Mediaboss Marketing

Australia: Over $50 million in military assistance, including missiles and weapons

Belgium: 200 anti-tank weapons; 2,000 machine guns; 3,800 tons of fuel

Canada: $20 million of protective equipment, including helmets, body armor, gas masks, and night vision gear; 4,500 rocket launchers and up to 7,500 hand grenades; 100 anti-tank weapons and 2,000 rounds of ammunition (over $20 million since 2015 in non-lethal military aid)

Croatia: 16.5 million in infantry weapons and protective equipment

Czechia: 4,000 mortars; 30,000 pistols; 7,000 assault rifles; 3,000 machine guns; million bullets

Denmark: 2,700 anti-tank weapons

Estonia: 9 howitzers; fuel; Javelin anti-tank weapons; medical equipment

European Union: 500 million in financing for bilateral EU Member State delivery of lethal arms (including anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank weapons, ammunition) and non-lethal supplies (fuel, protective gear, helmets, first-aid kits)

Finland: 1,500 rocket launchers; 2,500 assault rifles; 150,000 rounds of ammunition; 70,000 servings of field rations

France: Defensive equipment, including anti-aircraft missiles, and medical equipment

Germany: 1,000 anti-tank weapons; 500 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles; 14 armored vehicles

Greece: Rifles, ammunition, and portable rocket launchers

Italy: Stinger anti-aircraft missiles; mortars; anti-tank weapons; machine guns; counter-IED systems

Latvia: Fuel; Javelin anti-tank weapons; medical equipment

Lithuania: Stinger anti-aircraft missiles

Norway: 2,000 anti-tank weapons

Poland: Ammunition; anti-aircraft missiles; light mortars; reconnaissance drones; reconnaissance weapons

Portugal: Night-vision goggles; bulletproof vests; helmets; grenades; ammunition; automatic rifles

Romania: Fuel; bulletproofs vests; helmets

Spain: 1,370 anti-tank grenade launchers, 700,000 rifle and machine-gun rounds, and light machine guns

Slovakia: Ammunition; diesel; kerosene

Sweden: 5,000 anti-tank weapons; 5,000 helmets; 5,000 items of body armor; 135,000 field rations; $52 million for Ukrainian military

The Netherlands: 200 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles; 400 rocket-propelled grenade launchers

Turkey: Bayraktar drones

United Kingdom: Defensive equipment, including 2,000 anti-tank weapons (over $3 million in non-lethal military aid since 2015; in Nov. 2021, over $2 billion in financing for joint naval projects)

United States: Javelin anti-tank weapons; Stinger anti-aircraft missiles; helicopters; anti-armor, small arms, body armor and various munitions (over $1 billion over the past year and over $2.5 billion since 2014)

The rest is here:
The West Needs to Be the Arsenal of Ukraine's Democracy - German Marshall Fund

As the world is focused on the devastating crisis in Ukraine, South Korean attention is consumed by a dramatic, contentious presidential election, which will impact the future of South Koreas democracy and U.S. policy in the region. In politics, it is always too soon to call the race until all votes are cast. This is especially so when the leading candidates from the ruling and opposition parties are neck-in-neck in the polls.

For the first time, this contest on March 9 is between two unconventional candidates whose victory will likely be determined largely by unprecedented young swing voters. Apart from each of the candidates fandoms, South Koreans say theyhave a choice between the worst and second-worst candidate from the ruling and main opposition parties. They describe this election as the gloomiest election ever since the countrys democratization began in 1987.

That is because the last five years under progressive President Moon Jae-in have been anything but hopeful for many South Koreans while the two main presidential hopefuls are both unprecedented candidates marred by scandals. Ahead of the snap presidential election in 2017 (upon the impeachment of the previous conservative president, Park Geun-hye), I pointed out that an enormous reconstruction job awaited the next president. Voters back then were tired of the glass ceiling, wide income disparities, and corruption of their political leaders. These frustrations have, on many levels, been exacerbated. Moons policies on jobs, real estate, and taxes have hit the youth, the middle class, and small businesses the hardest. Critics in Korea describe these policies as socialist and authoritarian control in disguise. Voters have also witnessed endless reports of corruption scandals and sexual harassment charges by Moons closest aides and officials despite proclaiming to be a feminist president.

