foreignpolicy--2020-11-12--From a Midlevel Advisor to Pentagon Chief in Under a Year

From a Midlevel Advisor to Pentagon Chief in Under a Year Welcome to Foreign Policy ’ s Security Brief .
What ’ s on tap today : The acting U.S. secretary of defense stumbles into the Pentagon amid turmoil , the Biden transition plan continues despite President Donald Trump ’ s refusal to accept the election results , and how drones helped Azerbaijan beat Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh .
If you would like to receive Security Brief in your inbox every Thursday , please sign up here .
U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s new acting secretary of defense , Christopher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his first few days on the job : first , by tripping over the steps at the Pentagon ’ s River Entrance on his way into the building on Monday ; and next , by leaving his prepared remarks under his seat when he got up to speak at the unveiling of the U.S. Army ’ s new national museum on Wednesday .
But if there were stumbles , they might be due to Miller ’ s meteoric rise from a National Security Council desk job to the top of the U.S. government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
After post-election purges that have claimed officials who clashed with Trump and stacked the Pentagon ’ s leadership with the president ’ s allies , Miller now finds himself at the top of the mountain , if only for 70 more days .
What can we expect ?
While Trump reportedly told Miller not to rock the boat and former colleagues offer rave reviews of the former Green Beret , he is surrounded by a coterie of White House loyalists who have developed a reputation for blowing things up .
Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of policy chief , and Douglas MacGregor , Miller ’ s new senior advisor , have both attracted unwanted attention for conspiracy-minded social media missives and backed Trump ’ s push for a quick pullout from Afghanistan .
The dizzying week of personnel changes at the Pentagon , beginning with Trump ’ s abrupt sacking of Defense Secretary Mark Esper , has drawn fire from Democratic lawmakers and elicited silence from Republicans , highlighting how unpredictable the final months of the Trump administration could be .
“ Firing the secretary of defense in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security at a critical moment , ” said Sen. Jack Reed , the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee .
“ The president ’ s choice to fire Secretary Esper is a play for attention and is yet another example of President Trump putting his ego over the needs and security of our nation.
” The transition .
In the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election , Trump made clear that the hand off to President-elect Biden ’ s administration would not be routine , cordial , or smooth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating as if Trump isn ’ t disputing the election results .
It has announced a list of hundreds of experts assisting the transition at different agencies .
Out of the gate , Biden announced this week he would tap Ron Klain , a veteran Democratic staffer and former Ebola czar , to be his chief of staff .
Read our breakdown of this list and what it means for the Pentagon , State Department , and intelligence agencies .
Eyes in the sky .
In the 21st century , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winners and losers .
But after six weeks of fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region , Azerbaijan has emerged as the victor , and military analysts give outsize credit to the country ’ s expansive use of armed drones .
“ The expanding array of relatively low-cost drones can offer countries air power at a fraction of the cost of maintaining a traditional air force .
The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh also underscored how drones can suddenly shift a long-standing conflict and leave ground forces highly exposed , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to a cease-fire backed by Turkey and Russia that forced Armenia to swallow its losses and gives Russia an important foothold in the region , with boots on the ground .
Nearly 2,000 Russian peacekeepers will be deployed to the conflict zone .
Jerusalem boosts settlement construction .
Expecting the Biden administration to urge a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank , authorities in Jerusalem have fast-tracked building plans over the Green Line .
Haaretz reports that the plans include thousands of units in Givat Hamatos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back on construction , as it could encircle a nearby Palestinian neighborhood .
Pentagon bloodbath .
This week has seen rapid-fire personnel changes at the U.S. Department of Defense , emblematic of the overall confusion and unease at Trump ’ s refusal to accept the election results .
Taking stock : Who ’ s in .
Chris Miller , acting defense secretary ; Douglas MacGregor , senior advisor ; Kash Patel , chief of staff ; Joe Francescon , deputy chief of staff ; Anthony Tata , performing the duties of undersecretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performing the duties of deputy undersecretary of defense for policy ; Ezra Cohen-Watnick , performing the duties of undersecretary of defense for intelligence Who ’ s out .
Three top Senate-confirmed officials , including Defense Secretary Mark Esper , Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Anderson , and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Joe Kernan .
Also out : Esper ’ s chief of staff , Jen Stewart , who was set to lead the transition effort , and Anderson ’ s deputy chief of staff , Mark Tomb .
Who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new leadership may be after Ellen Lord , the agency ’ s Senate-confirmed acquisition chief , and Lisa Hershman , the chief management officer whose job has been under pressure from Congress , which has sought to eliminate it .
Biden staffs up .
President-elect Biden has picked Ron Klain as his chief of staff and announced transition teams for each U.S. government agency .
He is also rumored to have a shortlist for cabinet picks , Foreign Policy reports : Secretary of State : former National Security Advisor Susan Rice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sen. Chris Murphy , Sen. Chris Coons Secretary of Defense : former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy , Sen. Tammy Duckworth , former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Director of National Intelligence : former Defense Intelligence Agency Deputy Director Robert Cardillo , former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon , former Obama counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco CIA Director : former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon , former CIA Deputy Director Avril Haines , former CIA acting director Michael Morrell Got a tip about recent Trump administration firings or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us : jack.detsch @ foreignpolicy.com or robbie.gramer @ foreignpolicy.com .
An ominous prediction .
Klain , Biden ’ s newly announced chief of staff , wrote a lengthy piece for Vox on the dangers of a deadly global pandemic and how ill-prepared we are to face it .
The twist ?
He wrote it in 2018 , well over a year before the first coronavirus outbreak .
Read his piece here and see how it compares to the pandemic response today .
U.S .
Ambassador to Lebanon Dorothy Shea speaks at a Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lebanon ’ s security challenges and political crises on Friday .
British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab , Sen. Chris Coons , and others speak at a virtual conference hosted by the U.S .
Global Leadership Coalition on Monday , Nov. 16 .
Former President Barack Obama releases his presidential memoir on Tuesday , Nov. 17 .
An ode to dogs .
Think you love your pup ?
Maybe not as much as Turkmenistan ’ s authoritarian president , Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov , who just unveiled a massive statue of his favorite dog in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FP , subscribe here or sign up for our 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: The acting U.S. secretary of defense stumbles into the Pentagon amid turmoil, the Biden transition plan continues despite President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the election results, and how drones helped Azerbaijan beat Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh.
If you would like to receive Security Brief in your inbox every Thursday, please sign up here.
How Christopher Miller Rose to the Top of the Pentagon
U.S. President Donald Trump’s new acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, has already stumbled twice in his first few days on the job: first, by tripping over the steps at the Pentagon’s River Entrance on his way into the building on Monday; and next, by leaving his prepared remarks under his seat when he got up to speak at the unveiling of the U.S. Army’s new national museum on Wednesday.
But if there were stumbles, they might be due to Miller’s meteoric rise from a National Security Council desk job to the top of the U.S. government’s largest agency in under a year. After post-election purges that have claimed officials who clashed with Trump and stacked the Pentagon’s leadership with the president’s allies, Miller now finds himself at the top of the mountain, if only for 70 more days. What can we expect?
While Trump reportedly told Miller not to rock the boat and former colleagues offer rave reviews of the former Green Beret, he is surrounded by a coterie of White House loyalists who have developed a reputation for blowing things up. Anthony Tata, who will perform the duties of policy chief, and Douglas MacGregor, Miller’s new senior advisor, have both attracted unwanted attention for conspiracy-minded social media missives and backed Trump’s push for a quick pullout from Afghanistan.
The dizzying week of personnel changes at the Pentagon, beginning with Trump’s abrupt sacking of Defense Secretary Mark Esper, has drawn fire from Democratic lawmakers and elicited silence from Republicans, highlighting how unpredictable the final months of the Trump administration could be.
“Firing the secretary of defense in the waning weeks of the administration undermines national security at a critical moment,” said Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The president’s choice to fire Secretary Esper is a play for attention and is yet another example of President Trump putting his ego over the needs and security of our nation.”
What We’re Watching
The transition. In the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election, Trump made clear that the hand off to President-elect Biden’s administration would not be routine, cordial, or smooth. Nevertheless, Biden’s team is operating as if Trump isn’t disputing the election results. It has announced a list of hundreds of experts assisting the transition at different agencies.
Out of the gate, Biden announced this week he would tap Ron Klain, a veteran Democratic staffer and former Ebola czar, to be his chief of staff. Read our breakdown of this list and what it means for the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence agencies.
Eyes in the sky. In the 21st century, it’s rare to see military conflicts with clear-cut winners and losers. But after six weeks of fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, Azerbaijan has emerged as the victor, and military analysts give outsize credit to the country’s expansive use of armed drones.
“The expanding array of relatively low-cost drones can offer countries air power at a fraction of the cost of maintaining a traditional air force. The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh also underscored how drones can suddenly shift a long-standing conflict and leave ground forces highly exposed,” the Washington Post reports.
