WASHINGTON. Russia’s decision send troops to Ukraine On Monday, the US and Europe were faced with the task of deciding how quickly to impose tough sanctions on Moscow, seeking to strike a balance between punishment, deterrence and maintaining unity among allies.

President Biden’s initial response was cautious and limited to a narrow set of sanctions targeting two regions in eastern Ukraine that are partly controlled by Russia-backed separatists and that Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized as independent on Monday.

The targeted nature of the sanctions appears to have been intended to allow the United States and its European allies to hold back the most aggressive sanctions they have threatened to impose on Moscow if Mr. Putin launches a full-scale attack to overthrow the democratically elected government. Ukraine. .

Privately, administration officials have acknowledged that Mr. Putin appears uninterested in further talks that did not address his core demands for a halt to NATO’s eastward expansion, and suggested that he was tolerating diplomatic initiatives largely to buy time. to concentrate their forces.

White House officials said further Western response would almost certainly be announced on Tuesday, and by then, several of Mr. Biden’s aides said they expected to see Russian troops cross the border into Ukraine, crossing the line set by Mr. Biden. . the imposition of “quick and hard” sanctions against Moscow.

That the most severe of those include the disconnection of Russia’s largest banks from the global economic system, the starvation of Russian heavy industry with semiconductors and other advanced technologies, and – if it comes to that – insurgent weapons how Ukrainians fight for their freedom.

But it was not clear whether Mr. Biden or his more reluctant allies, especially Germany and Italy, which depend on Russian gas imports, were ready to impose a full package of sanctions.

Mr Putin stepwise approach increased pressure on Ukraine appears to be designed to exploit any cracks in what unified position of NATO and Europe. Some countries may be reluctant to resort to the harshest sanctions if Mr. Putin’s forces remain in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, where Russia wielded a lot of influence during the eight-year conflict.

However, the limited geographic scope of Mr Putin’s initial claim to Ukrainian territory contrasted sharply with the conclusion from his long hour-long speech on Monday that the entire country is part of Russia.

He made it clear that his broader goal was to take back Ukraine and continue rebuilding the empire that collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union three decades ago. At one point, he said bluntly: “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia—Bolshevik, communist Russia, to be precise.”

At a press briefing on condition of anonymity Monday night, a senior administration official called Mr. Putin’s speech an appeal to the Russian people to justify the war and said the administration had no illusions about what might happen next.

But it’s unclear whether Mr. Putin cares about the next round of sanctions, believing his economy can withstand whatever Mr. Biden and other Western leaders throw at him. In his speech, he called Mr. Biden’s threats of sanctions “blackmail,” saying they “would have been applied to Russia no matter what happens in Ukraine.”

Updated

February 21, 2022 9:27 pm ET

“The goal,” he argued, “is to keep Russia behind, to prevent it from developing. And they will do it even without a formal pretext. Just because we exist.”

Mr. Putin’s tortuous, disgruntled speech was filled with accusations that Ukraine was seeking to develop its own nuclear arsenal – there is no evidence that this is true – and that NATO was plotting to place Tomahawk missiles on Ukrainian soil, from where they could strike strike on Russia in a matter of minutes. .

“I have no doubt that they are already considering how to implement these plans,” Mr. Putin said.

US officials have been saying for months that there are no such plans, and Mr. Biden told a January press conference that Ukraine still has many years to go to qualify for NATO membership. But he is unwilling to bow to Mr. Putin’s demand that NATO stop accepting new members and that he provide binding written assurances that Ukraine will never become part of the Western alliance.

Mr. Biden’s ability to counter any military action in Ukraine in the coming days is limited. He has repeatedly stated that he will not allow American troops to fight in Ukraine. But there are no guarantees that the conflict will not go beyond Ukraine.

Europe was support for refugees a flight from a modern, albeit corrupt, democracy whose president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was in Munich on Saturday, defending his case that NATO should open its doors to his country—and thereby protect it. Biden’s own national security officials have been warning U.S. utilities, banks and other businesses to harden their networks against what they fear will be a wave of Russian-origin cyberattacks and ransomware they have publicly warned could be released in response to the sanctions. .

While Mr. Biden’s actions Monday night were restrained, his administration denounced Russia’s decision as a violation of the rules that govern world order.

In a statement, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called Putin’s actions “a flagrant violation of Russia’s international obligations.”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres called this action a violation of the charter of his organization. The UN Security Council was holding an emergency meeting late on Monday, in which the United States and its allies condemned Moscow’s actions, but Russia has a veto in this body, saying it can block any action.

