NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Thursday welcomed U.S. plans to deploy more troops to Europe and said NATO is considering sending additional battle groups to the southeastern part of its alliance amid tensions along the Russia-Ukraine border.

Stoltenberg told reporters that while NATO is preparing for the possibility that Russia may take military action, NATO remains ready to engage in “meaningful dialogue” and find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis.

“NATO continues to call on Russia to deescalate. Any further Russian aggression would have severe consequences and carry a heavy price,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Thursday that the U.S. deployment is heightening tensions in the region. 

The United States and other Western allies have been preparing economic sanctions to level against Russia in hopes of persuading Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull back the more than 100,000 troops Russia has near the border. Russia has denied it plans to invade Ukraine.

Stoltenberg said Thursday there has been a “significant movement of Russian military forces into Belarus,” Ukraine’s northern neighbor where Russia is set to take part in joint military drills this month.

“This is the biggest Russian deployment there since the Cold War,” Stoltenberg said.

Russia has demanded NATO pull back troops and weapons deployed in eastern European member countries, and to make clear that Ukraine cannot join the 30-member military alliance.

NATO and Ukraine have rejected those demands, saying countries are free to pick their allies.

But Stoltenberg said Thursday that NATO is ready to talk to Russia about relations between the two sides, and about risk reduction, increased transparency and arms control.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is meeting Thursday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the latest in a series of visits to Kyiv by world leaders and diplomats to show support for Ukraine and try to advance a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

Erdogan has suggested Turkey, a NATO member that also has good relations with Russia, could act as a mediator.

Talks Wednesday between Putin and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not provide any breakthroughs. French President Emmanuel Macron was expected to have a phone conversation with Putin later Thursday.

Macron and U.S. President Joe Biden discussed the Russia-Ukraine situation in a call Wednesday, with the White House saying the two leaders reviewed diplomatic efforts and “preparations to impose swift and severe economic costs on Russia should it further invade Ukraine.”

The Norwegian Rights Council also warned Thursday about the effects on those living in eastern Ukraine if the crisis escalates.

After years of violence in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where Ukrainian forces have been battling Russia-backed separatists, the aid organization said the humanitarian needs are already high with nearly 3 million people relying on aid.

Increased fighting “would devastate already damaged civil infrastructure, further restrict peoples’ movements, block access to communities in need, and disrupt essential public services such as water, power, transport and banking,” the NRC said in a statement.

The U.S. said Wednesday it is dispatching 2,000 more troops to Europe, most of them to Poland, and moving 1,000 troops from Germany to Romania to bolster NATO’s eastern flank countries.

The additional U.S. troops, part of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, are “not going to fight in Ukraine” in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told reporters. Rather, he said, they are intended as an “unmistakable signal that we stand with NATO.”

Kirby said the new deployment is not permanent, but that the U.S. could dispatch more troops as warranted. Kirby said the deployment is separate from the 8,500 U.S. troops placed on heightened alert last week for possible dispatch to Europe.

The Defense Department spokesperson said the U.S. still does not believe Putin has “made a decision on invading Ukraine.”

But Kirby said the Russian leader is “showing no signs of being willing to de-escalate” and has continued to add troops in Russian-aligned Belarus to Ukraine’s north and along Russia’s border with eastern Ukraine.

Kirby said the U.S. is “prepared for a range of contingencies” involving Putin’s actions toward Ukraine. The spokesman said the new deployment is “not the sum total of the deterrence.”

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba addressed the conflict in a broader context at a news conference Wednesday, saying, “I’m confident that Russia’s war on Ukraine and wider Europe will ultimately end when two fundamental issues are resolved. First, the West should turn from reactive to proactive strategies when dealing with Russia.”

He added, “Ambiguity on Ukraine’s role as an indivisible part of the West has to be put to an end. The Ukrainian people chose this course and defended it at a high price.”

