for the first time in a Washington Post op-ed .
“ We must not allow the United States to become a country where standing up to our government is a dangerous act .
It has been shocking to experience the storm of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have preceded and followed my public testimony , but I have no regrets , ” she writes .
NATO ’ s future in Afghanistan .
The recent U.S. decision to withdraw roughly one-third of its troops from Afghanistan as peace talks with the Taliban continue has caused European NATO allies to consider withdrawing their own forces .
NATO allies deployed troops to Afghanistan along with the United States in 2001 , and the organization has frequently said that its own presence was dependent on the United States .
Some European officials believe the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of migrants and refugees to the continent , but the appetite for remaining in the country—especially if the United States withdraws—is waning .
More tensions at the State Department .
The Trump administration ’ s ambassador to South Africa , a successful fashion designer , pushed out the top career diplomat at the embassy as she tried to elevate her son to a job there , FP ’ s Robbie Gramer reports .
The story is part of a growing trend of Trump campaign donors-turned-ambassadors quietly forcing out veteran diplomats at their embassies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ career civil servants .
White nationalism in the ranks .
A recent survey of active-duty Military Times readers found that 36 percent of active duty service members had seen evidence of white supremacist or racist ideologies in the military .
That figure is much higher than the 22 percent found by the same poll in 2018 , suggesting that white nationalism in the military is becoming a bigger problem .
Pentagon withdrawal .
J. David Patterson has withdrawn from consideration for a position as the second highest personnel official in the Pentagon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he withdrew after he lost support in Congress over revelations that he co-authored an op-ed for the conservative website the Federalist in 2017 , blaming U.S. mass killings on immigrants who failed to assimilate into American society .
Revisiting Yalta .
Seventy-five years ago this week , U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt , British Prime Minister Winston Churchill , and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin met in Yalta , a town on Ukraine ’ s Crimean peninsula , to discuss Europe ’ s future after the defeat of Nazi Germany .
What they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and defined the battle lines of the coming Cold War .
At Literary Hub , Diana Preston writes a blow-by-blow account of the Yalta conference that ’ s well worth a read .
Coronavirus tour .
Six individuals visiting from China ’ s Hubei province , ground zero of the coronavirus outbreak , were scheduled to tour the Pentagon before officials canceled it over fears that the virus could potentially affect the some 26,000 employees who work in the Pentagon .
That ’ s it for today .
For more from FP , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or typos to securitybrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Welcome to Foreign Policy’s Security Brief. What’s on tap today: Russian forces are extending their reach in Syria , the Pentagon is set to release its budget proposal , and more tensions emerge between career diplomats and Trump appointees in the U.S. State Department .
Welcome to Foreign Policy’s Security Brief. What’s on tap today: Russian forces are extending their reach in Syria, the Pentagon is set to release its budget proposal, and more tensions emerge between career diplomats and Trump appointees in the U.S. State Department.
Before we get started, we have an important announcement. Thursday, Feb. 13 will be the final edition of Security Brief Plus, but we are excited to introduce new benefits in its place.
Monday’s Security Brief newsletter will move to Thursdays beginning Feb. 20 and feature enhanced coverage of industry moves and major events. Premium subscribers and FP Insiders can now get email alerts as soon as FP publishes defense and security news. Sign up here to receive the email alerts. (You must be logged into your ForeignPolicy.com account to activate your alerts).
If you would like to receive Security Brief in your inbox, please sign up here.
Russia Gets Bolder in Syria Russia is ramping up its military role in Syria as it backs the government’s assault on Idlib, the last pocket of rebel resistance in the country’s northwest. “We’re seeing much more aggressive Russian action in Idlib,” James Jeffrey, the U.S. envoy on Syria, told reporters on Wednesday. Jeffrey added that Russian contractors in Syria are engaged in tense standoffs with U.S. troops operating in the northeast.
The trend heightens the risk of a showdown between the United States and Russia as the Syrian conflict drags into its ninth year. On “a limited number of occasions,” Jeffrey said, Russian forces “have tried to come deep into the area where we and the [Syrian Democratic Forces] are patrolling.” He added: “These are not daily occurrences but they have been increasing in number, and thus is troubling.”