On Tuesday, Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to a cease-fire backed by Turkey and Russia that forced Armenia to swallow its losses and gives Russia an important foothold in the region, with boots on the ground. Nearly 2,000 Russian peacekeepers will be deployed to the conflict zone.
Jerusalem boosts settlement construction. Expecting the Biden administration to urge a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank, authorities in Jerusalem have fast-tracked building plans over the Green Line. Haaretz reports that the plans include thousands of units in Givat Hamatos, where the Obama administration had previously pushed back on construction, as it could encircle a nearby Palestinian neighborhood.
Movers and Shakers
Pentagon bloodbath. This week has seen rapid-fire personnel changes at the U.S. Department of Defense, emblematic of the overall confusion and unease at Trump’s refusal to accept the election results. Taking stock:
Who’s in. Chris Miller, acting defense secretary; Douglas MacGregor, senior advisor; Kash Patel, chief of staff; Joe Francescon, deputy chief of staff; Anthony Tata, performing the duties of undersecretary of defense for policy; Tom Williams, performing the duties of deputy undersecretary of defense for policy; Ezra Cohen-Watnick, performing the duties of undersecretary of defense for intelligence
Who’s out. Three top Senate-confirmed officials, including Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Anderson, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Joe Kernan. Also out: Esper’s chief of staff, Jen Stewart, who was set to lead the transition effort, and Anderson’s deputy chief of staff, Mark Tomb.
Who’s next. Pentagon insiders fear that the new leadership may be after Ellen Lord, the agency’s Senate-confirmed acquisition chief, and Lisa Hershman, the chief management officer whose job has been under pressure from Congress, which has sought to eliminate it.
Biden staffs up. President-elect Biden has picked Ron Klain as his chief of staff and announced transition teams for each U.S. government agency. He is also rumored to have a shortlist for cabinet picks, Foreign Policy reports:
Secretary of State: former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Sen. Chris Murphy, Sen. Chris Coons
Secretary of Defense: former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson
Director of National Intelligence: former Defense Intelligence Agency Deputy Director Robert Cardillo, former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon, former Obama counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco
CIA Director: former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, former CIA Deputy Director Avril Haines, former CIA acting director Michael Morrell
Got a tip about recent Trump administration firings or the transition? Get in touch with us: jack.detsch@foreignpolicy.com or robbie.gramer@foreignpolicy.com.
Foreign Policy Recommends
An ominous prediction. Klain, Biden’s newly announced chief of staff, wrote a lengthy piece for Vox on the dangers of a deadly global pandemic and how ill-prepared we are to face it. The twist? He wrote it in 2018, well over a year before the first coronavirus outbreak.
Read his piece here and see how it compares to the pandemic response today.
The Week Ahead
U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dorothy Shea speaks at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event on Lebanon’s security challenges and political crises on Friday.
British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, Sen. Chris Coons, and others speak at a virtual conference hosted by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition on Monday, Nov. 16.
Former President Barack Obama releases his presidential memoir on Tuesday, Nov. 17.
Odds and Ends
An ode to dogs. Think you love your pup? Maybe not as much as Turkmenistan’s authoritarian president, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, who just unveiled a massive statue of his favorite dog in the capital, Ashgabat.
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.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-12--Vaccine Inequality Fuels Suspicion and Division

Much of the world is pinning its hopes on Pfizer , after the pharmaceutical company announced this week that it could be months , if not weeks , away from having the first safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19 .
An implicit assumption behind the warranted excitement is that almost as soon as a vaccine is found , everyone will get access , and the virus will disappear almost as quickly as it spread .
If that does happen , it would be a first .
The historical norm is that a vaccine of this sort is quickly given to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s richest nations , while the rest of the world ’ s population often suffers for several decades before deadly diseases are eradicated—if they ever are .
Take polio , for example .
The disease , which leads to symptoms including muscular atrophy and paralysis , was first described in the late 18th century .
In the 1950s and ‘ 60s , vaccines were found , leading to the eradication of the virus in most developed countries within a decade or so .
But it took until August of this year for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free of wild polio .
Afghanistan and Pakistan still suffer from the disease .
U.N. programs to eradicate the disease there have been stymied by pockets of resistance from groups skeptical of what they deem to be further Western intervention .
Polio is not an aberration .
Tuberculosis killed 1.4 million people last year—more than the death toll to date from COVID-19 .
The bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine for tuberculosis was developed almost a century ago , but in the time since then , millions and millions of entirely avoidable deaths have occurred .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or political will to avoid those deaths by making the vaccine universal .
It doesn ’ t stop there .
In 2018 , measles took some 140,000 lives , mostly of children under the age of five .
Although there is a safe measles vaccine , which prevents millions of deaths every year , 1 in 7 children in the world do not receive it before their first birthday , leaving them vulnerable .
In short , millions of people die each year not because there is no way to prevent them from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t being manufactured or delivered to all those who need them .
Such health inequality mostly holds back those who are already starting from behind , and creates a tragically divided world .
The world can not repeat the same mistakes with COVID-19 .
Perhaps the universality of the COVID-19 pandemic , along with the global presence of news cameras in intensive care units , will make this time different .
And it really needs to be .
This virus is more infectious than comparable diseases , and there is more movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during every past outbreak .
That means that the global human chain of transmission ( or lack of transmission ) is only as strong as its weakest link .
Unless the virus is largely eradicated almost everywhere in the world , there are likely to be repeated surges in infections among unimmunized populations , and even among immunized populations in the case that the vaccine , as Pfizer reported , is only about 90 percent effective .
For their populations ’ own health—not to mention the health of their fellow humans around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intergovernmental organizations such as the World Health Organization ( WHO ) to form a fair global vaccine distribution strategy .
There is some hope that this will happen : U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has already announced that the United States will rejoin ( and presumably restart funding commitments to ) the WHO on his first day in office .
Biden has stated that rejoining the organization will “ restore our leadership on the world stage , ” suggesting that he sees membership as being about more than simply the health of Americans At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that he wants a vaccine to be available to all Americans , even the uninsured .
But distributors will still need to prioritize , leaving the potential for many communities to remain vulnerable to the virus for many months or even years .
To the extent that the next U.S. president is preoccupied with domestic vaccine distribution , there will be less bandwidth for him to support the global strategy .
This is where nongovernmental organizations , which can focus on the humanitarian imperative to preserve life without being distracted by political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations have experience in all the skills required for global vaccine delivery : identifying those most in need , setting up logistics , and delivering what is needed cost-effectively and at scale .
The World Bank has announced a $ 12 billion plan to fund vaccinations for 2 billion people in poor countries .
Other early signs of cooperation include British Prime Minister Boris Johnson ’ s planned meeting with Bill Gates ( who has poured over a billion into the search for vaccines ) to discuss the potential rollout of the vaccination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their vaccine aid policy to philanthropists , however well-meaning they are .
It is the responsibility of world leaders , not private citizens , to ensure the world ’ s most disadvantaged communities receive this vaccine when it is ready .
They must avoid exacerbating the health disparities , domestic and global .
If health and economic inequalities are further entrenched by vaccination , it could lead to mistrust , further death , and potentially even civil unrest .
While the world is right to celebrate the existence of a vaccine , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has access to it , regardless of their economic status .

Much of the world is pinning its hopes on Pfizer, after the pharmaceutical company announced this week that it could be months, if not weeks, away from having the first safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19.
Much of the world is pinning its hopes on Pfizer, after the pharmaceutical company announced this week that it could be months, if not weeks, away from having the first safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19.
An implicit assumption behind the warranted excitement is that almost as soon as a vaccine is found, everyone will get access, and the virus will disappear almost as quickly as it spread. If that does happen, it would be a first.
The historical norm is that a vaccine of this sort is quickly given to those privileged to live in the world’s richest nations, while the rest of the world’s population often suffers for several decades before deadly diseases are eradicated—if they ever are.
Take polio, for example. The disease, which leads to symptoms including muscular atrophy and paralysis, was first described in the late 18th century. In the 1950s and ‘60s, vaccines were found, leading to the eradication of the virus in most developed countries within a decade or so. But it took until August of this year for the continent of Africa to be declared free of wild polio. Afghanistan and Pakistan still suffer from the disease. U.N. programs to eradicate the disease there have been stymied by pockets of resistance from groups skeptical of what they deem to be further Western intervention.
Polio is not an aberration. Tuberculosis killed 1.4 million people last year—more than the death toll to date from COVID-19. The bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine for tuberculosis was developed almost a century ago, but in the time since then, millions and millions of entirely avoidable deaths have occurred. There simply isn’t the funding or political will to avoid those deaths by making the vaccine universal.
It doesn’t stop there. In 2018, measles took some 140,000 lives, mostly of children under the age of five. Although there is a safe measles vaccine, which prevents millions of deaths every year, 1 in 7 children in the world do not receive it before their first birthday, leaving them vulnerable.
