Day: May 13, 2024

Hamas monitored political activity, online posts, and apparently even love lives. Palestinians were stuck between an Israeli blockade and a repressive security force.

A rally in support of Hamas in Gaza City in 2022. A secret police force overseen by Hamas’s leader in the enclave utilizes an extensive network of informants.Credit…Fatima Shbair/Associated Press

Notably, she said the United States was not quick enough to realize and prevent the expansionist ambitions of both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

A longtime champion of Ukraine and the effort to counter Russia, she also warned about the perils of Donald Trump blowing up NATO if he wins back the White House in November.

“Don’t throw it out,” she said of the trans-Atlantic alliance, “because you would never be able to re-create it again.”

The following has been edited for length and clarity:

How’s life on the outside?

Life is wonderful. I am doing a lot of projects that I had put off, seeing a lot of people that I love, and I’m staying involved in ways that are meaningful. I’m speaking on foreign policy issues I care about — whether it is Ukraine or ensuring that the United States leads strongly in the world. I’m getting a chance to prepare for my classes in the fall and work with the next generation of foreign policy leaders. I’ll be at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Why leave the Biden administration, really? People said you felt passed over for the deputy secretary of State job. Is that true?

I actually didn’t compete for the deputy secretary of State job. I loved being undersecretary for political affairs. I love working with Secretary [Antony] Blinken. But as you know, I’ve done three years altogether and I’ve done eight months plus in both jobs, and so it was just the right time for me and my family to do something different.

Do you have any regrets from your time in the role?

I think whenever you finish a job like this, you wish you’d been able to do more on more issues. Travel more, touch more people, get more done faster, ensure the U.S. was leading strongly on as many continents as possible, mentor more of the next generation. And you’re always constrained by time, by resources, by the crises that overwhelm the inbox. So you always want to have done more.

Can Ukraine win this war against Russia? And how do you define winning?

Let’s start with the fact that Putin has already failed in his objective. He wanted to flatten Ukraine. He wanted to ensure that they had no sovereignty, independence, agency, no democratic future — because a democratic Ukraine, a European Ukraine, is a threat to his model for Russia, among other things, and because it’s the first building block for his larger territorial ambitions.

Can Ukraine succeed? Absolutely. Can Ukraine come out of this more sovereign, more economically independent, stronger, more European than it is now? Absolutely. And I think it will. But we’ve got to stay with it. We’ve got to make sure our allies stay with it.

“We’ve got to stay with it. We’ve got to make sure our allies stay with it,” former U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland said of supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia.
|
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

And we have to accelerate a lot of the initiatives that were in the supplemental, like helping Ukraine build that highly deterrent military force of the future, like deploying these longer-range weapons to strategic effect, like ensuring that the critical infrastructure and the energy sector are protected, like building up our own defense industrial base and that of our allies and Ukraine’s again, so that we and Ukraine are building faster than Russia and China.

But can it get all its territory back, including Crimea?

It can definitely get to a place where it’s strong enough, I believe, and where Putin is stymied enough to go to the negotiating table from a position of strength. It’ll be up to the Ukrainian people what their territorial ambitions should be. But there are certain things that are existential.

Any deal that they cut in their interest and in the larger global interest has to be a deal that Putin is compelled to stick to. We can’t be doing this every six months, every three years. It has to actually lead to a deal that includes Russian withdrawal.

Putin is a master at what we call rope-a-dope negotiating, where he never actually cuts the deal. It has to be a deal that ensures that whatever is decided on Crimea, it can’t be remilitarized such that it’s a dagger at the heart of the center of Ukraine.

Was it a mistake not to push the Ukrainians harder to go for some sort of negotiated end to the war in 2022, especially the fall of 2022?

They were not in a strong enough position then. They’re not in a strong enough position now. The only deal Putin would have cut then, the only deal that he would cut today, at least before he sees what happens in our election, is a deal in which he says, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.” And that’s not sustainable.

You’ve had a long career, especially when it comes to Europe. Where did the U.S. go wrong in its understanding of Russia?

With regard to both Russia and China, after the end of the Cold War, the prevailing wisdom among all of us — right, left and center — was that if you could knit Moscow and Beijing into the open and free global order that we had benefited from for so many years, that they would become prosperous, and they would become strong contributing members of that order. And that’s what we tried for a very long time.

That works if you have a leadership that is fundamentally accepting the current system. But once you have leaders who are telling their populations that this system keeps their country down, doesn’t allow it to have its rightful place, that has a territorial definition of greatness, that is bent on economic, political and or military coercion — that’s antithetical to this order, and then our policy has to change.

