The man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump may have had inside information on his movements, a former FBI assistant director said.
Chris Swecker told Newsweek that law enforcement will have to establish how Ryan Wesley Routh appeared to know the exact details of when Trump was playing golf at a Florida resort.
Shots were fired at Trump National Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Sunday where Trump, the 2024 GOP presidential nominee, was golfing. No injuries have been reported, according to the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.
The FBI later said it was joining the investigation into the shooting.
Swecker, who retired from the Bureau as assistant director with responsibility over all FBI criminal investigations, said Routh appeared to be a “wingnut” who hated authority.
“The biggest question to answer is: ‘How did the would-be assassin know to be at that location at that time?'” he said. “There are only three possible answers: He guessed and got very lucky; he conducted surveillance on Trump and followed him to the golf course or he had inside information about Trump’s schedule.
“The last answer is scary and has implications that another person was involved.”
West Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said at a news conference on Sunday that a U.S. Secret Service agent spotted the barrel of a rifle sticking out the fence of the golf course and “engaged” with the suspect. The gunman may have got to within 300 yards of Trump, law enforcement said at the conference.
In a Facebook post on Sunday afternoon, the Martin County Sheriff’s Office said that it had “stopped a vehicle and taken a suspect into custody believed to be connected to a shooting incident at Trump International in Palm Beach County.”
Swecker, who retired from the FBI in 2006 and is now an attorney based in Charlotte, North Carolina, said that it may be time to tone down some of the rhetoric on the former president.
“There is little doubt that the demonization of Trump is resonating with the fringe elements who are mentally unstable and highly impressionable, so it may be time to tone it down a bit,” he said.
He said Routh had been involved in some “strange quests,” including trying to get Afghan fighters into Ukraine to fight the Russians.
“We know this suspect has posted about Trump being a danger to democracy and he has been active on some strange quests: visiting Ukraine to round up Afghan fighters so motive is coming into focus—he is a wing nut who dislikes authority, based on his arrest record for resisting arrest in a two-hour standoff,” Swecker said.
That is a reference to an incident in 2002, when Routh was driving without a valid license and was stopped by police. He then sped off and barricaded himself inside his own roofing company for three hours before surrendering.
He was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, resisting a police officer and driving without a valid license among other charges.
Swecker said Routh believed those saying that Trump is an existential threat to democracy and allegedly decided to take matters into his own hands.
The shooting comes two months after Trump was struck by a bullet that pierced his right ear at an outdoor campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13. The 20-year-old shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, who fired rounds off a nearby roof was killed by a Secret Service counter-sniper.
From time to time when Jonah Goldberg appears on CNN, he and the other panelists are asked to make political predictions.
Sometimes that’s easy. For instance, one can safely predict that Donald Trump isn’t going to win his “absolute immunity” case before the Supreme Court, just as surely as he wasn’t going to lose the case brought against Colorado for barring him from the ballot there.
But it feels unfair to ask Jonah and the rest of the gang to go on guessing what will happen in a modern presidential campaign, when insanely destabilizing “October surprises” have become standard procedure. The only safe prediction in 2024 is that the race will be upended by something completely unpredictable.
It wasn’t always that way, dear reader. I am an old-ish man, yet the only meaningful October surprise of my lifetime until 2016 came when word leaked before Election Day 2000 that George W. Bush had once been arrested for driving under the influence. In the end, that might have tilted enough votes to Al Gore to spoil an otherwise clear-cut victory for the Republican, plunging the country into the nightmare of a contested election.
Imagine: Within living memory, before Americans got comfortable with coup plots and porn-star payoffs, something like a youthful DUI arrest was scandalous enough to endanger a candidate’s presidential chances. Things are different now.
Part of the reason there have been so few meaningful October surprises is that few presidential contests over the last 40 years remained close enough to be scrambled by one. From the start of the Reagan Revolution in 1980 to its demise in 2016, only the two races won by Bush 43 were tight on Election Day. Barack Obama and John McCainmight have ended up in a dogfight if not for the financial crisis that struck in the fall of 2008, but I doubt it. Disillusionment with Bush was so broad and excitement for the first black president was so high that I suspect Obama would have won comfortably regardless, if not quite as comfortably as he did.
With that as context, let me ask: Do you fully appreciate how bananas the last two presidential cycles have been with respect to October—or at least election-year—surprises?
In both races, not one, a computer that may or may not have contained evidence of the Democratic nominee’s criminality surfaced weeks before the vote, in bizarre circumstances.