In a joint statement, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel wrote that the European Union “will respond with sanctions against those involved in this illegal act” and that it “reaffirms its unwavering support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine”. within its internationally recognized boundaries.”

White House officials said Mr. Biden spoke with Mr. Zelensky for about 35 minutes after Mr. Putin’s speech. Ms Psaki did not provide any details about the call, but said the United States “continues to consult closely with allies and partners, including Ukraine.”

Mr. Biden’s decision to withhold full sanctions — for now — came as voices across the political spectrum called on Monday for the United States and its European allies to take threatening economic action against Moscow now before Mr. Putin extends his control beyond the country. Donbass region in eastern Ukraine.

“Mr. Putin’s decision must be immediately met with strong sanctions to destroy the ruble and crush the Russian oil and gas sector,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and longtime Russia hawk, said. tweeted shortly after the Russian President concluded his speech.

Even close allies of Mr. Biden, such as Senator Chris Koons, a Delaware Democrat who often consults with the president on foreign policy, said Monday night that it was time to bring economic sanctions on Russia.

“Now is the time to take measures that impose significant costs on President Putin and the Kremlin,” he said in a statement released during his tour of Eastern European NATO countries. He said Mr. Putin “made it clear that he intends to continue invading Ukraine in a clear attempt to redraw the borders of Eastern Europe to Moscow’s whims.”

Michael A. McFaul, who was President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia, also urged Mr. Biden and United States allies not to wait.

“Let’s be clear, this act is an invasion of the sovereign country of Ukraine,” he said. tweeted. “The West must respond with force, not ‘proportionately’, and apply the full range of sanctions they have promised.”

The December 3 document was the first in a series of U.S. and British attempts to declassify intelligence about Russia’s plans, which were supposed to include details of a Russian subversion campaign, a coup plot, an elaborate attempt to use fake videos to create a pretext for an invasion and other false flag operations. plotted by Russian military intelligence, the GRU

Mr. Biden and Mr. Putin spoke via secure video link for an hour and 59 minutes on the morning of December 7, just three days after the declassified document was made public. According to US officials, the president offered Putin a choice: settle for diplomacy or risk serious economic and political repercussions from sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine.

In some ways, Mr. Biden was clearly prepared for this moment. Having visited Ukraine half a dozen times over the past decade, he knows the country better than any other American president. His foreign policy team is made up of what are often called “Atlantists” who have been thinking about European security all their lives. (Anthony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, grew up in Paris.)

Aides also said Mr. Biden’s long association with Mr. Putin has made him less receptive to the Russian president’s tactics. In conversations about Ukraine, officials said Mr. Putin often liked to go on and on about the minutiae of the Minsk agreements, a complex multi-year diplomatic effort with Ukraine, in the hope of confusing the situation.

Mobilization of troops

Last Christmas, the Russian military publicly announced the withdrawal of 10,000 troops from the border with Ukraine, calling it proof that Mr. Putin was not going to invade the neighboring country anytime soon.

Inside the White House, the president and his team did not believe it.

Intelligence officials have witnessed repeated instances of the Russians moving a battalion tactical group close to the border, building up the infrastructure needed for a quick invasion, and then pulling the troops back, leaving a shell that other battalions could use. The Russian National Guard or other armed forces loyal to Mr. Putin.

ST. PAUL, Minnesota. The defense case in federal court for three former Minneapolis police officers charged with crimes related to the death of George Floyd ended on Monday with a common theme: They are innocent because their training made them trust a senior officer. at the scene, Derek Chauvin, who pressed his knee to Mr. Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes until he stopped breathing.

Three former officers – Tou Tao, 36; J. Alexander Kueng, 28; and Thomas Lane, 38, are accused of violating Mr Floyd’s constitutional rights, not intervening against Mr Chauvin and failing to provide Mr Floyd with medical care. All three testified in their own defense.

Following the completion of testimony on Monday, the jury will hear closing arguments from the prosecution and each of the defense attorneys on Tuesday, before deliberating.

During his murder trial last year, Mr. Chauvin called a paramedic, police officers, an eyewitness and a former medical examiner to testify on his behalf, but he did not come forward. He was convicted in state court of murder and sentenced to 22 and a half years in prison.