“We are historically, politically and culturally a part of the West,” Kuleba said. “It is time to end harmful ambiguity which serves as a temptation for the Kremlin to continue its attempts to undermine Ukraine or reverse its course against the will of the Ukrainian people.”

Some information for this report came from Agence France-Presse and Reuters.
…

your ad here

The Treasury Department this week reported that the total national debt of the United States surpassed $30 trillion for the first time in history, an amount equal to nearly 130% of America’s yearly economic output, known as gross domestic product. The eye-popping figure makes the U.S. one of the most heavily indebted nations in the world. 

 

The federal debt has been high and rising for decades, but the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, which involved massive infusions of cash into the U.S. economy, greatly accelerated its growth.  

 

At the end of 2019, prior to the pandemic, the national debt stood at $22.7 trillion. One year later, it had risen by an additional $5 trillion, to $27.7 trillion. Since then, the nation has added more than $2 trillion in further debt. 

 

A grim reminder 

While the $30 trillion figure, by itself, has no significant meaning, it may serve to focus attention on what some see as a major concern for the future health of the country. 

 

“Hitting the $30 trillion mark is a reminder of just how high our debt is and just how much we’ve been borrowing,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  

 

“Debt held by the public, which is the measure we prefer to use, is about as large as the economy,” Goldwein told VOA. “In a decade, it’ll be larger than any time since World War II. Meanwhile, we have the highest inflation rate we’ve had in 40 years, and there doesn’t seem to be any sign that the borrowing is going to let up.” 

 

Different debtors 

The $30 trillion in outstanding debt is owed to a wide variety of creditors, including the federal government itself. 

 

According to the Treasury Department, as of January 31, $6.5 trillion of the national debt was classified as “intragovernmental holdings.” This includes Treasury securities held by various agencies of the federal government, most prominently the Social Security Administration, which maintains a trust fund to provide income to senior citizens. 

 

The far larger portion of the debt is classified as debt held by the public, which amounts to $23.5 trillion. The term “public” can be somewhat misleading because the category includes not just the debt instruments held by individual investors but also the debts held by the Federal Reserve, large investment funds and foreign governments. 

 

According to the Treasury Department, foreign governments hold about $7.7 trillion in U.S. debt, though no country holds more than 5% of the total. As of the end of November, the most recent data available, Japan was the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, with $1.3 trillion. China was the second-largest holder of U.S. debt, with $1.1 trillion, while the United Kingdom was in distant third place, with $622 billion. 

 

The cost of debt 

The cost of servicing the country’s outstanding debt has become a major part of the federal budget as the outstanding debt has grown. In 2021, the government made $562 billion in interest payments on outstanding debt. That is more than the annual budget of every individual federal agency except for the Treasury, the Department of Health and Human Services (which manages the Medicare and Medicaid government health insurance programs), and the Department of Defense. 

 

Surprisingly, during the early part of the pandemic, the federal government’s interest payments fell even as the debt increased, because of a broad decline in interest rates. 

 

However, with the Federal Reserve poised to begin raising interest rates in an attempt to ward off rising inflation, the rate the Treasury has to pay on newly issued debt will likely rise, meaning that the overall cost of servicing the federal debt will likely go up in the relatively near future. 

 

Comparison with other countries 

The United States’ ratio of debt to GDP, the measure most commonly used to gauge a country’s level of indebtedness, places it among the most indebted countries in the world. 

 

According to data gathered by the World Bank in October, the country with the world’s highest debt-to-GDP ratio is Japan, which carries debt equivalent to 257% of its economic output. Other developed economies with very high debt-to-GDP ratios include Greece, at 207%, and Italy, at 155%. 

 

With a ratio of 133%, the U.S. is the 12th most indebted country overall, and the fourth most indebted among the developed economies that make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD average is an 80% debt-to-GDP ratio. 

 

Both parties added to debt 

The national debt is the cumulative total of annual federal deficits. The U.S. has seen federal surpluses in just four of the past 50 years, from 1998 to 2001, encompassing the last three years of the administration of Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and the first year of the administration of George W. Bush, a Republican.  