In 2016, the FBI reopened its “Emailgate” probe of Hillary Clinton at the eleventh hour after it stumbled across communications from her on a device belonging to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, whom it was investigating for, er, sexting a 15-year-old. That surprise might have cost Clinton the election. Four years later, a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden turned up at a random Delaware computer repair shop containing emails implying corruption by Joe Biden. Intelligence experts rushed to reassure the press that the laptop was a Russian disinformation operation. Oops: It wasn’t. Biden held on to win by the skin of his teeth.
Those weren’t the only surprises in 2016 and 2020, though. In both races, not one, a hugely influential Supreme Court justice up and died in the thick of the campaign.
Neither was an “October” surprise, strictly speaking. Antonin Scalia passed away in February of 2016 while Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed in September of 2020, but their deaths very well might have decided the outcome of each year’s presidential race. For Republicans, filling the Scalia vacancy was a compelling reason to set aside their misgivings about Trump. For undecided voters fresh off of watching Amy Coney Barrett’s light-speed confirmation, thwarting a further conservative takeover of the court might have made the difference for Biden in swing states he won by razor-thin margins.
In the Trump era, when every presidential election is 50-50 and no one trusts anyone, October surprises seem not just likely but unavoidable. And so while it’s unfair to ask Jonah or anyone else to anticipate how freakishly strange 2024 might get, it’s an understandable question. There will be some unexpected jolt to the campaign, one assumes. We might as well start speculating about what it’ll be.
I have a prediction.
It’s tempting to assume that an October surprise will matter less this year than in previous cycles because of how well the public already knows both candidates and how strongly it feels about them. If you’re voting for Biden, the election is about democracy or abortion or climate change; if you’re voting for Trump, it’s about inflation or immigration or “retribution.” There isn’t much room politically for an October surprise to matter.
It’s tempting to believe that. But it’s wrong.
The opposite is closer to the truth. Because so many Americans doubt that either candidate is fit for office, a sudden jolt to the race near Election Day could tilt them decisively toward one or the other. Look no further than last week’s verdict in Manhattan for evidence that certain “disengaged voters” who currently favor Trump will reconsider if met with a big enough “surprise.” According to New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn, a small but meaningful share has already switched to Biden following Trump’s conviction:
A potentially crucial sliver of Mr. Trump’s former supporters—3 percent—now told us they’ll back Mr. Biden, while another 4 percent say they’re now undecided. … The shift was especially pronounced among the young, nonwhite and disengaged Democratic-leaning voters who have propelled Mr. Trump to a lead in the early polls. Of the people who previously told us they had voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 but would vote for Mr. Trump in 2024, around one-quarter now said they would instead stick with Mr. Biden.
Voters who dislike both candidates—who have been dubbed double haters—were especially likely to defect from Mr. Trump.
There’s also anecdotal evidence that “double haters” have been moved by the verdict. When political consultant Sarah Longwell interviewed a panel of nine two-time Trump voters who have since soured on him but are leery of supporting the president, she found post-verdict that five are now leaning toward voting for Biden.
An October surprise will matter, maybe more than it ever has. So what’ll it be?
The most tumultuous possibility is a health crisis for either candidate. Biden wouldn’t recover politically from one; doubts about his physical and mental fitness run too deep for a trip to the hospital to be successfully “messaged” away. Trump would fare better unless his crisis was plainly debilitating, partly because the public has more confidence in his baseline health and partly because his lunatic fans would insist that Biden had him poisoned or whatever. But it would hurt him, surely, by demonstrating that the health gap between him and Old Man Joe is smaller than we thought.
The political dynamics of another Supreme Court justice keeling over would favor Democrats, especially if the deceased were a Democratic appointee. It’d be 2016 in reverse. At the time, Republicans couldn’t bear the thought of the great Scalia’s death producing a 5-4 liberal advantage on the court. Eight years later, Democrats are facing a 6-3 conservative advantage that probably won’t be undone for a generation and might not be undone for two generations if it slips to 7-2.
Nothing would get disaffected progressives to set aside their qualms about voting for Biden like the near-term prospect of Supreme Court Justice Aileen Cannon would. Given what happened in 2016 and 2020, if I were Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan I’d go get that check-up at the doctor’s office that I’ve been putting off.
Both of those are what we might call “actuarial” October surprises. But what about more foreseeable ones?
An obvious potential surprise is Trump being convicted in one of the three remaining criminal cases against him, but that’s a longshot that’s getting longer by the day.