The three other officers present at the scene that day, still largely minor characters in the lingering national trauma caused by the 2020 murder of Mr Floyd, relied almost entirely on telling their own stories to defend themselves in court.

One by one, since last week, three former officers have testified at a federal courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota, explaining what they were doing and thinking when they answered a call from a convenience store salesman who said: Mr. Floyd used a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes.

The first two officers to arrive on the scene, Mr. Kuang and Mr. Lane, who were on duty as full officers the first week, struggled to arrest Mr. Floyd, who repeatedly claimed to be claustrophobic and not wants to be put in jail. in the back seat of a police car.

The officers testified that they were concerned that Mr Floyd was showing symptoms of a drug overdose and was in a highly agitated state. They said holding him face down, even though he repeated over and over that he couldn’t breathe, was necessary, in part to protect Mr Floyd from injury. The scene was far more chaotic, and possibly more dangerous for the cops, than the video footage would suggest, they said.

But most of all, they said, they relied on Mr. Chauvin, the senior officer present, to keep everything under control.

“I think I would trust a 19-year-old veteran with this,” Mr. Tao said.

The officers’ testimonies came at the end of a month-long trial, which was a rare example of a civil rights case brought by the Justice Department against officers for failing to intervene against another officer who used excessive force.

Such cases were rare, partly because it is difficult to prove “intentionality”, which implies some form of intent, or at least the knowledge that what the officers saw was illegal. For the jury to decide that the three officers are guilty, it must be established that the officers knew at the time that Mr. Chauvin used excessive force and that Mr. Floyd was in a serious medical crisis.

The police officers thus walked a fine line in their testimony in attempting to accuse Mr. Chauvin—in effect, claiming to trust Mr. Chauvin’s actions because of his experience—without admitting that they knew that Mr. Chauvin acted illegally.

Understand the civil rights lawsuit over the death of George Floyd

Map 1 of 5

Police culture on trial. That federal civil rights litigation three former officers for their role in murder of George Floyd focuses on a key issue in the American police force: the duty of officers to intervene in the affairs of their colleagues when they witness misconduct.

New focus. Since the murder of Mr Floyd nearly two years ago, all eyes have been on the officer who killed him. Derek Chauvin. While Mr. Chauvin was convicted of murder last spring at the state court, he was not the only officer present that day.

Who are the officers under investigation? Three officers are accused of willfully refusing to intervene against Mr. Chauvin and help Mr. Floyd. To Tao, a veteran officer who was Mr. Chauvin’s partner, held back a group of passers-by. J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane, both rookies, helped capture Mr. Floyd.

What are the charges? The allegations concern whether the defendants were stripped Mr Floyd of his civil rights. All three officers are accused of failing to provide medical attention to Mr. Floyd, while Mr. Kueng and Mr. Tao are also accused of failing to intervene in Mr. Chauvin’s use of force.

“He was my senior officer and I trusted his advice,” Mr. Kuang said.

Officers are required to intervene in the affairs of other officers who commit crimes. But that commitment is often ignored, experts say, because of a policing culture that emphasizes loyalty and discourages officers from speaking out against their own.

Mr. Tao and Mr. Kueng are charged with two counts of failing to intervene in Mr. Chauvin’s affairs and of failing to provide medical assistance to Mr. Floyd. Mr Lane, who twice asked Mr Chauvin during the episode if they should turn Mr Floyd on his side, is charged with one count of medical malpractice.

From the very beginning, the trial focused on the fact that police culture values ​​loyalty to other officers above all else – the so-called blue wall of silence. Prosecutors sought to portray the defendants as ignoring their constitutional duties out of respect for the senior officer.

But the defense has tried to use the issue of culture in policing to their advantage, arguing that the Minneapolis Police Department’s training procedures are replete with paramilitary aspects, where recruits are taught to march in formation and obedience to superiors is seen as a guiding principle. .

Mr Kueng testified that the instruction on the duty to intervene was short and sloppy.

Three officers are still facing state court on charges of aiding and abetting a murder scheduled for June.

Memorial to Ahmad Arbery at the entrance to Satilla Shores in Brunswick, Georgia. Photo… Nicole Crane for The New York Times

In November, three white men were found guilty of killing Ahmad Arbery, a 25-year-old black man, after they suspected him of committing a series of break-ins in their South Georgia neighborhood. In January, the men were sentenced to life in state prison and now face federal hate crime charges.

Here’s what we know about the circumstances of Mr. Arbery’s death.