Did we realize fast enough Putin’s ambitions and Xi Jinping’s ambitions, and did we do enough to ensure that those ambitions stayed inside their own nations and didn’t spill out and coerce others? 20/20 hindsight? Probably not.

How much of it comes down to what particular guy is running the show? I sometimes wonder, could things be different if it wasn’t Putin in charge? If it wasn’t Xi? How much of it comes down to the dude at the top?

In highly centralized societies, which both China and Russia have historically been, without an electoral refresh of the kind that we all go through in the democratic world, it matters hugely, because it’s that human who’s defining what greatness means. It’s that human who’s deciding how to maintain order in that society. It’s that human — allowing them to speak, allowing a free press, allowing protests, allowing alternative political parties — who’s going to shape the options. And that constrains obviously the kind of relationship we can have.

What is the lesson we should learn about foreign policy in general when it comes to the experiences we’ve had in Russia and China?

We should always try to talk both to leaders and to people, to the extent that we’re allowed. We should always offer an opportunity to work together in common interest.

But if the ideology is inherently expansionist, is inherently illiberal, is inherently trying to change the system that benefits us, we’ve got to build protections and resilience for ourselves, for our friends and allies, and particularly for those neighbors of those countries who are likely to be on the front line of that first push.

Where do you see the Israel-Hamas war heading?

Essentially, there are two paths on the table. There is continuing this war with all of the destruction and horror and lack of clarity about how you end Hamas’ reign of terror.

The other path is the route that the administration and allies and partners and a lot of countries in the Gulf are pushing, and a lot of Israelis want, which is: a hostage deal leads to a long-term cease-fire, leads to a better future for Palestinians both in the West Bank and in Gaza, leads to Saudi-Israel normalization and a path to two states, and a region where the ideology and the violence that Hamas is offering is beaten by more opening, more opportunity, more peace, more stability.

Are you saying that because you believe it or because it’s the Biden administration’s position?

I’m saying it because, anything other than that, this is going to happen again and again and again.

If you could go back in time on that one, what, if anything, should the U.S. have done differently?

Beginning with the Trump administration, everybody fell in love with regional normalization as the cure-all for the instability and grievances and insecurity in the Middle East. And that’s a part of it.

But if you leave out the Palestinian issue, then somebody’s going to seize it and run with it, and that’s what Hamas did. I also think that both we and the Israelis knew too little about the terror state that had been established in Gaza.

You’re going to be teaching at Columbia, the epicenter of campus protests over this situation. If you could offer these protesters some advice as someone with significant policymaking experience, what would it be?

Peaceful protest is part of the fabric of who we are and the fact that we allow it, and the Chinese don’t and the Russians don’t, makes us Americans. But when that protest becomes violent, when it impinges on other people’s human rights or denigrates others, then you veer toward coercion.

So, express your views, ask for concrete paths forward. But stay away from violence, make sure that it’s actually indigenous to the campus, that you’re not becoming the tool of outside agitators. And be respectful of alternative views as you expect people to respect your views.

What if you are peaceful? And you say what you want and the people in charge just say, ‘Oh, that’s very nice, thank you,’ and then they ignore you and they keep doing what they’ve been doing for years. How do you do just keep pushing on that front? Do you join the government?

I would certainly say if you care enough to devote all day, every day to political change, come join the folks who are setting policy, commit your life to public service. I didn’t expect that that’s where my life would lead, but it’s been incredibly rewarding.

There are many, many ways to change policy, but being on the inside is not only extremely rewarding, but you can actually get stuff done.

If Trump wins, and leaves NATO or limits America’s role in NATO, does the alliance fall apart? What happens?

First and foremost, America suffers. Because if you look at every single one of the challenges we have globally, even as we make the security commitment to Europe, it is the European countries who have contributed more to Ukraine — on the security side, on the economic side, etc. It is the European countries who have to adapt their policies toward China if you want to have an impact on China’s eagerness to coerce others. It’s the European countries who we need to help fund the Haiti mission, to help defeat terrorism in Africa, and provide prosperity.

If we are not part of that family, on a daily basis, we are standing alone, our own influence in the world is greatly reduced, and we have no influence over how they choose to spend their energy and resources. And they’re less powerful in doing it without us.

What about this idea that look, we’re the U.S. at the end of the day. We’re the superpower. Whether we’re in NATO or not, people are going to come along with us. Isn’t there something to that argument?