South Koreas democratization is a triumphant success story, yet every administration was criticized for its share of undemocratic practices. Many South Koreans and foreign scholars say that democratic backsliding gained force under the current Moon government. For the past five years, complaints about unruly governmental control and the erosion of democratic values, norms, and freedoms could be heard almost daily among the broader Korean public, including its mediausually in private whispers for fear of employment termination and government retribution. Instead of consolidating South Koreas democracy and correcting the undemocratic practices of the previous conservative administration, political sociologist Gi-wook Shin points out that the progressive Moon government went the other way, exacerbating polarization, eroding democratic norms, and appealing to chauvinistic nationalism.

South Korean politics is a blood sport. The main focus of this election is twofold for the political elite. First, lawmakers in the progressive and conservative parties are looking mainly at the past. Retribution is the name of the game for the winning party. They are seekingrevenge for the tragedies of their respective former presidents and ways to root out each others administrations wrongdoings. Former progressive President Roh Moo-hyun committed suicide in 2009 after his term while being investigated for alleged bribery, and conservative Presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak were put behind bars. Second, this election is a fight to either solidify its party as the new social mainstream and maintain control for the progressive ruling party, or to take back their mainstream position in society, restore liberal democratic values and strengthen national security for the main conservative opposition.

It is no secret that Korea has not been a top priority in U.S. foreign policy in the same way as other Asia-Pacific powers. Yet, Washington should still watch this election closely. The result will determine the state of democracy in South Korea for the next five years in a pivotal corner of the global community. It will also determine whether South Korea will remain as the weakest link in President Joe Bidens Indo-Pacific strategy, as I warned last year; whether Washington and Seoul will finally be in lockstep to deal with North Korea; and whether South Korea will unambiguously step up to the plate to help protect the rules-based international order, democracy, and human rights around the world.

Unprecedented Voters, Unprecedented Candidates

For the first time, Koreas upcoming presidential election is a battle among the generationsnot regionalism or ideology, which were the dividing lines until now. Young voters in their twenties and thirties(born in the 1980s and 1990s) have unexpectedly emerged as a powerful force. They surprisingly voted for conservative candidates in the April 2021 mayoral by-election, feeling let down by the incumbent progressive government. The so-called 2030 Generation is seen as the swing voters. They are politically neutral or moderate and will influence South Koreas domestic and foreign policies for the next five years.

Ruling and opposition parties and their candidates have been tailoring campaign rhetoric to appeal to young voters. The main conservative party, known for being agist, unprecedently elected Lee Joon-seoka mid-thirtiespolitical novice yet popular among younger votersto lead the party and help win the presidential election. Both parties recognize that they cannot change the hearts of voters in their fourties and above, especially those in their fiftiesand sixties who experienced South Koreas military dictatorship or extreme poverty having been born during the Korean War (1950-1953) and Japanese colonization (1910-1945).

In contrast, the 2030 Generation is pragmatic and not ideological. They were born into wealthy Korea. As such, they are individualistic and care most about their own financial prosperity first, and national strength in the face of external threats. Many of them told me they refuse to be bound by political party, ideology, or group identities. Unlike older voters, they are not driven by regionalism or historical views either. The gender conflict is also hottest in this generation with both men and women feeling discriminated against each other for jobs and opportunities. Some say they are even encouraging each other to vote on election day rather than voting early to prevent any chance of election fraud.

Over time, the salience and relevance of regionalism that determined votes for decades diminished and ideology started to gain traction as the key variable voter attitudes since the 2002 presidential election. In South Korea, conservative and progressive have very different meanings than those in the United States or Europe. They are generally defined by ones stance on North Korea, Japan, and the United States. The progressive faction in power now and the hard Left are known to be pro-North Korea, anti-Japan, anti-U.S., even pro-China, and nationalists. Conservatives are tougher toward North Korea, pro-U.S., skeptical but compartmentally cooperative toward Japan, and selectively firm toward China. While age is appears to bethe key variable for this election, political ideology still matters for South Koreas foreign policy that will have ramifications for U.S. foreign policy.

This is also the first presidential race with frontrunners who share some unusual traits. Both candidates are far outside the mainstream in their respective party politics. Neither one has legislative experience in the National Assembly. They are also tainted by alleged scandalsfrom corruption to abuse of power and forgeriesinvolving their wives and child. Their alleged personal life practices have raised questions about presidential fit, but voters with clear political and party preferences say they are squarely focused on ensuring that the other unfavorable candidate does not win. For now, both candidates have also skirted being subjected to thorough investigations themselves for their alleged scandals because of the election campaign period.