Ahmad Arbery, former outstanding high school football playerlived with his mother outside the small town of Brunswick, Georgia. He spent some time in college, but it looks like he was in his 20s in a drift period, trying out different professions, working on his rapping skills, and living with his moms. He also suffered from mental illness that caused him to have auditory hallucinations.

According to a police report, on Sunday, February 23, 2020, shortly before 1:00 p.m., Mr Arbery was running in a suburban area called Satilla Shores when a man standing in his front yard saw him walking by. The man, Gregory McMichael, said that he thought Mr. Arbery looked like a man suspected of several break-ins in the area and called Travis McMichael, his son.

According to the police report, the men grabbed a .357 Magnum pistol and a shotgun, got into a pickup truck and chased Mr. Arbery, unsuccessfully trying to cut him off. According to the report and other documents, a third man, William Bryan, also joined the pursuit in a second truck.

In a recording of an 911 call that appeared to have been made minutes before the start of the chase, a neighbor told the dispatcher that a black man was in a house under construction in the McMichael block.

During the chase, the McMichaels yelled, “Stop, stop, we want to talk to you,” Gregory McMichael’s police report says. They then drove up to Mr. Arbery and Travis McMichael got out of the truck with the shotgun.

Gregory McMichael “stated that an unidentified man began to viciously attack Travis, after which the two men began to fight over a shotgun, after which Travis fired, and a second later a second shot was fired,” the report says.

Mr Arbery was unarmed.

Shortly after the shooting, Brunswick District Attorney Jackie Johnson recused herself because Gregory McMichael worked in her office.

The case was sent to George E. Barnhill, District Attorney in Waycross, Georgia, who later withdrew from the case after Mr. Arbery’s mother claimed he had a conflict because his son also worked for the Brunswick District Attorney.

But before dropping the case, Mr. Barnhill wrote a letter Glynn County Police Department. In the letter, he argued that there were insufficient grounds for the arrest of Mr. Arbery’s persecutors.

Mr. Barnhill noted that the McMichaels legally carry their firearms under Georgia’s open carry law. He said they had the right to prosecute what he called a “burglary suspect” and cited state law that states “A private person may arrest a criminal if the crime is committed in his presence or in his immediate vicinity.” This so-called Citizens’ Arrest Act was largely repealed in response to the Arbery case.

Mr. Barnhill also argued that if Mr. Arbery attacked Travis McMichael, Mr. McMichael “has the right to use lethal force in self-defence” under Georgia law.

Anger at the killing and the lack of consequences for the McMichaels increased when a graphic video showing the shooting was released. on a suburban road.

The mobile phone video filmed by Mr. Brian is about half a minute long. It shows Mr. Arbury running down a shaded two-lane residential road when he bumps into a white truck, with Travis McMichael standing next to the open door on the driver’s side with a shotgun. Gregory McMichael lies in the back of a pickup truck with a gun.

Mr. Arbery runs around the truck and briefly disappears from view. Muffled screams are heard before Mr. Arbery appears fighting Travis McMichael outside the truck as three shotgun blasts echo.

Mr. Arbery tries to run, but stumbles and after a few steps falls to the pavement.

This month, two senators from states with little in common and at opposite poles of the country found each other: Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Mark Kelly of Arizona, who teamed up to push through a gas tax holiday.

Their bill, the Gas Price Reduction Act, which suspends the 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax, soon found two other active sponsors: Senators Rafael Warnock of Georgia and Katherine Cortez Masto of Nevada.

The gas tax holiday may face dim prospects, but the fact that four of his top supporters ended up as the four most vulnerable Democratic senators in this November’s midterm elections highlights how eager they are to ring a populist bell that could help save them. their work.

While the focus of the midterms so far has been on the battle for the House of Representatives and the interstate fight for redistricting, a fragile Democratic majority in the Senate is also playing a role.

Collectively, the four most-at-risk Democratic senators – Mr. Warnock, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Cortez Masto and Ms. Hassan – are neither national stars nor senior members of the leadership. They are not vulnerable because of the policies they have or have not adopted. Rather, they are taking up positions in states on the battlefield in a year of hostile political weather for Democrats, with rising inflation, voter anger at the ruling party, and President Biden’s declining job approval.

Even though the president won all four states in 2020, his margins were so small that small shifts in party enthusiasm or the loyalty of swing voters, especially suburbanites, could lead to a Republican victory.