The prosecution in Georgia, for example, is frozen indefinitely as an appellate court considers whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is too unethical to remain in charge. And the classified documents case is going nowhere as future Justice Cannon takes her sweet time moving forward, lately having paused to determine whether Special Counsel Jack Smith was lawfully appointed or not.
The pace of the third prosecution, related to trying to overturn the 2020 election, depends in part on how the Supreme Court rules on Trump’s “absolute immunity” claim. If it sends the matter back to the lower court to determine which of his acts at the time were “official” or not, that’ll slow things down enough to ensure that that one won’t make it to a jury before November either.
But if it does, and Trump is convicted? One would hope that would be the end of his presidential chances. Disengaged voters and “double haters” have already inched away from him after seeing him convicted on minor charges in New York; a jury verdict finding him criminally at fault for his coup plot four years ago might send undecided voters fleeing.
On the flip side, if a New York appellate court ends up overturning Trump’s conviction in Manhattan before November, that might be the end of Biden. Undecided voters might treat it as confirmation that Trump was right all along about Democrats waging illicit “lawfare” against him on trumped-up charges (no pun intended). The backlash would be fatal, especially after Team Joe spent so much time and energy hyping the fact that his opponent is a “convicted felon.”
Another “surprise” possibility: What if a well-timed “deepfake” of either candidate saying something outlandish and disqualifying emerges?
Don’t laugh. Biden has already been the victim of one during this campaign and his aides have used the prospect of it happening again as an excuse to suppress the audio of his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. Phony yet convincing audio and/or video of politicians caught in compromising situations will have “October surprise” potential in American elections forevermore. And in a race in which voters already doubt the fitness of both contenders and deeply distrust non-aligned media sources, it’s easy to imagine them lending undue weight to a “scandalous” recording that surfaces just before Election Day.
Imagine a tape of Biden struggling to remember his own name in a meeting with a foreign leader. Or envision the probably mythical audio of Donald Trump saying the N-word on the set of The Apprentice appearing after nine years of liberals trying and failing to verify that it exists. The country would divide instantly and bitterly over whether either recording was a high-tech dirty trick or shocking confirmation that the other side’s candidate is even less suited to being president than they assumed.
As a bonus, if the target of the deepfake ended up losing the election and then the nature of the fakery were exposed, his supporters would insist that the outcome had been effectively “rigged” and should be treated as illegitimate. It would be the “Hunter’s laptop” fiasco on steroids. Public faith in the integrity of American elections, already distressingly weak, would soften further.
It’s such an obvious and easy way to set Americans at each other’s throats that one wonders why Russia or China wouldn’t do it.
I think we’re likely to see a deepfake or two, or 10. But that’s not my prediction.
No, my prediction is this: At some point before November, intelligence sources will allege that Trump has been privately lobbying foreign leaders to undermine Biden’s policies.
“Biden’s policies” are America’s policies so long as he’s president. In better days, it would have been an unholy scandal for a presidential candidate to secretly undercut American policy abroad during a campaign for the selfish end of gaining an electoral advantage. But as we saw with the case of George W. Bush’s DUI, Things Are Different Now.
For instance, here’s something that I dare say wouldn’t have flown during the 2000 election.
Convicted Felon Trump says his good friend Putin will release WSJ reporter Evan Gershkovich as soon as Trump wins the election, but he won’t do it if Biden wins. pic.twitter.com/EeUQLyzJyR
If you’re an American with enough juice abroad to get an American hostage released, you don’t refrain from using that influence until you get something that you want in return. Doing so has the air of a ransom demand, don’t you think?
In effect, Trump is lobbying Russia not to release Evan Gershkovich before November 5. He’s actually trying to extend the Wall Street Journal reporter’s captivity because he sees a benefit to himself in doing so. The possibility that Ronald Reagan’s campaign did something similar in 1980, conniving to delay the release of Americans held hostage by Iran until after the election, was so politically explosive that the matter is still being litigated more than 40 years later. Now here’s Trump conniving in plain sight.
With any other politician, it would feel unfair to speculate without evidence about them exploiting the foreign relationships they’ve built to undercut U.S. foreign policy. But in this case, character is destiny. Trump has done this before, after all: When he leaned on Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019 for information on Joe Biden in exchange for duly appropriated American weapons, he was subordinating the country’s interests to his personal interests. Electoral considerations inevitably influence a president’s policy choices, but only one president has been so brazen as to use official policy to try to extort an ally for oppo research on his opponent.