Lee Jae-myunga former governor and mayoris the maverick on the outermost fringe of the ruling progressive party. In the 2017 presidential election, his supporters called him Koreas Donald Trump and is known to have a foul mouth. He has been criticized for serving as legal counsel in defense ofhis nephew, who brutally killed two women. Yet political insiders and analysts say the Democratic Party chose a candidate with the highest chance of winning, mainly to avoid retribution by conservatives if they lose this election. Lee rides on populism and his key claim to fame is providing cash handouts.

Yoon Suk-yeol is called the ultimate outsider. He was appointed prosecutor general by incumbent progressive President Moon, with whom he later had a falling out. Yoon chose to run as candidate for the conservative Peoples Power Party at the last minute. Yoon was iconic in leading Moons campaign to eradicate deep-rooted evils from the previous conservative administration. He gained political prominence while investigating Moons own inner circle without falling under political pressures from the ruling party to show leniency. The conservative partys primary motivation to accept such an outsider was evidently retributionexpecting Yoon as president to investigate Moon and his cronies with the same severity in which he investigated former conservative presidents who ended up behind bars. Yoon has his own skeletons in the closet, includinghis wife claimingon tape that MeToo scandals occurred in the ruling party because victims were not paid offwhile she is beingaccused of lying on her resume.

Divergent Foreign Policies

It is not surprising that both Lee and Yoons vision for their foreign policies published in Foreign Affairs share more similarities than differences. Their essay drafters are apparently mindful of their American audience and the footprints of former career diplomats advising both candidates are reflected in the nexus of their similarities. Lee and Yoons effort to differentiate themselves from the incumbent government is also noticeable as they outline either a more moderate approach than usual (Lee) or a tougher line toward North Korea (Yoon) while both are pledging greater contributions to regional and global affairs.

Read more from the original source:
What South Korea's Election Means for Biden and Democracy - The National Interest

HANNIBAL The Veterans of Foreign Wars and Auxiliaries District meeting took place Feb. 20, at Hannibal VFW Post 2446.

Prior to the business meetings, winners of the Patriots Pen, Voice of Democracy and Teacher of the Year awards were announced.

Winners were announced in the following categories:

Patriots Pen (sixth through eighth grade essay contest)

Topic: How can I be a good American?

Adilynne Snodgrass, Mark Twain Memorial Post and Auxiliary 4088, Perry, Mo. (not pictured) $100 prize; Ella Moss, Mark Twain Memorial Post and Auxiliary 4088, Perry (not pictured) $75 prize; Lauren Haley, Mark Twain Memorial Post and Auxiliary 4088, Perry $50 prize.

Voice of Democracy (seventh through twelfth grade essay and speaking contest)

Topic: America: Where do we go from here?

Emma Craig, Champ Clark Post and Auxiliary 5553, Bowling Green, Mo. $100 prize; Jack OBrien, Clarksville Memorial Post and Auxiliary 4610, Clarksville (not pictured) $75 prize; Isaiah Austin, Mark Twain Memorial Post and Auxiliary 4088, Perry $50 prize.

Craig represented District 17 at the Missouri Council of Administration. She is pictured with her commemorative jacket.

Rachel Robb, Champ Clark Post and Auxiliary 5553, Bowling Green.

Read more:
Patriot's Pen, Voice of Democracy and Teacher of the Year award winners announced - Hannibal.net

Much of the focus from donors on down has centered on the governor races in key battleground states, though there is an expectation that more money and support will also trickle down to candidates for secretaries of state and attorney general as well. Democratic governors in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan states President Joe Biden narrowly won in 2020 have all touted their roles as bulwarks for free elections, and those running for governor in Republican-held state capitals of Arizona and Georgia are pitching themselves as the last opportunity for the party to ensure that those states arent lost to Donald Trump-supporting election conspiracists.

My entire donating life has always been centered around Congress, but I really think that if you care about democracy, you need to worry about these governors races, said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic donor and lobbyist. This is critical for us to win in 2024.

A coordinated, and well-funded push from Democrats centered around these contests would amount to a role-reversal of sorts for a party whose major and grassroots donors are often criticized for sinking large sums into long-shot candidates for the House and Senate.

Republicans figured out that if you can rule locally, you can control a lot of the process federally, and were finally, finally, seeing national Democrats come around to realizing that, too, said Morgan Jackson, a senior adviser to North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, chair of the Democratic Governors Association.