Mr. Warnock, Georgia’s first black senator, and Mr. Kelly, a former astronaut, are defending seats in longtime Republican strongholds that Mr. Biden has ceded by less than a percentage point. Ms. Cortez Masto, the first Hispanic senator, is seeking re-election in a state where disapproval of the president is registered at 52 percent of the population. recent poll.

Even in New Hampshire, where Mr. Biden won by seven points, Republicans feel an opportunity to oust Ms. Hassan, the former governor, after the recent Poll in New Hampshire showed that less than one in five residents believe that the country is moving in the right direction.

The climate of 2022 could still change. Galloping inflation may ease. The confirmation of a black woman in the Supreme Court or the removal of the right to an abortion by the court can encourage Democrats. And with much of the Republican Party being held captive by Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, GOP candidates who make it through tough primaries may prove too controversial to win. Democrats also hope to win Republican-held seats in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

But history is not in favor of the Democrats. The party that owns the White House almost always suffers intermediate losses. Even landmark laws — Barack Obama’s health care reform or Ronald Reagan’s signature tax cuts — did not a big difference. Intermediate voters tended to be more motivated by economic conditions or a desire to contain the ruling party.

“Individual candidates and the races they run in matter, but history tells us that the political environment is the most significant factor in the runoff,” said Kyle Kondik, an analyst at the University of Virginia’s non-partisan Policy Center.

Here’s a look at the most vulnerable Democratic senators.

Georgia: pastor and former football star

Mr. Warnock calls himself “the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate to be re-elected.” He won his 2021 runoff seat thanks to a high turnout of blacks and a no-turnout of some Republicans after Mr. Trump hyped election fraud.

But Georgia is still a right-wing state, and the disillusionment with Mr. Biden is stronger there than at home. Two public polls last month showed the president was approved for the job in the mid-30s. While Mr. Warnock underlined how the majority of Democrats in the Senate provided pandemic relief, his opponents attacked his dependence on wealthy out-of-state campaigners.

“Biden has lost those white, highly educated voters who migrated to Warnock and are ready to return to the Republicans,” said Brian Robinson, a GOP strategist in Georgia.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll showed that Mr. Warnock was statistically tied in a general election match-up with former football star Herschel Walker, who was called into the race by Mr. Trump. The women said that Mr. Walker threatened them with violence and he admitted history of mental illness. But his status among Republicans has suffered little.

Mr. Walker avoided public events and in general any but friendly media. In one interviewHe said the Democratic-proposed John Lewis Voting Rights Act “doesn’t line up with what John Lewis stood for,” even though the Georgia congressman, who died in 2020, devoted his life to voting rights. Mr Walker later complained was “totally unfair to someone like me” when asked about the trillion-dollar bipartisan infrastructure bill that is arguably the biggest achievement of Congress in 2021.

At some point, Mr. Walker may have to face Mr. Warnock, a speaker who holding a pulpit which once belonged to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Jason Carter, the 2014 Democratic nominee for governor of Georgia, said, “I have a football signed by Herschel Walker in my office right now, but I don’t want him to be my senator, and I’m not alone.”

Arizona: Contrasting with the Progressives

Mr. Kelly defends the seat he won in 2020, where he surpassed Mr. Biden in all 15 counties. The race is taking place in the shadow of a year-long right-wing crusade in Arizona to reverse Mr. Biden’s victory that alienated many traditional Republicans.

Among the Republican contenders, Attorney General Mark Brnovich acknowledged that Mr. Trump lost in Arizona, but he has since tried to restore confidence with the base. The Republican field also includes venture capitalist Blake Masters, who appealed to popular anger at China and the porous Mexican border, and Jim Lamon, a businessman who ran inflammatory television. Ads.

“Republican candidates are doing everything they can to outdo themselves in the state that defeated Trump,” said Tony Kani, a Democratic strategist.

Mr. Kelly has so far kept his attacks on Republicans under wraps, instead emphasizing his roots as the son of two cops and his support for popular legislation such as a gas tax holiday and a ban on congressional stock trading.

Kirk Adams, a Republican strategist, said the often fractious wings of the Republican Party in Arizona would rally around a possible nominee.

“There is now a unifying thread — anxiety and concern about the Biden administration across all factions of the Republican Party,” said Mr. Adams, a former top aide to Gov. Doug Ducey, who has been tried by anti-Trump Republicans. get into a race.