In short, millions of people die each year not because there is no way to prevent them from getting sick but because existing vaccines aren’t being manufactured or delivered to all those who need them. Such health inequality mostly holds back those who are already starting from behind, and creates a tragically divided world. The world cannot repeat the same mistakes with COVID-19.
Perhaps the universality of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the global presence of news cameras in intensive care units, will make this time different. And it really needs to be. This virus is more infectious than comparable diseases, and there is more movement of people around the world now than during every past outbreak. That means that the global human chain of transmission (or lack of transmission) is only as strong as its weakest link. Unless the virus is largely eradicated almost everywhere in the world, there are likely to be repeated surges in infections among unimmunized populations, and even among immunized populations in the case that the vaccine, as Pfizer reported, is only about 90 percent effective.
For their populations’ own health—not to mention the health of their fellow humans around the world—governments of developed countries must work through intergovernmental organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) to form a fair global vaccine distribution strategy. There is some hope that this will happen: U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has already announced that the United States will rejoin (and presumably restart funding commitments to) the WHO on his first day in office. Biden has stated that rejoining the organization will “restore our leadership on the world stage,” suggesting that he sees membership as being about more than simply the health of Americans
At the same time, Biden has made clear that he wants a vaccine to be available to all Americans, even the uninsured. But distributors will still need to prioritize, leaving the potential for many communities to remain vulnerable to the virus for many months or even years. To the extent that the next U.S. president is preoccupied with domestic vaccine distribution, there will be less bandwidth for him to support the global strategy.
This is where nongovernmental organizations, which can focus on the humanitarian imperative to preserve life without being distracted by political complexities, should come in. Nonprofit organizations have experience in all the skills required for global vaccine delivery: identifying those most in need, setting up logistics, and delivering what is needed cost-effectively and at scale. The World Bank has announced a $12 billion plan to fund vaccinations for 2 billion people in poor countries. Other early signs of cooperation include British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s planned meeting with Bill Gates (who has poured over a billion into the search for vaccines) to discuss the potential rollout of the vaccination.
But governments should not simply outsource their vaccine aid policy to philanthropists, however well-meaning they are. It is the responsibility of world leaders, not private citizens, to ensure the world’s most disadvantaged communities receive this vaccine when it is ready. They must avoid exacerbating the health disparities, domestic and global. If health and economic inequalities are further entrenched by vaccination, it could lead to mistrust, further death, and potentially even civil unrest.
While the world is right to celebrate the existence of a vaccine, the true celebration should come when every person has access to it, regardless of their economic status.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-12--Russia’s Recent History Shows How Coups Fail—and Succeed

As outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump attempts to cling onto power despite decisively losing the election , fears of a coup in the United States are growing .
Russia has experienced two coups in the recent past .
The first , in 1991 , was a last-ditch attempt to stop the reforms that eventually led to the collapse of the USSR .
The second , in 1993 , saw the democratically elected President Boris Yeltsin use military force to stop an effort to impeach him and instead impose a super-presidential constitution on Russia—the same constitution that Russia still governed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other succeeded may provide lessons on how the United States will hold up in the next few weeks .
Western readers may not be familiar with the outline of both events .
The coup of 1991 began on Aug. 19 when eight senior ministers calling themselves the State Committee on the State of Emergency seized power .
The Committee , which came to be called the Gang of Eight , included some of the most powerful men in the country , including the vice president of the Soviet Union , the Minister of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ KGB .
The Gang of Eight imprisoned then-USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev at his holiday home on the Black Sea and sent troops into Moscow and other major cities .
Gorbachev refused pressure to force him to resign .
In Moscow , the leaders of the Russian regional government , including the President Boris Yeltsin and Chairman of the Legislature Ruslan Khasbulatov , gathered the Russian legislature at the regional parliament building , commonly called the White House , and denounced the coup .
Despite efforts by the Gang of Eight to close all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an independent radio station , remained on air and foreign journalists were able to broadcast relatively unfettered from the heart of Moscow .
People in Moscow and across the Soviet Union gathered to protest against the coup .
In Moscow , thousands surrounded the White House to protect the regional government .
Most foreign governments , including those in Europe and Asia most vital to the Soviet economy , denounced the coup and began to impose sanctions .
Faced with strong opposition , the coup rapidly began to fall apart .
The tank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns to face away from the building and declared loyalty to the regional government .
More troops followed suit , although there were violent clashes between troops and protestors in Moscow and other cities that resulted in under a dozen civilian deaths .
By Aug. 22 , facing the prospect of civil war if they pushed further , the Gang of Eight folded and troops were withdrawn from Moscow .
The coup ultimately heralded the end of the USSR and , at the time , few would have thought troops would be back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the White House would be in flames .
Two years later , now a democratic state , Russia still functioned under its Soviet constitution and efforts to establish a new one had stalled due to a disagreement between the legislature and President Yeltsin over the balance of power .
The situation came to a head on Sep. 21 , 1993 , when Yeltsin issued a decree that dissolved the legislature and called for a referendum on a new constitution , one that gave the president strong powers , to be followed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The legislature refused to be dissolved and impeached Yeltsin , installing Vice President Alexander Rutskoy as acting President .
Yeltsin refused to leave office and had the police surround the White House .
Western governments , spooked by the very vocal presence of a minority of nationalist and hardline communist in parliament , largely supported Yeltsin .
The situation stalled in a protracted siege during which many legislature members and several key factions deserted , complying with Yeltsin ’ s order to disband .
Ultimately , efforts to mediate a compromise failed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as legislature supporters took the Moscow mayor ’ s office and tried ( and failed ) to seize the Ostankino Moscow ’ s main TV station .
A gun battle developed between the army and pro-legislature militias , with 46 people killed .
The military then moved in and bombarded the White House with tanks until the legislature surrendered .
Ultimately between 150 and 500 people died in the fighting .
Within two years , Russia had thus experienced both a failed and a successful coup involving many of the same players and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That makes it an excellent comparative study for what causes a coup to work—or otherwise .
Firstly , a coup ’ s success depends on the loyalty of the military at both the command level and among common soldiers .
In 1991 , the defection of a few battalions ultimately led to whole divisions switching sides .
A sufficient legal pretext is also needed to give the coup an air of legitimacy .
The nebulous state of Russia ’ s constitution in 1993 let Yeltsin get away with dissolving parliament , whereas the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sufficient legal pretext to gain power by failing to force Gorbachev to resign .
On both sides of a coup , control of the narrative seems to be a key factor .
This includes the ability to broadcast their message and rally popular support .
In 1991 , public opposition to the coup was widespread and independent media carried stark images of tanks on the streets of Moscow .
In 1993 , though crowds turned out to support parliament , they were initially only faced by police .
As cameras began to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultra-nationalists that made up a section of the legislature supporters , Yeltsin was able to paint all his opponents as extremists .
The ability of the opposition to unify is also key .
In 1991 , Yeltsin and other regional leaders united strongly against the coup .
In 1993 , the legislature succeeded in impeaching Yeltsin , but it was not a unanimous decision and many factions began to desert the legislature almost immediately .
Finally , there is the ability to gain international recognition and support especially with nations that are crucial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1991 , the Gang of Eight had the support of a handful of communist states and nothing else .
In 1993 , most nations led by the US lined up behind Yeltsin allowing him to keep international recognition .
When it comes to the United States , there appears to be good news for now .
There is the loyalty of the military to consider , where a would-be Trump coup appears to fall flat .
The U.S. military has for the entire duration of its existence been apolitical , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thus , orders that clearly contradict or threaten the constitution are unlikely to be obeyed by the uniform ranks , even if civilian appointees within the Department of Defense support them .
Trump has also repeatedly insulted and alienated the military , both over symbolic issues and by targeting his own generals for criticism .
Trump also lacks a sufficient legal pretext to hold onto power .
Allegations of massive voter fraud by Trump and his supporters have failed in court , with even highly conservative judges noting that there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people worry about the strong conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court , it is unlikely that a voter fraud case that has been dismissed due to lack of evidence will find its way there .
Even then , the court can not overturn an election .
The constitution is unambiguous .
Trump will cease being president on Jan. 20 at midday .
This is not open for interpretation .
Trumps voter fraud allegations certainly are helping to create a narrative for his supporters , but it is hardly control of the narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no majority , or even a significant plurality , for Trump ’ s ideas .
One poll found that 79 percent of respondents believe Biden won , 13 percent believe it ’ s undecided , and just 3 percent believe in a Trump victory .
The United States has no state news agency that can broadcast within the country , and even within news groups such as Fox normally heavily predisposed to Trump there is doubt over his allegations .
Certainly , the opposition to Trump is divided over ideological and policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to illegally hold onto power would serve as a unifying force .
Massive protests would erupt in all major cities , as they did this summer over Black Lives Matter , and state governments would refuse to back Trump ’ s claims .