 

In recent decades, both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to the rising levels of federal borrowing, with the debt increasing on a regular basis, regardless of which party controlled Congress and the White House. 

 

It’s a fact that causes some members of Congress to express frustration with their colleagues over a seeming lack of concern about the problem. 

 

“$30 trillion in debt is an obscene number, but what’s even more depressing is the fact that most politicians in both parties don’t really care,” Senator Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican, said in a statement. “Someone is going to have to pay that money when these politicians are long gone, and — spoiler alert — it won’t be paid by them but instead by our kids.” 

 
…

your ad here

U.S. experts agree on the need for Washington to rethink its strategy for Central Asia in light of its withdrawal from Afghanistan but are divided on what shape that new strategy should take.

Until 2001, few Americans knew this remote region. But it played a key role in U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan hosting air bases and helping the coalition transport critical goods.

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Lesslie Viguerie said Central Asia is still strategically important, despite the U.S. exit from Afghanistan. “Many things have changed over decades, but our overarching goals remain the same: sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity,” Viguerie said.

At a recent U.S. Institute of Peace forum, Viguerie said the nations of Central Asia— which include Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan — have become more concerned about their own security since the fall of Kabul to the Taliban.

As the State Department’s top official for the region, he said Washington steadfastly supports political, economic and social reforms.

“Pluralism and democratic governance are the foundational bedrock for a free and prosperous society,” he said. “We continue to advance the rule of law, promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and fight corruption.”

In 2015, Washington created the regionally focused C5+1 forum to discuss common challenges and “to enhance connectivity, economic integration and energy linkages.” That discussion included links with Afghanistan, but whether that continues will largely depend on the actions of the Taliban, officials said.

Viguerie said regional cooperation could help the five nations to deal more effectively with problems as diverse as the pandemic, climate change and disinformation campaigns.

“Recent events in Kazakhstan remind us of the importance of addressing the underlying social and economic factors that can lead to instability,” he said in reference to nationwide protests sparked by a sharp spike in fuel prices.

“We continue to highlight the positive role civil society can play in examining the root causes of economic and social frustrations.”

Mistaken presumption

Richard Hoagland, a former U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, said that while Washington speaks publicly about democracy and economic development, it is more quietly focused on countering Russian and Chinese influence in the region.

In the 1990s, Hoagland recalled, U.S. policy presumed that the nations of Central Asia “would surely become free market democracies if only we could offer enough assistance. But they didn’t. And in retrospect, that’s not the least bit surprising.”

The ways of the West were too foreign to Central Asians who had long lived under repressive rulers, Hoagland said.

Going forward, he said, these five countries will need to resist outside pressure in order to balance their relationships with Moscow, Beijing, Brussels and Washington. “Russia would not be at all displeased to see the West and especially the U.S. pack up its bags and go home.”

Beijing, the largest investor in the region, made further commitments during a virtual meeting last week between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and the five Central Asian presidents. India showcased its own interest in investing in the region during a similar summit a day later.

Hoagland argued that U.S. concerns over governance and human rights problems should not lead Washington to dial back its relations with the region.

“We need patience,” he said, noting the rise of a new generation in Central Asia, including some with Western education and values.

Jennifer Murtazashvili, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said U.S. strategy for the region does not take current realities into account.

“The U.S. can play a very constructive role in Central Asia but has to understand their needs, desires and goals,” she said at the USIP forum.

She urged Washington not to look at the region through the lens of Russia or China, saying, “We can’t be reactive to what other countries are doing, but proactive.”

Murtazashvili said U.S. engagement with the region should focus on the intersection between economic development and public administration, including efforts to combat corruption and work with emerging civil society. “Without reforms in these areas, it will be difficult for Central Asians to achieve their goals,” she said.

She considers education the biggest area of demand for cooperation with the U.S. because of youthful populations.