Mr. Kelly, the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, a former Congresswoman who was critically injured in a mass shooting in 2011, has sought to isolate himself, creating a contrast with progressives. He criticized Mr. Biden for not calling the record number of migrants detained at the border a “crisis.” recanted State Democratic condemnation of Senator Kirsten Sinema for refusing to change piracy rules.

Nevada: Fight over who will fight harder

A war of words over Mr. Trump’s 2020 loss is likely to revive the Senate race in Nevada, where leading Republican Adam Laxalt has made efforts to overturn Mr. Biden’s 33,000 statewide vote. He called the stolen elections a lie “hottest topic” his campaign this year. He has the support of both Mr Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader.

Ms Cortes Masto, first elected in 2016, was a protégé of Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader who died last year.

“I have always been involved in difficult races,” Ms. Cortes Masto said in an interview. “I know Mitch McConnell will continue to put millions of dollars into this race.”

Both Mr. Laxalt and Ms. Cortes Masto are former state attorneys general. Mr Laxalt battles fears of rising crime, undocumented immigrants and inflation. The state’s tourism-dependent economy has the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation at 6.4 percent.

Mr Laxalt has accused Ms. Cortes Masto for not standing up for the police and not condemning violent crimes. “Vegas will not survive if violence continues to escalate,” he said at a rally this month. “We are a tourism economy. People are afraid to come here.”

Ms. Cortez Masto, who says she helped deliver Justice Department grants to local police departments, is trying to localize her race. promotion her receipt of funding for wildfire and drought control in an infrastructure law opposed by Mr. Laxalt.

“Let me tell you that there is a huge difference between me and Adam Laxalt,” Ms. Cortes Masto said. “Every day I talk to Nevadas, hear what they need, and fight for them.”

New Hampshire: Surviving the Early Red Waves

Ms Hassan, who won her Senate seat by just 1,000 votes in 2016, appears to have had her big break when the most popular official in the state, Gov. Chris Sununu, told fellow Republicans he will not run for the Senate.

But the voters’ disapproval of Ms. Hassan, which reached 51 percent, removed a second tier of Republicans, including Chuck Morse, President of the State Senate, and Kevin Smith, City Manager of Londonderry. They joined Don Balduk, a retired army general.

Ms. Hassan, who was twice elected governor, has $5.3 million in her campaign account, much more than her competitors.

Her campaign boasts of being one of the first bipartisan infrastructure deal negotiators and providing funding for two government priorities: coastal resilience and high-speed internet (many New Hampshire residents work from home). However, Republicans point out that New Hampshire receives the fewest highway dollars of any state.

“I’d say there’s no chance, short of a disaster in our primary – which is always possible – that she could be re-elected,” said David Carney, a Republican strategist who advises Mr Morse.

Soaring fuel costs in a state with no public transportation and where most homes are heated by oil is one factor causing voter pessimism about the country’s course. On the flip side, the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade this year could infuriate New Hampshire voters, who are among the most supportive of abortion rights in the country.

Ms. Hassan has won three races across the state, including re-election for governor in 2014, a brutal midterm for Democrats. “President Obama was not popular in New Hampshire in 2014,” said Ray Buckley, chairman of the state’s Democratic Party. “She was able to win.”

In addition, about 300 men from 18th Airborne Corps Headquarters, also from Fort Bragg, arrived in Germany to oversee the transfer of reinforcements to Eastern Europe. The 18th Airborne Corps and this headquarters unit is led by Lieutenant General Michael E. Kurilla, who President Biden appointed in April to the post of Central Command of the armed forces. And last Thursday, Mr. Austin said that 125 German army soldiers would go to Bulgaria for training.

In recent days, the Pentagon has also sent air reinforcements to Britain, Germany and Eastern Europe. The Air Force said F-35 fighter jets from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, were deployed to Germany days after B-52 bombers from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, were sent to the UK on a previously scheduled mission.

Eight F-15s from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, flew to Lusk Air Force Base in Poland to supplement the eight US F-15s normally deployed in the UK.

“The deployment of US F-15s in Poland enhances the collective defense capability on NATO’s eastern flank and expands the air patrol mission,” said Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of the US Air Forces in Europe and Africa. said in a statement.

Eight F-16s, normally based in Spangdahlem, Germany, were also deployed to the Fetesti Air Base in Romania.

The build-up of air forces in Eastern Europe is fraught with risk. American and Russian warplanes operating in the eastern Mediterranean Sea flew dangerously close to each other. three separate incidents earlier this monthincluding one when the planes were about five feet apart, Pentagon officials said.