Key Republican secretaries of state and governors are dismissing Trump ’ s claims .
It is also unlikely that , though Biden has not received acknowledgement of his victory from several governments especially those with strong personal ties to the Trump family or hostile to the United States , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It seems highly unlikely a single allied democratic government would support Trump staying in office , especially if he did so through a coup .
Much like the Gang of Eight , Trump may have the desire to hold onto power and stave off the inevitable , but he is even less capable of doing so than they were in 1991 .
Trump still commands the military and federal government until Jan. 20 , but he is unlikely to find more than a handful of professionals who would be willing to let him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after his term expires .
It is still unclear what Trump will do in the days and weeks ahead , but his options are extremely limited .
It is likely his obstinacy will make the incoming Biden administration job harder with a bumpy transition .
Trump ’ s antics will also continue to galvanize his most deranged supporters and raise the risk of domestic terrorism in the years ahead .
Ultimately , Trump can not succeed in launching a coup because he lacks any of the necessary components to give it even a @ @ @ @ @

As outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump attempts to cling onto power despite decisively losing the election, fears of a coup in the United States are growing. Russia has experienced two coups in the recent past. The first, in 1991, was a last-ditch attempt to stop the reforms that eventually led to the collapse of the USSR. The second, in 1993, saw the democratically elected President Boris Yeltsin use military force to stop an effort to impeach him and instead impose a super-presidential constitution on Russia—the same constitution that Russia still governed by today. Why one failed and the other succeeded may provide lessons on how the United States will hold up in the next few weeks.
As outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump attempts to cling onto power despite decisively losing the election, fears of a coup in the United States are growing. Russia has experienced two coups in the recent past. The first, in 1991, was a last-ditch attempt to stop the reforms that eventually led to the collapse of the USSR. The second, in 1993, saw the democratically elected President Boris Yeltsin use military force to stop an effort to impeach him and instead impose a super-presidential constitution on Russia—the same constitution that Russia still governed by today. Why one failed and the other succeeded may provide lessons on how the United States will hold up in the next few weeks.
Western readers may not be familiar with the outline of both events. The coup of 1991 began on Aug. 19 when eight senior ministers calling themselves the State Committee on the State of Emergency seized power. The Committee, which came to be called the Gang of Eight, included some of the most powerful men in the country, including the vice president of the Soviet Union, the Minister of Defense, and the head of the KGB.
The Gang of Eight imprisoned then-USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev at his holiday home on the Black Sea and sent troops into Moscow and other major cities. Gorbachev refused pressure to force him to resign. In Moscow, the leaders of the Russian regional government, including the President Boris Yeltsin and Chairman of the Legislature Ruslan Khasbulatov, gathered the Russian legislature at the regional parliament building, commonly called the White House, and denounced the coup.
Despite efforts by the Gang of Eight to close all non-state broadcast networks, Echo Moscow, an independent radio station, remained on air and foreign journalists were able to broadcast relatively unfettered from the heart of Moscow. People in Moscow and across the Soviet Union gathered to protest against the coup. In Moscow, thousands surrounded the White House to protect the regional government. Most foreign governments, including those in Europe and Asia most vital to the Soviet economy, denounced the coup and began to impose sanctions.
Faced with strong opposition, the coup rapidly began to fall apart. The tank battalion outside the White House turned their guns to face away from the building and declared loyalty to the regional government. More troops followed suit, although there were violent clashes between troops and protestors in Moscow and other cities that resulted in under a dozen civilian deaths. By Aug. 22, facing the prospect of civil war if they pushed further, the Gang of Eight folded and troops were withdrawn from Moscow. The coup ultimately heralded the end of the USSR and, at the time, few would have thought troops would be back in Moscow a mere two years later and the White House would be in flames.
Two years later, now a democratic state, Russia still functioned under its Soviet constitution and efforts to establish a new one had stalled due to a disagreement between the legislature and President Yeltsin over the balance of power. The situation came to a head on Sep. 21, 1993, when Yeltsin issued a decree that dissolved the legislature and called for a referendum on a new constitution, one that gave the president strong powers, to be followed by the election of a new parliament. The legislature refused to be dissolved and impeached Yeltsin, installing Vice President Alexander Rutskoy as acting President.
Yeltsin refused to leave office and had the police surround the White House. Western governments, spooked by the very vocal presence of a minority of nationalist and hardline communist in parliament, largely supported Yeltsin. The situation stalled in a protracted siege during which many legislature members and several key factions deserted, complying with Yeltsin’s order to disband.
Ultimately, efforts to mediate a compromise failed and on Oct. 3-4, violence broke out as legislature supporters took the Moscow mayor’s office and tried (and failed) to seize the Ostankino Moscow’s main TV station. A gun battle developed between the army and pro-legislature militias, with 46 people killed. The military then moved in and bombarded the White House with tanks until the legislature surrendered. Ultimately between 150 and 500 people died in the fighting.
Within two years, Russia had thus experienced both a failed and a successful coup involving many of the same players and likely many of the same soldiers. That makes it an excellent comparative study for what causes a coup to work—or otherwise.
Firstly, a coup’s success depends on the loyalty of the military at both the command level and among common soldiers. In 1991, the defection of a few battalions ultimately led to whole divisions switching sides.
A sufficient legal pretext is also needed to give the coup an air of legitimacy. The nebulous state of Russia’s constitution in 1993 let Yeltsin get away with dissolving parliament, whereas the Gang of Eight were unable to provide a sufficient legal pretext to gain power by failing to force Gorbachev to resign.
On both sides of a coup, control of the narrative seems to be a key factor. This includes the ability to broadcast their message and rally popular support. In 1991, public opposition to the coup was widespread and independent media carried stark images of tanks on the streets of Moscow. In 1993, though crowds turned out to support parliament, they were initially only faced by police. As cameras began to focus on the neo-Nazi thugs and Russian ultra-nationalists that made up a section of the legislature supporters, Yeltsin was able to paint all his opponents as extremists.
The ability of the opposition to unify is also key. In 1991, Yeltsin and other regional leaders united strongly against the coup. In 1993, the legislature succeeded in impeaching Yeltsin, but it was not a unanimous decision and many factions began to desert the legislature almost immediately.
Finally, there is the ability to gain international recognition and support especially with nations that are crucial to the state’s economic interest. In 1991, the Gang of Eight had the support of a handful of communist states and nothing else. In 1993, most nations led by the US lined up behind Yeltsin allowing him to keep international recognition.
When it comes to the United States, there appears to be good news for now. There is the loyalty of the military to consider, where a would-be Trump coup appears to fall flat. The U.S. military has for the entire duration of its existence been apolitical, and service members swear to uphold the constitution. Thus, orders that clearly contradict or threaten the constitution are unlikely to be obeyed by the uniform ranks, even if civilian appointees within the Department of Defense support them. Trump has also repeatedly insulted and alienated the military, both over symbolic issues and by targeting his own generals for criticism.
Trump also lacks a sufficient legal pretext to hold onto power. Allegations of massive voter fraud by Trump and his supporters have failed in court, with even highly conservative judges noting that there is no merit to the allegations. Though some people worry about the strong conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, it is unlikely that a voter fraud case that has been dismissed due to lack of evidence will find its way there. Even then, the court cannot overturn an election. The constitution is unambiguous. Trump will cease being president on Jan. 20 at midday. This is not open for interpretation.
Trumps voter fraud allegations certainly are helping to create a narrative for his supporters, but it is hardly control of the narrative. Polling is mixed, but there is no majority, or even a significant plurality, for Trump’s ideas. One poll found that 79 percent of respondents believe Biden won, 13 percent believe it’s undecided, and just 3 percent believe in a Trump victory. The United States has no state news agency that can broadcast within the country, and even within news groups such as Fox normally heavily predisposed to Trump there is doubt over his allegations.
Certainly, the opposition to Trump is divided over ideological and policy lines, but an attempt by Trump to illegally hold onto power would serve as a unifying force. Massive protests would erupt in all major cities, as they did this summer over Black Lives Matter, and state governments would refuse to back Trump’s claims. Key Republican secretaries of state and governors are dismissing Trump’s claims.
It is also unlikely that, though Biden has not received acknowledgement of his victory from several governments especially those with strong personal ties to the Trump family or hostile to the United States, a Trump-led junta would gain international recognition. It seems highly unlikely a single allied democratic government would support Trump staying in office, especially if he did so through a coup.
Much like the Gang of Eight, Trump may have the desire to hold onto power and stave off the inevitable, but he is even less capable of doing so than they were in 1991. Trump still commands the military and federal government until Jan. 20, but he is unlikely to find more than a handful of professionals who would be willing to let him use extra-constitutional means to remain in office after his term expires.