I’ve worked for six presidents, Republicans and Democrats. I always believed that a new president with a fresh mandate from the American people should look at every global problem with fresh eyes, bring new solutions, and should have that opportunity, working with Congress, working with the American people, working with allies and partners.

“I always believed that a new president with a fresh mandate from the American people should look at every global problem with fresh eyes, bring new solutions,” said former U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland.
|
Francis Chung/POLITICO

That’s a different thing than turning your back on bedrock, bipartisan institutions and policies that have protected Americans and advanced our own prosperity and global influence for 70 years.

Why do you want to throw out what’s working and what benefits us for no other reason than you’ve had a fit of pique? Work within the institution to make it work better. Don’t throw it out, because you would never be able to re-create it again.

Does the rest of the world fear the United States?

Is fear what we want from the rest of the world?

Sometimes.

I think what we want from the rest of the world is they see us leading in a manner that advances their own security, advances their own prosperity, creates this community of nations that can handle global problems — whether they are terrorist problems, whether they are health problems, whether they’re environmental problems — and we do it in a primarily self-interested but unselfish way, and we’re creating that community.

They should only fear us if they’re opponents of a largely liberal democratic way of advancing human prosperity. And in that context, if they are viciously invading a neighbor, if they are coercing a little state because they can, then I hope they would fear our reaction and the reaction that we will build with other democracies who want to protect the system that favors freedom.

Do you ever plan to go back into government?

I love what I did for 35 years. I’ve always loved it. And I continue to love it. So in the right circumstances, of course.

The Broadway box office numbers for the week of May 5 revealed that Hillary Clinton-produced stage play “Suffs” is on the bottom rung of shows in terms of filling capacity.

Broadway Theatre Industry official site “The Broadway League” shared the weekly grosses from the 35 shows currently playing on Broadway, which include “Suffs,” “Harry Potter and The Cursed Child,” and classics like “Romeo & Juliet,” Sweeney Tod” and “Moulin Rouge! The Musical.”

According to the data, Clinton’s play only reached 81% capacity across eight performances that week, placing it among the bottom eight productions in that category – the bottom 23% of all 35 shows for the week.

EX-CLINTON AIDE SAYS HE ‘WET THE BED’ OVER SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT ON BIDEN: ‘TERRIBLE FOR DEMOCRATS’

Noting that the play’s lagging numbers look even worse considering it’s a new show, Breitbart News argued the performance “should still be drawing big crowds during Broadway’s peak season – the month before the Tony Awards,” which is right now.

The play first opened on Broadway last month, following an Off-Broadway run that started in 2022 in New York City’s “The Public” theater. The musical was by singer-songwriter Shaina Taub, directed by Leigh Silverman, and produced by lead producers Jill Furman and Rachel Sussman, along with co-producers Hillary Clinton and Malala Yousafzai.

Breitbart also noted that Vice President Harris’s niece, Meena Harris, is another producer on the stage play.

The three-hour-long play brings the women’s suffrage movement of the early 1900s to the stage. According to the show’s website, Suffs “boldly explores the victories and failures of a struggle for equality that’s far from over.”

HILLARY CLINTON: ‘WHAT TRUMP REALLY WANTS’ IS TO ‘KILL HIS OPPOSITION’

The play features an “entirely female and non-binary cast – among them Tony winner Nikki M. James, Jenn Colella, Emily Skinner, and Grace McLean as President Woodrow Wilson,” according to Playbill.com.

Clinton stated she relates to “all of” the characters in the play, telling the Associated Press last month she knows “how hard it is to make change.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

“I know how important it is to have relationships with the people you’re working for, as you’re taking risks and you’re doing things that have never been done, whether it’s running for president in my case or having a march on Washington in 1913 to try to convince the president and the Congress to adopt the amendment to let women vote,” she said.

The former U.S. Secretary of State added, “But more than that, I see it as relevant today. We have a lot of challenges in our country.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

BroadwayLeague.com’s numbers also revealed that last week’s numbers for “Suffs” were even worse, with the show only filling 78% of its 7,784 total seats across performances.

Andrei Belousov—a respected economist and former deputy prime minister—will now lead the country’s defense ministry and its prolonged campaign in Ukraine, with President Vladimir Putin having chosen him to replace longtime incumbent and loyalist Sergei Shoigu.

Shoigu will move on to head Russia’s powerful security council, replacing FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev, who has long been considered one of Putin’s most powerful and hawkish officials. It is not yet clear what post Patrushev will be moved to, though his son—Dmitry Patrushev, who has been touted as a possible Putin successor—has been promoted to deputy prime minister.