In addition to deployments to Poland and Romania, the Pentagon has placed 8,500 other troops in the United States on “high alert” for possible deployment to Eastern Europe. According to the military, these troops will take part in the NATO response force, which may soon be activated.

The bulk of the troops put on high alert are active ground forces, including combat brigades, as well as medical, aviation, transport, reconnaissance and reconnaissance forces.

Undeterred, Ms. Shalala called on charities to fund needle exchange programs and commissioned National Institutes of Health experts to provide needle exchange training. Mr Clinton later said that he regretted his decision.

When Mr. Biden was elected, addiction experts were ecstatic. The US bailout plan, the coronavirus relief package it signed last year, has earmarked $30 million for a new Harm Reduction Grant Program “support community overdose prevention programs, needle exchange programs, and other harm reduction services.”

This was the first time that Congress had created a special grant for often-budgeted harm reduction programs, and the grant program was exempted from a long-standing ban, renewed annually in spending measures, on using tax dollars to buy clean needles. Some experts thought the ban could be lifted permanently.

“We are finally getting to the point where this ban is lifted, we will see resilience, we will see a massive shift in our current state of infectious diseases,” said Chad Sabora, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs at Indiana. Recovery center, treatment center. He called the new controversy “heartbreaking”.

Safe smoking kits are often distributed by syringe maintenance programs and often include glass rods that serve as pipes, as well as lip balm, alcohol swabs, rubber tips, and other items to protect against mouth ulcers and cuts that can spread disease. The guidelines for the new federal grant program do not specify whether kits can include pipes.

The law is hazy; but law 1986 classifies crack pipes (but not needles) as narcotics and prohibits their sale or shipment. Ms LaBelle said the law and similar state laws could possibly prevent the government from funding the glass legs that serve as pipes.

After the Free Beacon controversy, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the glass pipes “were never included,” insisting the story was untrue.

WASHINGTON. The IRS said Monday that it will allow taxpayers to opt out of using facial recognition technology to access their online accounts and move to a completely different identity verification system next year as the agency tries to soften the backlash against its actions. use of biometric data.

The decision comes after the IRS said this month that will “pass” from using a third-party ID.me service to help authenticate people who create online accounts using facial recognition to verify their identity.

The IRS has embraced the technology as a way to increase the security of taxpayer information and avoid data breaches, which is a growing concern for lawmakers. But activist groups and lawmakers from both parties have expressed dismay, saying the use of “selfie” videos to verify accounts is an invasion of privacy.

tax office, which signed a two-year, $86 million contract with ID.mewill continue to work with the firm. Taxpayers can still scan images of their faces to access their accounts, but those who refuse to use facial recognition technology can verify their identity during a live virtual interview with company representatives.

“Biometric data, including facial recognition, will not be required if taxpayers choose to verify their identity through a virtual interview,” the IRS said in a statement.

Selected photos that have already been taken to create new accounts this tax season will be removed from ID.me’s servers in the coming weeks. Any new selfies taken this year will not be stored on servers, the IRS said.

The buzz over the agency’s use of facial recognition is the latest concern for the IRS, which is behind in processing more than 20 million tax returns for 2020, coping with a staffing shortage and still underfunded. The pandemic has made the tax season even more challenging than usual as the IRS must process additional information related to direct household stimulus checks as well as child tax credit upfront payments.

Republican lawmakers, who have criticized the agency and its ability to keep data private for years, have called facial recognition technology “intrusive.” Democrats agreed, arguing that taxpayers should not sacrifice privacy for data security.

Proponents of facial recognition technology point out that it is widely used in places like airports. They argue that this is safer than providing websites with other identifying information such as social security cards and other personal documents.

The IRS has called the end of facial recognition a short-term solution. He said he plans to use Login.gov, which millions of Americans already use to authorize their identities to access some federal websites. The IRS is working with the General Services Administration to ensure that Login.gov meets security requirements for use during next year’s tax season.

A spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS and has contracted with ID.me, did not comment on the future of the contract with the firm.

The fate of other state contracts of the company is not clear. The Social Security Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and many government agencies also use ID.me to verify account users.

This month, ID.me reported that implement new options allow government agencies to verify identity without facial recognition and allow people to delete their photos after March 1st.

“We have listened to feedback on facial recognition and are making this important change,” said Blake Hall, chief executive of ID.me.