It is still unclear what Trump will do in the days and weeks ahead, but his options are extremely limited. It is likely his obstinacy will make the incoming Biden administration job harder with a bumpy transition. Trump’s antics will also continue to galvanize his most deranged supporters and raise the risk of domestic terrorism in the years ahead. Ultimately, Trump cannot succeed in launching a coup because he lacks any of the necessary components to give it even a remote chance of success.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-12--Kremlin Spin Doctors are Leading Russia’s Vaccine Development

You ’ ve got a vaccine against COVID-19 that ’ s 90 percent effective ?
Well , Russia does too .
So declared an official from Russia ’ s health ministry just hours after Pfizer released results of its Phase 3 study on Monday .
Russia was also the first country to announce that it was approving a vaccine , called Sputnik V , which got the green light from regulators in August .
( Some of Russia ’ s political elite had such confidence in Sputnik V that they tested it on themselves as early as April , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
Russian President Vladimir Putin ’ s daughter even got a shot . )
In October , the country ’ s speedy scientists won approval for a second vaccine .
Measured by their public health effort , there is little to show for Russia ’ s vaccine efforts .
Putin ’ s daughter appears healthy , as far as we know , but Russia ’ political elite has been hit hard by the virus .
Prime minister Mikhail Mishustin contracted the virus this spring .
Putin ’ s spokesman Dmitry Peskov did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture and energy .
Nineteen provincial governors also tested positive .
Presuming the Duma has been hit by a fair number of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases , it could plausibly be the world ’ s only legislature to have reached herd immunity .
Moreover , the Russian Duma appears to have been the site of at least one super-spreader event .
According to the Duma speaker , 20 percent of Duma deputies have fallen ill with COVID-19 at some point during the pandemic .
And as of late October , he said , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire chamber—were hospitalized .
You ’ d have been far safer attending Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination party than a hearing in Russia ’ s legislature .
The one upside is that , presuming the Duma has been hit by a fair number of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases , it could plausibly be the world ’ s only such body to have reached herd immunity .
Outside the legislature , Russia is far from herd immunity as it suffers a second wave as disastrous as any in Europe .
Moscow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
Other regions lack credible testing and reporting regimes but show evidence of a similarly severe pandemic .
Moscow recently closed restaurants and bars from 11pm to 6am , leaving residents only 17 hours each day to contract coronavirus at their favorite watering hole .
It is hard to see how such measures will slow the virus ’ s spread .
Like in many countries , opposition to social distancing is growing .
All this serves as a reminder that the world needs vaccines fast .
But Russia has one , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot may have been notionally approved , but it is impossible to get .
The only option for Russians who are not members of the political elite to get the vaccine is to enroll in trials that are still underway , despite the earlier approval .
( In fact , at least one of Russia ’ s COVID-stricken legislators , Valery Gartung , did participate in the Sputnik V trial and contracted the illness afterward .
“ Now I have a positive [ COVID ] test , which obviously means I got the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the vaccine trial faces major delays .
As of Nov. 11 , 16,000 people had received both doses of the vaccine as part of the trial , according to the head of the institute that developed the vaccine .
By contrast , Pfizer ’ s trial , the results of which were announced earlier this week , has given its two shots to nearly 39,000 people .
Moderna , AstraZeneca , and Johnson & Johnson are not far behind .
Putin has blamed equipment shortages for the delay in expanding Sputnik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ V will be given to 30,000 trial participants , with 10,000 others given a placebo .
But the latest data suggest full enrollment is at least weeks away .
For now , there isn ’ t reliable information on whether the vaccine is safe or whether it works .
Unlike Western pharma firms ’ vaccine efforts , which have enrolled thousands of people in transparent tests , Russia ’ s vaccines are still in the early stages of their Phase 3 studies—the point at which vaccines are given to lots of people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to alternatives—and the protocols have raised concerns .
Several dozen distinguished scientists signed an open letter pointing out suspicious patterns in the Russian vaccine ’ s early data as well as other inconsistencies in the description of the trial procedures .
This lack of transparency explains why 59 percent of Russians tell pollsters they are unwilling to get vaccinated .
Such politicization , however , hasn ’ t stopped countries from Brazil to India to Saudi Arabia from signing up to buy Sputnik V. In the end , Russia ’ s vaccine probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Sputnik , making a vaccine isn ’ t rocket science .
Drug companies have decades of experience producing vaccines , and Russia has a well developed pharmaceutical industry .
There ’ s no reason why a Russian lab shouldn ’ t be able to develop a COVID vaccine .
Unlike the satellite after which it is named , Sputnik V will not really be the world ’ s first vaccine against COVID-19 .
It is now clear that , despite approving a vaccine months ahead of all rivals , Russia will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk into a pharmacy and get a shot .
But Sputnik V already is the first vaccine in the world with its own Twitter account , as part of a broader campaign to publicize its successes by its funders , including the government-backed Russian Direct Investment Fund .
It is also on Facebook , Instagram , and YouTube .
Opening a Twitter account before fully setting up a trial is an apt metaphor for Russia ’ s scientific efforts in general .
Stunts have overtaken data and process .
It isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the vaccine is not a scientist but rather a Kremlin-backed financier , Kirill Dmitriev , who heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund , which is funding Sputnik V. This probably explains why the successes trumpeted in Sputnik ’ s press releases have far outstripped the scientific evidence that Russian scientists have released thus far .
Prioritizing political impact over medical efficacy isn ’ t a good way to run a health system .
But health and science have not been Kremlin priorities for years , as funding has been cut and top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors , though , remain highly valued by Russia ’ s leaders .
The Kremlin ’ s entire vaccine “ approval ” process was designed as much to win headlines as to test antibody levels .
We can say with 95 percent confidence that it is succeeding on at least one of these metrics .

You’ve got a vaccine against COVID-19 that’s 90 percent effective? Well, Russia does too. So declared an official from Russia’s health ministry just hours after Pfizer released results of its Phase 3 study on Monday. Russia was also the first country to announce that it was approving a vaccine, called Sputnik V, which got the green light from regulators in August. (Some of Russia’s political elite had such confidence in Sputnik V that they tested it on themselves as early as April, just as the pandemic was slamming into their country. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s daughter even got a shot .) In October, the country’s speedy scientists won approval for a second vaccine.
You’ve got a vaccine against COVID-19 that’s 90 percent effective? Well, Russia does too. So declared an official from Russia’s health ministry just hours after Pfizer released results of its Phase 3 study on Monday. Russia was also the first country to announce that it was approving a vaccine, called Sputnik V, which got the green light from regulators in August. (Some of Russia’s political elite had such confidence in Sputnik V that they tested it on themselves as early as April, just as the pandemic was slamming into their country. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s daughter even got a shot.) In October, the country’s speedy scientists won approval for a second vaccine.
Measured by their public health effort, there is little to show for Russia’s vaccine efforts. Putin’s daughter appears healthy, as far as we know, but Russia’ political elite has been hit hard by the virus. Prime minister Mikhail Mishustin contracted the virus this spring. Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov did too, as did the ministers of culture and energy. Nineteen provincial governors also tested positive.
Presuming the Duma has been hit by a fair number of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases, it could plausibly be the world’s only legislature to have reached herd immunity.
Moreover, the Russian Duma appears to have been the site of at least one super-spreader event. According to the Duma speaker, 20 percent of Duma deputies have fallen ill with COVID-19 at some point during the pandemic. And as of late October, he said, a staggering 38 Duma members—8 percent of the entire chamber—were hospitalized. You’d have been far safer attending Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination party than a hearing in Russia’s legislature. The one upside is that, presuming the Duma has been hit by a fair number of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases, it could plausibly be the world’s only such body to have reached herd immunity.
Outside the legislature, Russia is far from herd immunity as it suffers a second wave as disastrous as any in Europe. Moscow alone is reporting thousands of cases each day. Other regions lack credible testing and reporting regimes but show evidence of a similarly severe pandemic. Moscow recently closed restaurants and bars from 11pm to 6am, leaving residents only 17 hours each day to contract coronavirus at their favorite watering hole. It is hard to see how such measures will slow the virus’s spread. Like in many countries, opposition to social distancing is growing. All this serves as a reminder that the world needs vaccines fast.
But Russia has one, you might point out. Well, the shot may have been notionally approved, but it is impossible to get.
The only option for Russians who are not members of the political elite to get the vaccine is to enroll in trials that are still underway, despite the earlier approval. (In fact, at least one of Russia’s COVID-stricken legislators, Valery Gartung, did participate in the Sputnik V trial and contracted the illness afterward. “Now I have a positive [COVID] test, which obviously means I got the placebo,” he explained.) However, the vaccine trial faces major delays. As of Nov. 11, 16,000 people had received both doses of the vaccine as part of the trial, according to the head of the institute that developed the vaccine. By contrast, Pfizer’s trial, the results of which were announced earlier this week, has given its two shots to nearly 39,000 people. Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are not far behind. Putin has blamed equipment shortages for the delay in expanding Sputnik V vaccine production.