He has no qualms in principle either about accepting foreign help to win an election. In 2016, Trump half-joked at a press conference that Russia should “find” Hillary Clinton’s missing emails and publish them. The same year, his campaign eagerly promoted material lifted by Russian hackers from computers owned by Democrats like John Podesta and laundered through Wikileaks. Although it came to nothing in the end, his son and other staffers sought Russian assistance in the election at a meeting at Trump Tower.
Trump is amoral, transactional, and desperate to regain the presidency in order to thwart the remaining criminal prosecutions he’s facing. Because there’s no civic priority that he holds more dearly than his own aggrandizement, there’s nothing to dissuade him from reaching out to Russia or China or whoever with offers of favors when he returns to office in exchange for them making trouble for Biden now. Remember, even with respect to an issue like immigration about which he really does care, he was willing to sabotage congressional efforts to ease the crisis at the border because he feared losing his electoral advantage on the issue.
The idea that an American citizen shouldn’t undermine his country’s foreign policy wouldn’t even cross his mind.
In early April, the New York Times reported that Trump had recently spoken by phone to Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, although the topic of conversation is unknown. Maybe they were just catching up. Or maybe Trump reminded him that rising oil prices are bad for an incumbent president in an election year. Or, maybe, they chatted about something else: “News of their discussion comes at a time when the Biden administration is engaged in delicate negotiations with the Saudis aimed at establishing a lasting peace in the Middle East,” the paper noted.
If Trump doesn’t want the border tightened until he’s president or Evan Gershkovich freed until he’s president, it would stand to reason that he wouldn’t want an Israel-Saudi peace accord signed until he’s president either. How would America react if it discovered in October that he had talked the Saudis out of making peace because he feared that doing so would help Biden?
A few weeks ago, NBC News published a report describing apprehension among U.S. officials that North Korea is preparing to “potentially take its most provocative military actions in a decade close to the U.S. presidential election, possibly at [Vladimir] Putin’s urging.” Russia doesn’t need any encouragement from Trump to spring an October surprise on Biden, no doubt regarding it as payback for the president’s support for Ukraine. But Trump is, of course, friendlier with Putin and Kim Jong Un than Biden is, and as president, he’d be far less likely to intervene in both countries’ spheres of influence.
He’d be the direct beneficiary of the October surprise they’re allegedly planning. What, precisely, would stop him from reaching out to either country and pledging his gratitude in advance if they decide to follow through on it?
An allegation before Election Day from U.S. intelligence that Trump had egged on some foreign malefactor to cause problems for America would explode like a grenade in the middle of the campaign. It would be a rerun of the Russiagate saga of 2017, except with suspicions of the other party’s malevolence an order of magnitude higher now than they were then. Outraged Republicans would insist that “the deep state” had unleashed its biggest hoax yet on Trump. (Unless Trump turned around and confirmed that he’d done it, I mean, at which point Republicans would pivot instantly to arguing that he’d done nothing wrong.) Democrats would counter that here was the smoking gun proving once and for all that Trump has been colluding with the international order’s most degenerate strongmen to empower authoritarianism globally.
It would be bedlam, unthinkable in any other era yet quite imaginable this summer or fall, I think. I’m already counting the hours. Things are different now.
PRAGUE (AP) — The head of NATO’s military committee said Saturday that Ukraine has the solid legal and military right to strike deep inside Russia to gain combat advantage — reflecting the beliefs of a number of U.S. allies — even as the Biden administration balks at allowing Kyiv to do so using American-made weapons.
“Every nation that is attacked has the right to defend itself. And that right doesn’t stop at the border of your own nation,” said Adm. Rob Bauer, speaking at the close of the committee’s annual meeting, also attended by U.S. Gen. CQ Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Bauer, of Netherlands, also added that nations have the sovereign right to put limits on the weapons they send to Ukraine. But, standing next to him at a press briefing, Lt. Gen. Karel Řehka, chief of the General Staff of the Czech Armed Forces, made it clear his nation places no such weapons restrictions on Kyiv.
“We believe that the Ukrainians should decide themselves how to use it,” Řehka said.
Their comments came as U.S. President Joe Biden is weighing whether to allow Ukraine to use American-provided long-range weapons to hit deep into Russia. And they hint at the divisions over the issue.