A lot of the Democratic donor base didnt see governors races as very sexy, compared to federal ones, but I think were going to see historic investments this year, he added.

Interviews with a dozen Democratic donors, bundlers and donor advisers echoed that sentiment, with many citing the intersection of 2022 gubernatorial races with certification of the 2024 presidential results. One example is Democratic megadonor George Soros, who seeded his super PAC with $125 million to focus on pro-democracy efforts and cut big checks to the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, a group that focuses on electing Democrats to these offices.

George Soros seeded his super PAC with $125 million to focus on pro-democracy efforts and cut big checks to the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, a group that focuses on electing Democrats to these offices.|Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images

But the partys major campaign institutions are also prioritizing gubernatorial races with an urgency that they say they havent felt before. American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic group, is launching a new super PAC, Bridge to Democracy, starting with $10 million to focus exclusively on races related to election administration.

For those that also care about the presidential election and races, said Guy Cecil, chair of Priorities USA, a major Democratic super PAC, these governors races are absolutely must-wins.

Democrats contend that they can prioritize governors offices as well as the races for state elections chiefs without it coming at the expense of Senate and House contests. But quietly, some in the party view the increased focus on governor contests as at least a tacit acknowledgement that theyre unlikely to keep control of the House in 2023.

Amongst donors, theres a real pessimism for the federal outlook in 2022, said one New York-based Democratic donor adviser. A Washington, D.C.-based bundler said that save the House messaging is not working on high-level donors because no one believes it.

Overshadowing all these considerations is the partys failure to pass voting rights legislation this past year. Without legislative action, Democrats are hoping that governors can serve as a blockade of sorts on GOP-led laws to further dial back pandemic-era voting expansions, restrict voting access and curtail participation in future elections.

Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a candidate for governor, became a national figure and regular on cable TV after challenging Trump-inspired election challenges and a controversial audit in her state. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has been directly involved in nearly 50 lawsuits about the 2020 election that involved Trump, his allies, or other parties. His race has taken on added significance because the governor there appoints a secretary of state.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed numerous Republican-backed bills to change election laws. Among the Republicans running to challenge him is state Rep. Timothy Ramthun, who has been carrying a (legally impossible) resolution to claw back the states 10 electoral votes from Biden.

The Republican attacks on democracy and revelations about Republicans attempts to overturn the 2020 election have made clear that preserving American democracy requires electing Democratic governors, especially in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, said Wisconsin state Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler, who called the shift in donors interested in state races a night and day difference.

Democratic Association of Secretaries of State Executive Director Kim Rogers said shes seen talk moving into action, noting that she expects to raise $15 million this cycle. In 2018, the group raised $1.5 million.

Some donors are even casting an eye toward 2024, seeing the Democratic bench of governors as among the partys strongest standard-bearers and, quite possibly, its future. Biden and his advisers insist he is running for re-election. But should he bow out, a few donors noted that the party could indeed, should look to governors for the next generation of Democratic leadership, said a New York Democratic donor, citing North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Shapiro and Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as potential POTUS material.

People are looking for something at the gubernatorial level that theyre not finding in Congress, the donor added.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper updates the public during a press briefing on Covid-19 in Raleigh, N.C.|Robert Willett/The News & Observer via AP

Since 2014, Democrats have managed to reelect all of their incumbent governors. Theyve lost winnable open-seat contests, including the Virginia race last year. But party operatives stressed that theyre far more attentive to these races than were during the early Obama years, when a lack of resources and attention doomed them in down-ballot races losing a dozen governors mansions and nearly a 1,000 state legislative seats during his two terms.

Overall, 36 races for governor are happening this year. Biden issued an early commitment through the Democratic National Committee to help fund House and Senate races. The $15 million transfer the DNC made to campaign committees did not include the Democratic Governors Association or other groups affiliated with state races.

But a DNC official stressed the committee is helping to fund state coordinated campaigns and pay for additional staff in states like Maryland (where Democrats are likely to flip the governorship) and Kansas (where the party is trying to hang on to the office). Biden also pledged to headline a marquee fundraiser for the DGA. He and other top dignitaries including the first lady, Vice President Kamala Harris and her spouse are expected to sign quarterly emails and texts for fundraising purposes.