Eventually, Sputnik V will be given to 30,000 trial participants, with 10,000 others given a placebo. But the latest data suggest full enrollment is at least weeks away. For now, there isn’t reliable information on whether the vaccine is safe or whether it works. Unlike Western pharma firms’ vaccine efforts, which have enrolled thousands of people in transparent tests, Russia’s vaccines are still in the early stages of their Phase 3 studies—the point at which vaccines are given to lots of people to assess their side effects and effectiveness compared to alternatives—and the protocols have raised concerns. Several dozen distinguished scientists signed an open letter pointing out suspicious patterns in the Russian vaccine’s early data as well as other inconsistencies in the description of the trial procedures. This lack of transparency explains why 59 percent of Russians tell pollsters they are unwilling to get vaccinated. Such politicization, however, hasn’t stopped countries from Brazil to India to Saudi Arabia from signing up to buy Sputnik V.
In the end, Russia’s vaccine probably will work, because despite being named after Sputnik, making a vaccine isn’t rocket science. Drug companies have decades of experience producing vaccines, and Russia has a well developed pharmaceutical industry. There’s no reason why a Russian lab shouldn’t be able to develop a COVID vaccine.
Unlike the satellite after which it is named, Sputnik V will not really be the world’s first vaccine against COVID-19. It is now clear that, despite approving a vaccine months ahead of all rivals, Russia will not be the first country where someone can walk into a pharmacy and get a shot. But Sputnik V already is the first vaccine in the world with its own Twitter account, as part of a broader campaign to publicize its successes by its funders, including the government-backed Russian Direct Investment Fund. It is also on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.
Opening a Twitter account before fully setting up a trial is an apt metaphor for Russia’s scientific efforts in general. Stunts have overtaken data and process. It isn’t a coincidence that the most public-facing figure behind the vaccine is not a scientist but rather a Kremlin-backed financier, Kirill Dmitriev, who heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which is funding Sputnik V. This probably explains why the successes trumpeted in Sputnik’s press releases have far outstripped the scientific evidence that Russian scientists have released thus far.
Prioritizing political impact over medical efficacy isn’t a good way to run a health system. But health and science have not been Kremlin priorities for years, as funding has been cut and top scientists and doctors moved abroad. Spin doctors, though, remain highly valued by Russia’s leaders. The Kremlin’s entire vaccine “approval” process was designed as much to win headlines as to test antibody levels. We can say with 95 percent confidence that it is succeeding on at least one of these metrics.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-12--Trump Appointee Stonewalls Congress on Transition Progress

The General Services Administration has failed to meet a deadline to share with Congress its plans to certify the election results , Foreign Policy has learned , setting up a further standoff between Democrats on Capitol Hill and the Trump administration , which has pushed back on letting the presidential transition process begin as it continues to tout baseless allegations of voter fraud .
After GSA Administrator Emily Murphy refused to certify President-elect Joe Biden ’ s election victory last week , a move that typically takes place immediately after a winner is declared , three House Democrats , Reps. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connolly of Virginia , and Dina Titus of Nevada , requested answers by Wednesday as to why the outcome was not apparent , what actions the agency had taken to ascertain the victor , and whether President Donald Trump or the White House had directed the agency to block a potential transition .
But Murphy failed to respond to the letter , sent on Monday , or to provide an immediate briefing to Congress on efforts made to initiate the transition , a silence that could prompt further questions from Capitol Hill .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ President-elect Biden ’ s victory , the House is looking at its options to stop GSA ’ s dangerous games , ” a House aide said .
The aide did not respond to follow-up questions .
While it was not clear what ability Congress would have to intervene to force GSA ’ s hand , Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said he would intervene by Friday if the Trump administration does not give Biden access to daily intelligence briefings , and other colleagues , including acting Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Marco Rubio , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to receive classified briefings .
The House aide did not respond to follow-up questions .
In a letter to Murphy on Thursday obtained by Politico , more than 150 former top officials who served under Trump and other administrations warned that the certification delay could have grave implications for national security .
Access to transition resources “ is essential to ensure continuity of government from one administration to the next , and each day the Administrator delays is another day that the Biden team will be without critical information to prepare to combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” wrote the authors , including former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden .
Biden has already named a detailed transition team to prepare for the inauguration , and on Wednesday night chose veteran Democratic operative and longtime aide Ron Klain to be his White House chief of staff .
But with the official U.S. certification still up in the air , the president-elect has yet to receive the President ’ s Daily Brief , the intelligence community ’ s high-level national security rundown typically provided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also preventing federal funds from flowing to the Biden team , as well as the arrival of “ landing teams ” at agencies across the government that will map out and fill politically appointed positions .
“ The American people resoundingly voted to remove Donald Trump from office .
By failing to ascertain Biden ’ s and Kamala Harris ’ clear victory , you are undermining the urgent need for a prompt and effective transition of power in the midst of a global pandemic that must be focused on the safety and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers , led by Pascrell , wrote on Monday .
Virginia Democratic Sens .
Mark Warner and Tim Kaine also asked Murphy to explain the delay , as the White House reportedly began to plan next year ’ s budget in a sign they are likely to continue to defy the transition .
The effects of the delayed transition have already been felt this week , as the Trump administration has overhauled key agencies while failing to grant access to the incoming Biden team .
Over the past two days , the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership by booting officials seen as insufficiently loyal to the outgoing president , such as Defense Secretary Mark Esper and his chief of staff Jen Stewart—who was slated to lead the Defense Department ’ s transition effort for the departing team—with loyalists preparing for an unlikely second term .
CNN reported on Wednesday that the Trump team is also preventing Biden officials from getting messages from foreign leaders to the president-elect that are piling up at the State Department , though Biden has begun taking calls with foreign leaders .
Meanwhile , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end-arounds to pursue a transfer of power despite the current legal limitations , including reaching out to former Trump administration officials willing to help aid the transition , a former senior Trump administration official said .
Members of Biden ’ s team are under strict orders not to have contact with current Trump administration officials and also lack the ability to field sensitive phone calls on secure lines , according to The Washington Post , which also first reported on the outreach effort to recently departed officials .
“ They ’ re reaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to partake in some form of transition and either aren ’ t partisan or are willing to work [ with them ] , ” the former official said , adding that the effort extended to most of the key strategic regions of the world where a future Biden administration will be adding staffers .
Update , Nov. 12 , 2020 : This article was updated with further details on members of Congress and former U.S. officials pushing to give President-elect Joe Biden access to daily intelligence briefings .

The General Services Administration has failed to meet a deadline to share with Congress its plans to certify the election results, Foreign Policy has learned, setting up a further standoff between Democrats on Capitol Hill and the Trump administration, which has pushed back on letting the presidential transition process begin as it continues to tout baseless allegations of voter fraud.
The General Services Administration has failed to meet a deadline to share with Congress its plans to certify the election results, Foreign Policy has learned, setting up a further standoff between Democrats on Capitol Hill and the Trump administration, which has pushed back on letting the presidential transition process begin as it continues to tout baseless allegations of voter fraud.
After GSA Administrator Emily Murphy refused to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory last week, a move that typically takes place immediately after a winner is declared, three House Democrats, Reps. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey, Gerry Connolly of Virginia, and Dina Titus of Nevada, requested answers by Wednesday as to why the outcome was not apparent, what actions the agency had taken to ascertain the victor, and whether President Donald Trump or the White House had directed the agency to block a potential transition.
But Murphy failed to respond to the letter, sent on Monday, or to provide an immediate briefing to Congress on efforts made to initiate the transition, a silence that could prompt further questions from Capitol Hill. “If the GSA does not recognize President-elect Biden’s victory, the House is looking at its options to stop GSA’s dangerous games,” a House aide said. The aide did not respond to follow-up questions.
While it was not clear what ability Congress would have to intervene to force GSA’s hand, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said he would intervene by Friday if the Trump administration does not give Biden access to daily intelligence briefings, and other colleagues, including acting Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Marco Rubio, have also echoed the need for Biden to receive classified briefings. The House aide did not respond to follow-up questions. In a letter to Murphy on Thursday obtained by Politico, more than 150 former top officials who served under Trump and other administrations warned that the certification delay could have grave implications for national security.
Access to transition resources “is essential to ensure continuity of government from one administration to the next, and each day the Administrator delays is another day that the Biden team will be without critical information to prepare to combat the threats that the nation faces,” wrote the authors, including former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden.
Biden has already named a detailed transition team to prepare for the inauguration, and on Wednesday night chose veteran Democratic operative and longtime aide Ron Klain to be his White House chief of staff. But with the official U.S. certification still up in the air, the president-elect has yet to receive the President’s Daily Brief, the intelligence community’s high-level national security rundown typically provided to all incoming U.S. administrations. The move is also preventing federal funds from flowing to the Biden team, as well as the arrival of “landing teams” at agencies across the government that will map out and fill politically appointed positions.