Biden met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday, after this week’s visit to Kyiv by their top diplomats, who came under fresh pressure to loosen weapons restrictions. U.S. officials familiar with discussions said they believed Starmer was seeking Biden’s approval to allow Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow missiles for expanded strikes in Russia.
Biden’s approval may be needed because Storm Shadow components are made in the U.S. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to share the status of private conversations, said they believed Biden would be amenable, but there has been no decision announced yet.
Providing additional support and training for Ukraine was a key topic at the NATO chiefs’ meeting, but it wasn’t clear Saturday if the debate over the U.S. restrictions was discussed.
Many of the European nations have been vigorously supportive of Ukraine in part because they worry about being the next victim of an empowered Russia.
At the opening of the meeting, Czech Republic President Petr Pavel broadly urged the military chiefs gathered in the room to be ”bold and open in articulating your assessments and recommendations. The rounder and the softer they are, the less they will be understood by the political level.”
The allies, he said, must “take the right steps and the right decisions to protect our countries and our way of life.”
The military leaders routinely develop plans and recommendations that are then sent to the civilian NATO defense secretaries for discussion and then on to the nations’ leaders in the alliance.
The U.S. allows Ukraine to use American-provided weapons in cross-border strikes to counter attacks by Russian forces. But it doesn’t allow Kyiv to fire long-range missiles, such as the ATACMS, deep into Russia. The U.S. has argued that Ukraine has drones that can strike far and should use ATACMS judiciously because they only have a limited number.
Ukraine has increased its pleas with Washington to lift the restrictions, particularly as winter looms and Kyiv worries about Russian gains during the colder months.
“You want to weaken the enemy that attacks you in order to not only fight the arrows that come your way, but also attack the archer that is, as we see, very often operating from Russia proper into Ukraine,” said Bauer. “So militarily, there’s a good reason to do that, to weaken the enemy, to weaken its logistic lines, fuel, ammunition that comes to the front. That is what you want to stop, if at all possible.”
Brown, for his part, told reporters traveling with him to the meeting that the U.S. policy on long-range weapons remains in place.
But, he added, “by the same token, what we want to do is — regardless of that policy — we want to continue to make Ukraine successful with the capabilities that have been provided” by the U.S. and other nations in the coalition, as well as the weapons Kyiv has been able to build itself.
“They’ve proven themselves fairly effective in building out uncrewed aerial vehicles, in building out drones,” Brown told reporters traveling with him to meetings in Europe.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has made similar points, arguing that one weapons system won’t determine success in the war.
“There are a number of things that go into the overall equation as to whether or not you know you want to provide one capability or another,” Austin said Friday. “There is no silver bullet when it comes to things like this.”
He also noted that Ukraine has already been able to strike inside Russia with its own internally produced systems, including drones.
The end of Russia’s war in Ukraine could come from an unexpected direction.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he wants Ukraine’s proposal to end the war ready to be presented to the Russian government by the end of this year.
On June 16, during the Swiss Peace Formula Summit, the Ukrainian president stated that the next and final summit with his allies should be held in “months, not years”.
This second meeting should produce a document which will be then presented to Moscow and President Vladimir Putin by the so-called “third countries” on behalf of Kyiv.
But who would those third countries be? And what is Russia’s stance on Zelenskyy’s peace formula?
‘Russia’s long-term goal is to disband Western unity’
The US-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said Kremlin officials are likely trying to shape international peace mediation efforts in the war in Ukraine while demonstrating Russia’s unwillingness to engage in good-faith negotiations with Kyiv.
Moscow repeatedly stated that Russia has never seriously considered the plan, calling Zelenskyy’s peace formula an “ultimatum”.
Yet, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attended the Russia–Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Joint Ministerial Meeting of Strategic Dialogue in Saudi Arabia on 9 September, likely as part of the Kremlin’s efforts to advance the creation of its envisioned “Eurasian security architecture”.
The ISW previously assessed that Moscow’s proposal of Eurasian security architecture is consistent with Russia’s long-term strategic goal of disbanding Western unity, disbanding NATO from within, and destroying the current world order.
In Saudi Arabia, Lavrov met with his counterparts from Brazil and India, countries often mentioned as those who could play an important part in ending the war in Ukraine.
Global North vs Global South?
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 has emphasised the division between the so-called Global North and Global South.
The Global North states—the term usually used to describe the world’s most developed nations—have all been staunch supporters of Ukraine. The US, UK, and EU have all displayed their solid commitment to weapons and equipment supplies, financial aid, and, in general, their political support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.