Russia’s upper house in parliament, the Federation Council, will now need to approve Belousov’s candidacy. His proposed appointment appears to suggest the Kremlin sees victory in Ukraine—and perhaps beyond—as a matter of economics.

“Today on the battlefield, the winner is the one who is more open to innovation,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said of the reshuffle, as quoted by the state-run Tass news agency.

Incoming Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov in Bangkok, Thailand, on November 19, 2022. The economist has long been considered close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Incoming Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov in Bangkok, Thailand, on November 19, 2022. The economist has long been considered close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
JACK TAYLOR/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

“Therefore, it is natural that at the current stage, the president decided that the Russian Ministry of Defense should be headed by a civilian.” He added: “It’s very important to put the security economy in line with the economy of the country so that it meets the dynamics of the current moment.”

Belousov, 65, graduated from the Faculty of Economics of the Moscow State University in 1981 with distinction, Reuters reported. Born in Moscow, Belousov is reported to have practiced samba and karate in his youth and did not serve in the armed forces. He has long been considered close to Putin.

By 2000, Belousov had been appointed as a nonstaff adviser to the Russian prime minister. In 2006, he joined the economy ministry as a deputy minister.

Between 2008 and 2012, when Putin was serving one term as prime minister to adhere to constitutional term limits, Belousov served as the director of the government’s department for economics and finance.

Belousov was made the minister for economic development in 2012, before transitioning in 2013 to serve as Putin’s economic adviser. He held that role until 2020, when he became first deputy prime minister. Belousov stepped in as acting prime minister when incumbent Mikhail Mishustin contracted COVID-19 in 2020.

“He’s very professional, he’s a technocrat, and he’s very blunt, very straightforward,” Oleg Ignatov—the nongovernmental organization Crisis Group’s senior analyst for Russia—told Newsweek. “He doesn’t like to hide the truth. He can fix problems.” He added: “From Putin’s point of view, it’s a very good appointment.”

“He has his own vision,” Ignatov said, describing Belousov as “very anti-Western” and believing strongly “that the state should play a crucial role in the Russian economy.” Considered “very hawkish” and not corrupt, Ignatov said, the new minister can be expected to launch a major anti-corruption drive.

“Of course, some people will be upset about this, because the military has been very corrupt in Shoigu’s time,” Ignatov said. Many of Shoigu’s allies can be expected to follow him out of the ministry, likely to be replaced by technocrats more of the Belousov mold.

Unlike Shoigu and other top figures, Belousov does not have his own power base or “clan” of allies and dependents. “Belousov is alone,” Ignatov said. “He’s independent and loyal exclusively to Putin.”

And where Shoigu sought to influence battlefield planning, Beluosov is expected to be more restrained. “He will trust the military and military will do their work,” Ignatov said. “Belousov will care about the defense ministry as a big enterprise, and he will manage it as such.”

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) wrote that Belousov’s appointment “is a significant development in Putin’s efforts to set full economic conditions for a protracted war,” noting that the economist is known as an advocate for more government involvement in the economy.

Outgoing Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on May 9, 2024, in Moscow. The long-serving minister will be moved to head Russia’s powerful national security council.
Outgoing Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on May 9, 2024, in Moscow. The long-serving minister will be moved to head Russia’s powerful national security council.
Contributor/Getty Images

Shoigu’s removal comes after two difficult years for the Putin loyalist, who reportedly enjoyed close access to the president and saw his political stock rise significantly after Moscow’s seizure of Crimea in 2014.

But the full-scale invasion of Ukraine quickly revealed that Shoigu had failed to stamp out systemic incompetence and corruption within the military. Russia’s military casualties have ballooned over more than two years of war, with battlefield success limited. Behind the front, the Wagner Group rebellion was a humiliating demonstration of brewing instability within the Russian military elite.

The arrest of Shoigu’s deputy Timur Ivanov on corruption charges last month appeared to be an effort to undermine the outgoing defense minister and lay the groundwork for a reshuffle.

Russia analyst and economics professor at the University of Chicago, Konstantin Sonin, wrote on Twitter—formerly known as X—that the reshuffle shows the war is “not going according to Putin’s plan, but he will endlessly rotate the same small group of loyalists.”

Michael Kofman, a Russian military expert and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the Financial Times the shake-up showed it was “clear that Russian economic elites performed far better than military elites in this war.”