The DNC, meanwhile, is spending $20 million via coordinated campaigns in targeted battleground states including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for voter protection efforts, data and tech infrastructure, and state party-building around governors races. In Wisconsin, operatives embedded in the state to help protect the vote have been on the ground since last year, and officials pointed to their coordinated work in New Jersey, where incumbent Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy was reelected in a closer-than-expected off-year race, as a model for the unprecedented level of resources in the party.

Biden wanted to ensure that on the ground, lessons learned from what we did in 20, his list, his volunteers, were put to use in the midterms and that we were doing everything possible, a top Biden adviser said of the presidents early involvement in the 2022 elections.

Biden advisers and other party officials sought to cast the governors races as important not purely for political reasons, but also to maintain key partnerships on administrative and policy matters. Several officials pointed to the incumbent governors support throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and in passing the massive infrastructure bill as evidence.

But the contests in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia also coincide with marquee Senate and some battleground House races. And along with Michigan, they are some of the places that Biden and other officials have kept particularly close to in terms of frequent travel. They also hold outsized importance for Democrats Electoral College math ahead of 2024.

There is no doubt that we are in a very different terrain when it comes to voting rights in these states and in a number of these states where Democratic governors are critical, the Biden adviser said. But its also a factor that we want more democratic governors, and that governors are the ones who are executing on programs.

See original here:
The Democratic Party's emerging priority: Save the governors - POLITICO

Is civility dead in America?

There is a meanness spreading all across this nation that is dividing us and putting our very survival as a democracy in deep peril. Nowhere is it showing itself more dangerously than in the foundational institutions and establishments in the nations capital.

Congress is paralyzed. The Supreme Court politicized. The presidency being whipsawed from the left and held to be illegal on the right. In our time, no lie is too big to be spoken or believed; no attack is too vicious or outrageous not to be launched; no hatred not to be welcomed by millions; no degradation of American icons not found imperfect and memories erased; no movement toward authoritarianism not being encouraged, shockingly, by some elected Americans and cheered on by citizens.

The closed-minded attitude of Im 100 percent right; youre totally wrong is not confined to one battalion of the Great American Political Divide. Mutual respect, seeking out the best thinking, reasonable compromise, is all too rare on either side. We here in Maine are not immune, as can be seen, for example, during political campaigns

The unspoken but mainly adhered to civil contract of democracy, that largely kept venomous speech and destructive action at bay, has been shattered. Its shards, since Jan. 6, 2021, lie scattered on the floor of the U.S. Capitol.

I think back to my years as a U.S. Senate press secretary more than a half-century ago. Of course there were opposing opinions, and strong disagreements. But mostly the words and music were different. During his first year in office, more than 80 percent of the bills sponsored by my Democratic boss were cosponsored by Republicans. His relationship with his fellow New Hampshire senator, a conservative Republican, even when taking opposing views, was warm and collegial. Such also was the case here in Maine with such Senate leaders as Republican Margaret Chase Smith and Democrat Ed Muskie.

Senate highlights always included the often hours-long floor debates between Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the majority leader, and Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. They were well thought out, adversarial, often humorous but always respectful, and without a trace of rancor.

Even though I worked for a Democrat, one of my buddies was Don Chang, a top staffer for Sen Hiram Fong, Republican of Hawaii. Saturday lunches often included a staff chief to ultra-liberal Sen Eugene McCarthy, while Friday night poker games were attended by a member of ultra-conservative Sen. Barry Goldwaters staff.

Of course public life was not perfect then, but the defects largely were the result of a few really bad apples and the usual rough-and-tumble implicit in a democracy. For the most part though the anger was heated but passing, not bone deep and personal, as it is today. And, importantly, the doors to communication were kept open.

These days, one of my friends is a conservative who votes differently than I do. It would have been easy, I suppose, to have ended the relationship at the beginning, But we and our families have found a way to live together, because the alternative leads down the dead-end road the nation is on.

What might happen if people on each side of the divide decided to put rancor aside, and return to the days of that unspoken civil contract of democracy? Might we treat each other better? Might conversations begin? Might both sides find a new path, wish a better life for their children and grandchildren in a less divided America? Might they and we support candidates who pledged and worked toward that more civil America that includes everyone?

President Biden has rightly warned us that there are those who hold a dagger at the throat of this democracy. We had better get our act together soon, before that dagger rips a hole in the body of this nation that cannot heal.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

See the original post:
Maine Voices: Weighing the future of the unspoken civil contract of democracy - Press Herald