This is why they are not the leading candidates to mediate any possible talks. Not because they don’t want to or because Ukraine doesn’t want it, but because most of them are now in a complex, open conflict with Russia. Moscow has even included them on its “unfriendly countries list”.
This is why any possible mediation or passing of the peace formula paper could hypothetically be trusted with the so-called Global South.
Many of the Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Latin American states didn’t condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine since the first days of the all-out war, and this is what made them priorities for Zelenskyy and his diplomatic team.
For many years, these countries had been somehow pushed into Russia’s area of interest. And now their position and diplomatic weight is more significant than ever.
Who are the possible key players?
India: When Russia launched a barrage of missiles across Ukraine on 8 July and destroyed the largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was visiting Moscow.
As the photos emerged of cancer-stricken children being evacuated and receiving their vital treatment in the dusty street among the rescue operations at Ohmatdyt in Kyiv, Moscow released pictures of Modi shaking hands with Putin.
The timing of his Moscow visit didn’t go unnoticed in Kyiv, and when Modi arrived in the Ukrainian capital a few weeks later for his historic visit, he joined Zelenskyy in commemorating hundreds of Ukrainian children who have been killed during more than two years of war.
Modi, who told Zelenskyy that the killing of children in conflict was not acceptable, said he had come to Ukraine with a message of peace. He stated his respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, but overall Modi’s peace rhetoric was largely unchanged from the message he had delivered weeks earlier in Moscow as he reiterated that the conflict can be resolved only through dialogue and diplomacy.
Middle East: specifically Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. Saudi Arabia hosted an international summit on the peace formula in August of last year.
The country has also played an important role in negotiating prisoner exchanges with Russia, allowing Ukraine to achieve a major exchange involving nearly 300 people in September 2022, including the high-profile commanding officers who defended the Azovstal plant in Mariupol.
UAE also succeeded in meditating an exchange of POW’s when Kyiv and Moscow each returned 90 prisoners of war.
Qatar mediated one of the most tragic and most complicated issues amid the full-scale invasion — the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Russia has forcefully deported over 19,000 children from Ukraine. Fewer than 400 have been returned.
Don’t look too far
When Zelenskyy visited Italy last week for the Ambrosetti Forum, his office said Ukraine’s president planned to meet with Italian authorities and representatives of Italian businesses.
It is unclear whether he met Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev who also attended the forum in Cernobbio and delivered a speech titled “Azerbaijan’s role in the new geopolitical environment”.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine arguably made Azerbaijan more important than ever to the Western partners, as Europe needs both the country’s energy resources and its transit routes.
Aliyev said that Baku was “approached by Russia, Ukraine and European institutions in order to facilitate the continuation of the gas transit through Ukraine.”
Aliyev made a surprising statement by announcing for the first time that Azerbaijan is now getting involved in helping to look for a solution to end the war in Ukraine as his country has strong positive relations and the trust of both Ukraine and Russia.
The Azerbaijan president said, “We have certain optimism because in recent contexts with both countries, we think there is ground for a breakthrough. Probably, it may be premature for me to go into too much detail, but if it works, then we may be able to do other things in order to help put an end to this war, which is destroying the whole region.”
He also emphasised that Azerbaijan “strongly supports Ukraine’s and all countries’ territorial integrity and sovereignty,” which has been the country’s position since the beginning of the war, while in parallel, Azerbaijan continues to have strong relations with Russia.
Two weeks before Aliyev’s participation in the Ambrosetti Forum alongside Zelenskyy, he welcomed Putin in Baku.
Unimaginable peace opens the door to ending war in Ukraine
For decades, Moscow has considered Azerbaijan and Armenia to be in its sphere of influence. But this long-standing status quo was shattered when Azerbaijan retook control of the Karabakh region in a lightning offensive in September 2023 while Russia was bogged down in Ukraine, triggering a major political reshape of the region.
A traditional ally and partner of Moscow, Armenia saw the historic departure of Russian border guards from its Zvartnots Airport this summer, 32 years after their deployment began.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said the move was causing “irreparable damage” to relations between the two countries. But this damage appeared to be even more significant and evolving as Armenia blamed Russia for its defeat in Karabakh region.
A month later, Armenian PM Nikol Pashinyan announced that Yerevan had suspended its participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) — Russia’s answer to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which includes Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
Instead, to Russia’s dismay, Armenia has started improving relations with the West. European Commission Vice President and EU Commissioner for Promoting the European Way of Life Margaritis Schinas visited Yerevan on 9 September as the EU and Yerevan launched a dialogue on visa liberalisation for Armenia.