“The American people resoundingly voted to remove Donald Trump from office. By failing to ascertain Biden’s and Kamala Harris’ clear victory, you are undermining the urgent need for a prompt and effective transition of power in the midst of a global pandemic that must be focused on the safety and well-being of our citizens,” the lawmakers, led by Pascrell, wrote on Monday. Virginia Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine also asked Murphy to explain the delay, as the White House reportedly began to plan next year’s budget in a sign they are likely to continue to defy the transition.
The effects of the delayed transition have already been felt this week, as the Trump administration has overhauled key agencies while failing to grant access to the incoming Biden team.
Over the past two days, the Trump administration has remade the Pentagon’s leadership by booting officials seen as insufficiently loyal to the outgoing president, such as Defense Secretary Mark Esper and his chief of staff Jen Stewart—who was slated to lead the Defense Department’s transition effort for the departing team—with loyalists preparing for an unlikely second term. CNN reported on Wednesday that the Trump team is also preventing Biden officials from getting messages from foreign leaders to the president-elect that are piling up at the State Department, though Biden has begun taking calls with foreign leaders.
Meanwhile, the Biden team has started to look at end-arounds to pursue a transfer of power despite the current legal limitations, including reaching out to former Trump administration officials willing to help aid the transition, a former senior Trump administration official said. Members of Biden’s team are under strict orders not to have contact with current Trump administration officials and also lack the ability to field sensitive phone calls on secure lines, according to The Washington Post, which also first reported on the outreach effort to recently departed officials.
“They’re reaching out to people they think would be willing to partake in some form of transition and either aren’t partisan or are willing to work [with them],” the former official said, adding that the effort extended to most of the key strategic regions of the world where a future Biden administration will be adding staffers.
Update, Nov. 12, 2020: This article was updated with further details on members of Congress and former U.S. officials pushing to give President-elect Joe Biden access to daily intelligence briefings.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-12--Why China Isn’t Congratulating Biden

Why China Isn’t Congratulating Biden

Custom has it that as soon as an election result becomes clear , other heads of state send warm wishes to the newly elected leader .
Four days after the U.S. television networks called the 2020 U.S. presidential election , the governments of Canada , France , Germany , and the United Kingdom have sent congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden .
So have Australia , Japan , Singapore , and South Korea in the Pacific .
In the Middle East and South Asia , even countries that U.S. President Donald Trump courted during his presidency , such as India , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling Biden the president-elect .
But China has not yet acknowledged Biden ’ s victory .
Most Chinese-language media reports are treating Biden ’ s victory as a foregone conclusion .
But they are also disturbed by Trump ’ s refusal to concede and see a real risk that he could try to retaliate against China before leaving office .
Beijing seems to have determined that the safest approach is to wait Trump out , preparing for a Biden presidency while humoring Trump ’ s claims that the election result is still undetermined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an apparent Biden win was that there was nothing left to fear from Trump .
On Saturday , around the time the U.S. networks first called the result , Trump tweeted , “ I WON THIS ELECTION , BY A LOT !
” The People ’ s Daily , the most prominent mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party , retweeted him with an uncharacteristically snide “ HaHa ” and a “ rolling on the floor laughing ” emoji .
According to the Internet Archive ’ s cache , the People ’ s Daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter for over nine hours .
It garnered over 30,000 likes and 10,000 retweets .
But then , sometime on Sunday , the People ’ s Daily took the tweet down .
By Monday morning , the Chinese government had settled on a new , far more cautious line .
At his daily media briefing , foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said : “ We understand that the U.S. presidential election result will be determined following U.S. law and procedures.
” Hu Xijin , editor of the state-owned nationalist tabloid Global Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t congratulated Biden on his victory … because China needs to keep larger distance from the U.S. presidential election to avoid getting entangled in its controversy.
” Hu ’ s analysis was probably wise .
Hours later , Trump tweeted that he had “ terminated ” Mark Esper , his acting secretary of defense .
The Chinese government did not comment on the news , but the Chinese financial press treated the story as very concerning indeed .
One Chinese headline read : “ Trump ’ s firing of Defense Secretary Esper makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused unease among [ U.S. ] allies and the Pentagon , ” it read , and “ injected uncertainty into the presidential transition period.
” Citing a New York Times report , the Chinese news agency Sohu noted that Esper ’ s dismissal could suggest that Trump plans to “ launch actions ” against Iran or other foreign adversaries in his “ last few days of his term.
” These actions could be “ public or covert , ” it warned .
China ’ s apparent alarm had ramped up by Tuesday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial media group in China , criticized Trump for injecting “ chaos and uncertainty into the presidential transition ” by firing Esper .
It is unclear what form China thinks Trump ’ s potential retribution would take , whether a cyberattack , new trade measures , or provocative military exchanges with Taiwan .
But the risk seems sufficiently material that the highest levels of the Chinese state and Communist Party are paying close attention .
Hesitant as they may be to congratulate Biden , Chinese reports do not suggest any real possibility that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Caixin is calling Biden the president-elect .
Northeast Securities , a Chinese financial firm , wrote that “ the U.S. general election mail-in votes are still in statistical processing , but a Biden victory is a high probability event.
” They have paid hardly any attention to the details of Trump ’ s legal challenges of mail-in ballots or demands for recounts in swing states .
The Global Times even reported on Tuesday morning that Trump has been talking about running again in 2024 .
“ If the news is true , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it means that although Trump has vowed to ‘ fight to the end in court , ’ he has understood the reality that he lost in this election.
” China has no illusions that a Biden presidency will reverse the Trump administration ’ s hard line .
“ The results of the U.S. election will not change the pattern of long-term conflict between China and the United States , ” one report read .
Every indication is that China wants to compete and win in this “ long-term conflict.
” For now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s final months in power .
As long as Trump continues to contest the election result , Biden should not expect a congratulatory call from President Xi Jinping .

Custom has it that as soon as an election result becomes clear, other heads of state send warm wishes to the newly elected leader. Four days after the U.S. television networks called the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the governments of Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have sent congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden. So have Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea in the Pacific. In the Middle East and South Asia, even countries that U.S. President Donald Trump courted during his presidency, such as India, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, are calling Biden the president-elect. But China has not yet acknowledged Biden’s victory.
Custom has it that as soon as an election result becomes clear, other heads of state send warm wishes to the newly elected leader. Four days after the U.S. television networks called the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the governments of Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have sent congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden. So have Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea in the Pacific. In the Middle East and South Asia, even countries that U.S. President Donald Trump courted during his presidency, such as India, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, are calling Biden the president-elect. But China has not yet acknowledged Biden’s victory.
Most Chinese-language media reports are treating Biden’s victory as a foregone conclusion. But they are also disturbed by Trump’s refusal to concede and see a real risk that he could try to retaliate against China before leaving office. Beijing seems to have determined that the safest approach is to wait Trump out, preparing for a Biden presidency while humoring Trump’s claims that the election result is still undetermined.
China’s initial reaction to an apparent Biden win was that there was nothing left to fear from Trump. On Saturday, around the time the U.S. networks first called the result, Trump tweeted, “I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!” The People’s Daily, the most prominent mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, retweeted him with an uncharacteristically snide “HaHa” and a “rolling on the floor laughing” emoji.
According to the Internet Archive’s cache, the People’s Daily’s jab at Trump stayed up on Twitter for over nine hours. It garnered over 30,000 likes and 10,000 retweets. But then, sometime on Sunday, the People’s Daily took the tweet down.
By Monday morning, the Chinese government had settled on a new, far more cautious line. At his daily media briefing, foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said: “We understand that the U.S. presidential election result will be determined following U.S. law and procedures.” Hu Xijin, editor of the state-owned nationalist tabloid Global Times, tweeted that “China hasn’t congratulated Biden on his victory … because China needs to keep larger distance from the U.S. presidential election to avoid getting entangled in its controversy.”
Hu’s analysis was probably wise. Hours later, Trump tweeted that he had “terminated” Mark Esper, his acting secretary of defense. The Chinese government did not comment on the news, but the Chinese financial press treated the story as very concerning indeed. One Chinese headline read: “Trump’s firing of Defense Secretary Esper makes the Pentagon uneasy.” The announcement “caused unease among [U.S.] allies and the Pentagon,” it read, and “injected uncertainty into the presidential transition period.”
Citing a New York Times report, the Chinese news agency Sohu noted that Esper’s dismissal could suggest that Trump plans to “launch actions” against Iran or other foreign adversaries in his “last few days of his term.” These actions could be “public or covert,” it warned. China’s apparent alarm had ramped up by Tuesday morning, when Caixin, the leading private financial media group in China, criticized Trump for injecting “chaos and uncertainty into the presidential transition” by firing Esper. It is unclear what form China thinks Trump’s potential retribution would take, whether a cyberattack, new trade measures, or provocative military exchanges with Taiwan. But the risk seems sufficiently material that the highest levels of the Chinese state and Communist Party are paying close attention.