Security cooperation first

But Fred Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, contends that security cooperation should instead be front and center. “A discussion with the countries that honestly includes security, sovereignty, self-government and self-determination is what’s been missing,” he said.

Speaking at the same virtual forum, Starr said Central Asia is the only region in the world that doesn’t have its own intraregional organization without outsiders and urges Washington to support such initiatives.

“The C5+1 is thin. The concept is good, they have meetings, but it’s been very passive by comparison to what China and Russia are doing,” Starr said.

“We have to be more patient and tenacious with those who are underperforming in areas that are important to us,” he added. “Treat them as a region, treat them with respect, foster a regional thinking in our programs.”

Murtazashvili sees Afghanistan as a place with potential to foster positive relationships among Russia, China and the United States. Now that the geopolitical implications of a major foreign presence in Afghanistan no longer overshadow more immediate regional interests, she said, major powers could collaborate on development and investment opportunities in this part of the world.

“Having a Central Asian strategy that was so dependent on what happened in Afghanistan was a huge risk,” she said. “We weren’t seeing the strong mutual interests that many countries in Central Asia had with Afghanistan regardless of who is in power.”

Starr and Murtazashvili recommend the United States make Afghanistan part of a renewed strategy. “Central Asians are more confident in dealing with Afghanistan than we are,” said Murtazashvili, specifically referring to Uzbekistan’s humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan.

Values-based approach

Steve Swerdlow, professor of human rights at the University of Southern California, argues for a values-first strategy toward the region. In an interview with VOA, he said America’s reputation as a defender of human rights and democracy has been damaged in recent years but argued that the Afghan withdrawal frees up the U.S. to reclaim a more values-based approach to Central Asia.

“Washington should speak out more about the harassment of journalists and create greater recognition that support for civil society is a core national interest of the U.S.,” he said.

“Global Magnitsky sanctions against bad guys should be used more in Central Asia in a strategic way,” he added. “Go after corrupt individuals; curtail some of the globalized, offshore asset holdings by” a close circle of former Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Swerdlow said Washington should utilize the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the United Nations to raise human rights issues in Central Asia and negotiate with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan as members of the U.N. Human Rights Council about their obligations.
…

your ad here

The FBI says it is investigating a series of bomb threats earlier this week at historically Black colleges and universities.

There were no explosions, and no bombs were found.

“This investigation is of the highest priority for the Bureau and involves more than 20 FBI field offices across the country,” the FBI said in a statement Wednesday. “These threats are being investigated as Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism and hate crimes.”

It added it was not able to provide any more details on the threats, citing an ongoing investigation.

Several historically African-American colleges received a second round of bomb threats Tuesday following similar threats Monday.

Among those receiving threats Tuesday were Howard University in Washington, D.C.; University of the District of Columbia; Edward Waters University in Jacksonville, Florida; Kentucky State University; Fort Valley State University in Georgia; Xavier University of Louisiana; Spelman College in Atlanta; and Morgan State University in Baltimore.

On Monday, Howard University, Southern University and A&M College (Louisiana), Bethune-Cookman University (Florida), Bowie State University (Maryland), Albany State University (Georgia) and Delaware State University (Delaware) confirmed similar threats.

The threats resulted in canceled classes and shelter-in-place orders.

Some information in this report came from The Associated Press.
…

your ad here

The Biden administration launched a plan Wednesday to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years, a continuation of the 2016 “cancer moonshot” program that President Joe Biden led as vice president in the Obama administration.

“It’s bold. It’s ambitious, but it’s completely doable,” Biden said at the White House launch event. He said his plan would turn cancer from a death sentence into a chronic disease that people can live with, and that it would create a more supportive experience for cancer patients and their families.

Biden urged Americans to get screened, noting that 9 million cancer screenings were missed in the country during the pandemic. He established what he called a “cancer cabinet” — officials who will coordinate and harness the federal government’s approach to fight cancer. He also called on Congress to provide $6.5 billion to boost medical research through a proposed new agency — the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health.