On X, formerly known as Twitter, Schinas said his visit marked the “recent successes in the partnership’ and specifically mentioned ‘security support’ as one of the key aspects of it, stating that ‘The EU stands shoulder to shoulder with Armenia.”
Yerevan and Baku have been negotiating a groundbreaking and regionally stabilising peace treaty after decades of war over Karabakh region and Ukraine issued a statement in April, welcoming the agreements between the two countries on finding solutions to the interstate border.
The Ukrainian ministry stressed that the delimitation of the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia based on respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity “is a necessary condition for normalising relations between the countries and ensuring stability and security in the region.
Aliyev’s surprise announcement last week on seeking solutions and signalling an involvement in the peace negotiations as an intermediary between Russia and Ukraine, while negotiating its own peace with Armenia, would further reshape the balance of powers and stability in the whole region and beyond.
As the once unimaginable peace is now looming between Azerbaijan and Armenia, this historic moment in the Caucasus could also hold the right pieces and keys to the difficult solution for ending the war in Ukraine.
The Hill: The arrest of Pavel Durov: A geopolitical power play in the Digital Age – by Pari Esfandiari, opinion contributor – 09/05/24 9:45 AM ET
On Aug. 23, French authorities arrested Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of Telegram, at Le Bourget Airport near Paris. This unexpected event has sent ripples through the tech industry and raised significant questions about the intersection of digital privacy, state power and global geopolitics.
According to French officials, Durov was arrested on a warrant issued by France’s L’office mineurs, an agency responsible for preventing violence against minors. The charges against him include allegations of failing to curb the use of Telegram for criminal activities such as cyberbullying, drug trafficking, organized crime and the promotion of extremism. Telegram, with its encrypted messaging services, has been a platform of choice for various actors, including those involved in illicit activities, which French authorities argue Durov has not adequately addressed.
The geopolitical implications of Durov’s detention cannot be overlooked. Telegram has been a critical tool in several global hotspots, most notably the Ukraine conflict, where it has been used by both military units and civilians for communication and information dissemination. Russia’s immediate response, demanding consular access and criticizing French authorities, underscores the international tensions at play.
Durov, who holds multiple citizenships, including Russian, has long been a thorn in the side of the Russian government due to his refusal to comply with demands for user data from his platform. His detention in a NATO member state like France could be interpreted as part of broader Western efforts to counter Russian influence, particularly in the digital realm.
Speculation also abounds regarding possible involvement of other intelligence agencies, including Israel’s, given its sophisticated cyber capabilities and interest in monitoring or controlling platforms like Telegram, which both allies and adversaries might find useful. Any involvement by Israel, whether through intelligence sharing or cyber operations, would add further complexity to the geopolitical landscape surrounding Durov’s detention.
Durov’s decision to travel to France despite the risks involved also raises questions. Some speculate that it may have been a calculated risk, possibly linked to broader negotiations or a belief that he could resolve legal issues there. The situation is further complicated by the mysterious disappearance of 24-year-old Yuli Vavilova, a Dubai-based crypto-coach from Moscow who was with Durov at the time of his detention. Speculation is rampant, with theories ranging from her involvement in espionage to the possibility of a honey trap orchestrated by intelligence agencies, adding layers of intrigue to the unfolding events.
Durov’s detention comes amidst increasing pressure from European regulators on tech companies to comply with the Digital Services Act, which demands stringent content moderation to prevent the misuse of platforms for illegal purposes. France’s actions suggest a hard-line approach to enforcing these regulations, particularly against companies perceived as not fully cooperating with European standards.
This event serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between public safety and individual freedoms, particularly the right to privacy. Telegram is known for its strong encryption and for Durov’s commitment to protecting user data from government intrusion, making it a vital tool for activists, journalists and everyday users who value privacy. But it has also attracted criminals and extremists, who exploit its secure communication features.
One significant concern arising from this situation is the potential for the French government to gain access to Telegram’s databases. Although Telegram is designed to be highly secure, with servers distributed across multiple jurisdictions, Durov’s detention could lead to increased pressure on the company to comply with data access requests.
If French authorities gain access to user data, it could impact millions of users worldwide, particularly those involved in sensitive communications, such as political activists, journalists and government officials who rely on Telegram’s encryption for secure messaging.