Hesitant as they may be to congratulate Biden, Chinese reports do not suggest any real possibility that Trump could remain president after Jan. 20. Caixin is calling Biden the president-elect. Northeast Securities, a Chinese financial firm, wrote that “the U.S. general election mail-in votes are still in statistical processing, but a Biden victory is a high probability event.” They have paid hardly any attention to the details of Trump’s legal challenges of mail-in ballots or demands for recounts in swing states. The Global Times even reported on Tuesday morning that Trump has been talking about running again in 2024. “If the news is true,” the news analysis continued, “it means that although Trump has vowed to ‘fight to the end in court,’ he has understood the reality that he lost in this election.”
China has no illusions that a Biden presidency will reverse the Trump administration’s hard line. “The results of the U.S. election will not change the pattern of long-term conflict between China and the United States,” one report read. Every indication is that China wants to compete and win in this “long-term conflict.” For now, however, Beijing is clearly nervous about Trump’s final months in power. As long as Trump continues to contest the election result, Biden should not expect a congratulatory call from President Xi Jinping.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-12--The United States Got the Pandemic Economic Response Right

The United States Got the Pandemic Economic Response Right Nearly eight months after it was declared a pandemic , COVID-19 rages on , and there is no global consensus on the right policy mix for addressing the public health crisis .
But on how to deal with the economic fallout , the winning strategy is clear : Spend early and spend big .
And no major economy has done that better than the United States .
Washington ’ s secret weapon has been the support for consumers .
In late March , Congress overcame partisan differences to pass the Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( CARES ) Act , rushing out $ 2.1 trillion of public money , or more than 10 percent of GDP , to support households , small businesses , and larger corporations .
At the same time , the Federal Reserve put in place a series of emergency lending programs to keep the money flowing .
The funds were deployed hastily , which of course entailed risks that not all of the spending would be optimal .
But the economic results show that the effort was well worth the risks , particularly for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major Western economies , American household incomes actually went up during the COVID-19 recession , by an unprecedented 10 percent between the first and second quarters of 2020 .
Because consumption was suppressed during lockdown , consumers used the extra income to build up their household savings .
Those savings are well positioned to drive the economic recovery once the virus is contained .
In fact , that ’ s already starting to happen : Consumption in sectors less affected by the pandemic , such as durable goods , is now well above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and especially if Washington passes a further stimulus package and a vaccine is deployed , U.S. GDP is on track to recover before the end of 2021 .
Contrast the swift bipartisan effort and its immediate macroeconomic benefits in the United States with the timid , multi-year fiscal expansion preferred on the other side of the Atlantic .
The EU has not even deployed its fiscal stimulus package , Next Generation EU , yet .
NGEU isn ’ t set to start until January .
At around 250 billion euros per year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 percent of GDP : an order of magnitude lower than the U.S. package .
More importantly , that money is not going straight to households ’ pockets .
No checks will be mailed to low- and middle-income households as in the United States .
Typically , European countries ’ furlough and paycheck protection programs have come with a haircut in employee wages , suppressing rather than increasing personal income .
And NGEU will make little difference : its funds are being allocated to long-term projects like infrastructure spending and the green transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but ignores the acute nature of this recession .
The result is that Europe will exit the COVID-19 pandemic with weaker household balance sheets , foretelling a slower and longer recovery .
As EU policymakers should have learned from the eurozone crisis , you can not have a strong recovery with weak consumers .
But what about the cost to the taxpayers ?
Fiscal conservatives argue that eurozone countries have only just emerged from a decade of self-imposed austerity and would rather not have to go through that again to bring public balances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Northern European countries , and they are not alone : Even New Zealand , which had a comically low debt-to-GDP ratio of 20 percent last year , recently had a bruising and unnecessary political debate about government spending spiralling out of control .
But such concerns ignore both the cyclical nature of the crisis and the price signals from financial markets .
First , the COVID-19 recession is not a long-run productivity crisis of the kind faced by the eurozone in the 2010s .
It is a specific , supply-side shock that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their maximum capacity .
Policymakers ’ top priority should be to ensure that the transient shock does not mutate into a prolonged demand-side recession caused by lower incomes .
Second , the argument for frugality ignores what financial markets are saying about the economy ’ s desire to allocate savings .
Benchmark eurozone bonds continue to trade at negative yields ; in effect , governments are being paid to borrow .
When the European Commission recently raised money to pay for unemployment insurance , the issuance was 13 times oversubscribed .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) around the world are making it easier for governments to borrow money ; it would be foolish for treasury departments not to take advantage at a time of such great need .
By overcompensating households for the loss of income resulting from COVID-19 , the United States has taken a clear policy lead , one which may be further boosted by another stimulus bill .
The good news is that the U.S. consumer accounts for over 20 percent of global GDP and looks likely to again serve as the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only a few countries are imitating its example .

Nearly eight months after it was declared a pandemic, COVID-19 rages on, and there is no global consensus on the right policy mix for addressing the public health crisis. But on how to deal with the economic fallout, the winning strategy is clear: Spend early and spend big. And no major economy has done that better than the United States.
Nearly eight months after it was declared a pandemic, COVID-19 rages on, and there is no global consensus on the right policy mix for addressing the public health crisis. But on how to deal with the economic fallout, the winning strategy is clear: Spend early and spend big. And no major economy has done that better than the United States.
Washington’s secret weapon has been the support for consumers. In late March, Congress overcame partisan differences to pass the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, rushing out $2.1 trillion of public money, or more than 10 percent of GDP, to support households, small businesses, and larger corporations. At the same time, the Federal Reserve put in place a series of emergency lending programs to keep the money flowing.
The funds were deployed hastily, which of course entailed risks that not all of the spending would be optimal. But the economic results show that the effort was well worth the risks, particularly for U.S. households. Nearly alone among the major Western economies, American household incomes actually went up during the COVID-19 recession, by an unprecedented 10 percent between the first and second quarters of 2020.
Because consumption was suppressed during lockdown, consumers used the extra income to build up their household savings. Those savings are well positioned to drive the economic recovery once the virus is contained. In fact, that’s already starting to happen: Consumption in sectors less affected by the pandemic, such as durable goods, is now well above pre-pandemic levels. At this pace, and especially if Washington passes a further stimulus package and a vaccine is deployed, U.S. GDP is on track to recover before the end of 2021.
Contrast the swift bipartisan effort and its immediate macroeconomic benefits in the United States with the timid, multi-year fiscal expansion preferred on the other side of the Atlantic. The EU has not even deployed its fiscal stimulus package, Next Generation EU, yet. NGEU isn’t set to start until January. At around 250 billion euros per year, the extra money amounts to less than 2 percent of GDP: an order of magnitude lower than the U.S. package.
More importantly, that money is not going straight to households’ pockets. No checks will be mailed to low- and middle-income households as in the United States. Typically, European countries’ furlough and paycheck protection programs have come with a haircut in employee wages, suppressing rather than increasing personal income. And NGEU will make little difference: its funds are being allocated to long-term projects like infrastructure spending and the green transition. This is good for secular growth but ignores the acute nature of this recession.
The result is that Europe will exit the COVID-19 pandemic with weaker household balance sheets, foretelling a slower and longer recovery. As EU policymakers should have learned from the eurozone crisis, you cannot have a strong recovery with weak consumers.
But what about the cost to the taxpayers? Fiscal conservatives argue that eurozone countries have only just emerged from a decade of self-imposed austerity and would rather not have to go through that again to bring public balances in check. Such thinking is prevalent in Northern European countries, and they are not alone: Even New Zealand, which had a comically low debt-to-GDP ratio of 20 percent last year, recently had a bruising and unnecessary political debate about government spending spiralling out of control. But such concerns ignore both the cyclical nature of the crisis and the price signals from financial markets.
First, the COVID-19 recession is not a long-run productivity crisis of the kind faced by the eurozone in the 2010s. It is a specific, supply-side shock that has caused economies to temporarily operate below their maximum capacity. Policymakers’ top priority should be to ensure that the transient shock does not mutate into a prolonged demand-side recession caused by lower incomes.
Second, the argument for frugality ignores what financial markets are saying about the economy’s desire to allocate savings. Benchmark eurozone bonds continue to trade at negative yields; in effect, governments are being paid to borrow. When the European Commission recently raised money to pay for unemployment insurance, the issuance was 13 times oversubscribed. In other words, savers (and central banks) around the world are making it easier for governments to borrow money; it would be foolish for treasury departments not to take advantage at a time of such great need.
By overcompensating households for the loss of income resulting from COVID-19, the United States has taken a clear policy lead, one which may be further boosted by another stimulus bill. The good news is that the U.S. consumer accounts for over 20 percent of global GDP and looks likely to again serve as the world’s growth engine. The bad news is that only a few countries are imitating its example.