“This will be bipartisan. This will bring the country together, and quite frankly, other nations as well,” he said.

The fight against cancer is a deeply personal issue for Biden, who lost his elder son, Beau, to brain cancer in 2015. The loss is shared by many Americans: The American Cancer Society projects more than 609,000 cancer deaths and more than 1.9 million new cancer cases this year alone.

The administration aims to save more than 300,000 lives annually from the disease.

“More people are surviving cancer. More people are enduring cancer after being diagnosed than ever before,” Vice President Kamala Harris said at the event. Harris is a breast cancer survivor whose mother, a cancer researcher, died from colon cancer in 2009.

Dr. Karen E. Knudsen, CEO of the American Cancer Society, noted there has been a 32% reduction in the cancer mortality since 1991. But while mortality is a key indicator, Knudsen pointed out that some of the 200 different cancers are on the rise, including pancreatic, advanced prostate and early onset colorectal cancer.

“These are areas for which we still need to understand that dynamic through research and understand how to best put in prevention and mitigation strategies,” Knudsen told VOA. “Real success from the American Cancer Society perspective looks like a reduction in mortality and an approach to a cure for all types of cancer.”

The administration did not announce any new funding during the Wednesday launch. In 2016, as part of the “cancer moonshot” initiative, Congress authorized $1.8 billion over seven years, and roughly $400 million of that money has yet to be allocated. The National Cancer Institute oversees the initiative that aims to accelerate scientific discovery in cancer, foster greater collaboration and improve the sharing of data.

Still, this renewed push will give Americans hope, said first lady Jill Biden, who also spoke at the White House event.

“We will build a future where the word cancer forever loses its power,” she said.

Prevention and cancer disparity

Knudsen and other experts stressed the need for reducing “significant cancer disparities” across the United States.

Effective vaccines are available for some cancers such as cervical or head and neck, while other cancers can be detected early with systematic screenings — but only if people receive them, said Dr. Deb Schrag, chair of medicine at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Right now, we are leaving people, even entire communities, behind,” Schrag told VOA. “To achieve Biden’s goal, laser-sharp focus on equity must continue. Biden’s goal can only be achieved if we focus on prevention as well as treatment.”

If we provide people with what we already know in terms of treatment and prevention, about 25% of current deaths would be prevented, Dr. Otis Brawley said to VOA. Brawley, an expert in cancer prevention and control at the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center in Baltimore, pointed to American Cancer Society data showing that cigarette smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases and deaths, followed by excess body weight and alcohol intake.

“People die because they do not get adequate care,” he said.

But early detection is not just a matter of health care access. For some people, it’s also overcoming the belief that if you feel healthy, you don’t need screening, said Robert K. Brown, who survived leukemia in his early 20s and chronicled his recovery in his memoir, Hundred Percent Chance.

Brown, who has been cancer-free for more than 30 years, spoke to VOA as he was making funeral arrangements for an uncle who died of esophageal cancer just days ago.

“He passed away pretty quickly from something that could have been treatable had it been caught sooner,” Brown said. “And that’s the stuff that I hear over and over again.”

Pandemic impact

“Whenever there was a peak of COVID, there was a decline in screening,” said Knudsen of the American Cancer Society. “Those lead to later diagnoses, patients presenting with more advanced disease that are more difficult to treat.”

Cancer patients are more susceptible to severe symptoms and deaths from a COVID-19 infection, especially those who cannot be vaccinated because of their cancer treatment plan, Knudsen said. But even cancer patients eligible for vaccination can sometimes be immunocompromised, meaning that they can’t mount the same type of immune response compared with a healthy individual.

Knudsen said Biden’s initiative might also impact people outside the U.S; it could help connect with the larger oncology community internationally that wants “to both learn from us and share their successes with us as well.” 
…

your ad here

The lawsuit alleges that the league has discriminated against Brian Flores and other Black coaches for racial reasons; the NFL said it will defend “against these claims, which are without merit”
…

your ad here