This case raises broader concerns about the future of digital privacy and freedom. If governments can hold tech executives personally responsible for their platforms’ users, it may lead to increased self-censorship by companies or even a decline in the availability of secure communication tools. This could have a chilling effect on free speech, especially in authoritarian regimes where platforms like Telegram are essential for organizing dissent.
For the tech industry, this incident signals a new era of accountability, in which CEOs and founders could face legal consequences for their platforms’ failures to comply with local laws. This is particularly significant for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions with varying legal standards. The pressure to adhere to stringent regulations may stifle innovation, especially in sectors like encryption and cybersecurity, where the balance between security and oversight is inherently delicate.
Durov’s detention bears significant similarities to the 2018 apprehension of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, in Canada. Both cases involve high-profile tech industry figures whose detentions have sparked international controversies and raised questions about the motivations behind them. Meng’s detention was widely viewed as part of the U.S.-China trade war, with Huawei at the center of concerns over 5G technology and cybersecurity. Likewise, Durov’s situation can be seen within the context of global power struggles, particularly between Russia and the West, and the role of technology in modern warfare and statecraft.
Both cases illustrate how technology and geopolitics are increasingly intertwined. Meng’s detention had far-reaching consequences for Huawei and China’s global tech ambitions, just as Durov’s could impact Telegram’s operations and the broader tech landscape, especially concerning encrypted communications.
Just as Meng’s case symbolized the escalating tech rivalry between the U.S. and China, Durov’s detention could mark a key moment in the ongoing struggle over digital sovereignty and the future of the internet.
Pari Esfandiari is the co-founder and president at the Global TechnoPolitics Forum, a member of the at-large advisory committee at ICANN representing the European region, and a member of APCO Worldwide’s advisory board.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Edward Caban, the first Latino to run the New York Police Department, was asked to resign on Monday, the New York Times and other outlets reported.
In an email to the officers he led, Caban wrote that “the news around recent developments has created a distraction for our department, and I am unwilling to let my attention be on anything other than our important work, or the safety of the men and women of the NYPD.”
“I hold immense respect and gratitude for the brave officers who serve this department, and the NYPD deserves someone who can solely focus on protecting and serving New York City, which is why – for the good of this city and this department – I have made the difficult decision to resign as Police Commissioner,” he said.
Adams named a retired FBI veteran, Tom Donlon, as interim police commissioner. Donlon formerly led New York state’s homeland security office and was chief of the FBI’s National Threat Center.
“This is the first police commissioner to resign over a corruption probe since the 1970s,” Wilbur Chapman, a former New York deputy police commissioner, told USA TODAY. “It creates a challenge for the police rank and file to restore the confidence of the people they protect.”
On Sept. 5, investigators from the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan seized Caban’s mobile phones as part of an investigation of what local media reported was possible protection of local nightclubs from enforcement actions. The electronic devices of lower level police commanders and supervisors were also seized.
Caban is among several top Adams aides and confidantes who received federal search warrants earlier this month. They include Deputy Mayor for Criminal Justice Philip Banks III, First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright, and Schools Chancellor David Banks.
Philip Banks, a former top police official, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an earlier bribery scandal at the NYPD. David Banks, the city’s schools’ chief, is his brother, and Wright is David Banks’ live-in partner. Investigators also seized the devices of a third Banks brother, Terrence Banks, who runs a government consultancy, and of Timothy Pearson, a retired police inspector who is a close confidant of the mayor’s.
“Based on what I have seen, I do not believe that Mr. Banks has any criminal liability − period,” said Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for Philip Banks. An attorney for Terrence Banks didn’t immediately return a call for comment.
In an interview with WNYC, Schools Chancellor David Banks acknowledged that federal agents had searched the home he shares with Deputy Mayor Wright. “I have been told by my lawyers that I’m absolutely not a target in this investigation,” he told host Brian Lehrer, “and I’m going to do everthing I can to cooperate with the investigation.”
No one in the mayor’s circle has been charged with wrongdoing.
Earlier this year, investigators seized the mayor’s electronic devices, apparently in the course of an ongoing investigation of illegal Turkish funding for his 2021 mayoral campaign.
Caban was first appointed in July 2023 following the resignation of his predecessor, Keechant Sewell, who served 18 months before leaving the department.
In a statement, acting Police Commissioner Donlan said he would work to “continue the historic progress decreasing crime and removing illegal guns from our communities, uphold the highest standards of integrity and transparency, and support our dedicated officers who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.”
Europe News | Euronews RSS.
The Hill News.
The Atlantic.