Assault on Idlib. Russia’s extended reach adds a new layer of complexity to the crisis in northwest Syria, where some 150,000 civilians have fled in the past two weeks amid the new government offensive. Jeffrey warned that the renewed fighting could stoke another “major refugee crisis.” Iranian and Hezbollah forces are also “actively involved in supporting” the Syrian offensive, according to Jeffrey. “This is a dangerous conflict. It needs to be brought to an end. Russia needs to change its policies,” he said.
What We’re Watching
Pentagon budget preview. The Pentagon is poised to release its budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 next Monday, and officials promise that it will include billions of dollars of internal savings. As part of Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s review of the so-called “fourth estate” offices—roughly 50 defense agencies outside of the military departments—the Pentagon has found $5.7 billion in efficiencies that it plans to reallocate toward new priorities such as hypersonics, artificial intelligence, and 5G communications technology, Defense News reports.
News is starting to trickle out ahead of the official budget rollout, including Lara Seligman’s exclusive report on the Air Force’s plan to cut hundreds of legacy fighters and bombers over the next five years. Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that the Navy is requesting more ships in order to support Trump’s campaign promise to get to a fleet of 355. The total budget request is expected to be $740 billion—essentially unchanged from 2020’s $738 billion and part of the two-year budget deal U.S. lawmakers reached last summer.
Ukraine developments. U.S. President Donald Trump has been acquitted of two charges brought against him in his impeachment trial, but the controversy that sparked the attempt to remove him from office keeps following him. CNN reported that days before the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, U.S. officials were still trying to approve the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, and were shocked at the Office of Management and Budget’s repeated refusal to do so.
Meanwhile, Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted from her job by associates of Trump, speaks out for the first time in a Washington Post op-ed. “We must not allow the United States to become a country where standing up to our government is a dangerous act. It has been shocking to experience the storm of criticism, lies and malicious conspiracies that have preceded and followed my public testimony, but I have no regrets,” she writes.
NATO’s future in Afghanistan. The recent U.S. decision to withdraw roughly one-third of its troops from Afghanistan as peace talks with the Taliban continue has caused European NATO allies to consider withdrawing their own forces. NATO allies deployed troops to Afghanistan along with the United States in 2001, and the organization has frequently said that its own presence was dependent on the United States. Some European officials believe the troop presence has helped reduce the flow of migrants and refugees to the continent, but the appetite for remaining in the country—especially if the United States withdraws—is waning.
More tensions at the State Department. The Trump administration’s ambassador to South Africa, a successful fashion designer, pushed out the top career diplomat at the embassy as she tried to elevate her son to a job there, FP’s Robbie Gramer reports. The story is part of a growing trend of Trump campaign donors-turned-ambassadors quietly forcing out veteran diplomats at their embassies, highlighting mistrust between Trump appointees and career civil servants.
White nationalism in the ranks. A recent survey of active-duty Military Times readers found that 36 percent of active duty service members had seen evidence of white supremacist or racist ideologies in the military. That figure is much higher than the 22 percent found by the same poll in 2018, suggesting that white nationalism in the military is becoming a bigger problem.
Movers and Shakers
Pentagon withdrawal. J. David Patterson has withdrawn from consideration for a position as the second highest personnel official in the Pentagon. Patterson was nominated on Jan. 9, but he withdrew after he lost support in Congress over revelations that he co-authored an op-ed for the conservative website the Federalist in 2017, blaming U.S. mass killings on immigrants who failed to assimilate into American society.
Foreign Policy Recommends
Revisiting Yalta. Seventy-five years ago this week, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin met in Yalta, a town on Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, to discuss Europe’s future after the defeat of Nazi Germany. What they decided shaped the map of post-war Europe and defined the battle lines of the coming Cold War. At Literary Hub, Diana Preston writes a blow-by-blow account of the Yalta conference that’s well worth a read.
Odds and Ends
Coronavirus tour. Six individuals visiting from China’s Hubei province, ground zero of the coronavirus outbreak, were scheduled to tour the Pentagon before officials canceled it over fears that the virus could potentially affect the some 26,000 employees who work in the Pentagon.
That’s it for today. For more from FP, subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or typos to securitybrief@foreignpolicy.com.
Dan Haverty contributed to this report.