Mediaboss Marketing

BERLIN President Biden on Thursday strengthened his warning to Russia about a potential attack on Ukraine, saying that any movement of Russian units across the Ukrainian border would be taken as an invasion, a day after the president triggered alarm in European capitals with his suggestion of divisions among allies.

Mr. Biden, speaking to reporters at the White House after hours of efforts by his administration to walk back his comments in a news conference Wednesday, insisted that he had been absolutely clear with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that a new incursion in Ukraine would be met by a severe and coordinated economic response.

Mr. Biden retraced his rhetorical steps as Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met with U.S. allies in Germany ahead of a critical Friday sit-down in Geneva with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia, after several rounds of inconclusive discussions over the huge buildup of Russian troops along Ukraines eastern border.

In his news conference on Wednesday, Mr. Biden said that a minor incursion by Russia into Ukraine could mean we end up having a fight with European allies about the appropriate response.

Although European diplomats said Mr. Biden had been merely stating the obvious, his earlier admission that to what extent were going to be able to get total unity among NATO allies would depend on the precise nature of Mr. Putins actions unsettled European capitals, including Kyiv.

It has also raised concerns that public signs of division between the United States and Europe a goal in itself of Mr. Putin, analysts say could embolden the Russian leader to mount a limited but still highly damaging attack on Ukraine.

In public, top European and NATO officials were quick to play down questions of division.

Speaking on CNN, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg rejected the idea that Mr. Biden had given Mr. Putin a green light to invade Ukraine with less than his full assembled force.

Not at all, because the United States has been very clear over a long period of time, Mr. Stoltenberg said. Appearing alongside Mr. Blinken in Berlin, Germanys foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, said that Europe had an unequivocal unanimous commitment to punishing Russian aggression against Ukraine.

But the European view has always been divided about what to do and in what circumstances to do it. As one senior European official said, the punishment must fit the crime. He noted that even after Russia had annexed Crimea, it took nearly a year for the European Union to respond with serious sanctions against Moscow.

In the current Ukraine crisis, the leaders of Germanys new governing coalition have stopped short of a commitment to halt the $11 billion Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, a joint Russian-German project that U.S. officials fear will enrich Mr. Putin and give him further leverage over European energy supplies.

And on Wednesday, President Emmanuel Macron of France surprised and irritated many European Union colleagues with an address to the E.U. Parliament in Strasbourg in which he called on Europeans to come up with their own proposal on European security. We must build it between Europeans, then share it with our allies within the framework of NATO, he said. And then propose it for negotiation to Russia.

French officials said Thursday that Mr. Macron was not seeking to undermine NATOs unity. But the net effect of the words by Mr. Biden and Mr. Macron accentuated the frictions within the Western alliance, analysts said, a potential advantage for Russia.

Bidens comments coinciding with Macrons speech looks uncoordinated, and given all the effort U.S. officials have spent traveling around Europe to keep people solid, it seems odd and didnt need saying, said Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, a London-based research organization. Musings about gradations of response opened up the can to put question marks back into the allied part of the debate.

Mr. Biden was asked on Wednesday whether the United States and its European allies could agree on what sanctions to impose on Russia should it further assault Ukraine, where it has supported a separatist war for nearly seven years.

Europeans and NATO are united with the United States in opposing any further Russian incursion into Ukraine, in pledging support of varying kinds for Ukraine, and in promising massive costs to Russia. But neither the United States nor Europe have detailed the exact steps they intend to take.

American and European officials have said that it was vital not to give Mr. Putin ammunition by public discussion of red lines. But Mr. Bidens comments hinted at disagreements happening behind the scenes.

Its very important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page, Mr. Biden responded. Thats what Im spending a lot of time doing. There are differences. There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happened, the degree to which theyre able to go.

Ukrainian officials, among others, expressed dismay after Mr. Bidens comments on Wednesday. We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, wrote on Twitter on Thursday.

During a Thursday stop in Berlin, en route to a Friday meeting in Geneva with Russias foreign minister, Mr. Blinken added his voice to the cleanup effort.

Mr. Blinken said that if any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border in an act of aggression, the United States and its allies would deliver a swift, severe and united response.

Mr. Blinkens words closely echoed a Thursday statement from the White House press secretary seeking to clarify Mr. Bidens remarks. But he acknowledged the complexity of a situation in which Russia might assault Ukraine unconventionally, saying that the United States and its allies are looking at every possible scenario under which Russia could attack or destabilize Ukraine, to ensure that we effectively define our coordinated response.

Conceding different authorities in our different countries that could shape what nations take what steps against Russia, he insisted that all of our countries have been clear about the massive consequences that Russia would face for renewed aggression.

On that front, the Biden administration announced on Thursday that it would impose sanctions on four people it accuses of engaging in influence activities on behalf of Russia to destabilize Ukraine in advance of a potential invasion.

Ominous warnings. Russia called the strike a destabilizing act that violated the cease-fire agreement, raising fears of a new intervention in Ukraine that could draw the United States and Europe into a new phase of the conflict.

The Kremlins position. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has increasingly portrayed NATOs eastward expansion as an existential threat to his country, said that Moscows military buildupwas a response to Ukraines deepening partnership with the alliance.

While in Berlin, Mr. Blinken conducted a flurry of diplomacy on the eve of his high-stakes meeting with his Russian counterpart, Mr. Lavrov, which could help determine whether a diplomatic solution to the crisis induced by Mr. Putins army can be achieved. Mr. Blinken met with Germanys foreign minister and its new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and with diplomats from Germany, France and Britain who gathered under the moniker of the Transatlantic Quad.

He later delivered a speech at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences outlining the stakes of the Western showdown with Moscow over Ukraine, arguing that it is a crisis with global consequences for the international system of established borders and state sovereignty.

Perhaps no place in the world experienced the divisions of the Cold War more than this city, Mr. Blinken said. It seems at times that President Putin wants to return to that era.

But it was clear that Mr. Bidens news conference had ruffled the alliance.

Ulrich Speck of the German Marshall Fund in Berlin said that Mr. Biden was using the kind of language allies speak to one another. But thats not the way you talk to the Russians, because when you talk to the press you talk to the Russians, he said. If the point is to reinforce allied unity, this was an unforced error.

The European Union considers that its main strength is in economic sanctions, and those are an active subject of intense and secret discussions, senior European officials say. Tough sanctions will come if Russia does not respond to diplomacy, but inevitably they will be calibrated to what Russia actually does.

In its new action on Thursday, the Biden administration said that it would impose sanctions on four people. Two of them, Taras Kozak and Oleh Voloshyn, Ukrainian parliamentarians, have used their influence to undermine Ukraines leadership in coordination of Russias security agency, the Biden administration said. The others, Volodymyr Oliynyk and Vladimir Sivkovich, are former Ukrainian officials who worked with Russian intelligence agents to to build support for Ukraine to cede Crimea to Russia.

It has been broadly agreed within the alliance that the costs of a new Russian incursion would be punishing and severe, but some countries are more wary than others, and all know that such measures will hurt the European economy far more than the American one. That is especially true given high energy prices and that Europe still gets 40 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil from Russia.

.

Mr. Blinkens visit to Germany also came amid reports that the U.S. had authorized the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to transfer American arms to Ukraine, including anti-armor missiles and other U.S.-made weapons. A Congressional aide confirmed the reports, and a State Department spokesman did not deny them.

French officials emphasized on Thursday that Mr. Macron had said that Europeans should talk among themselves, then talk to NATO before talking to Russia. They argued that he was only trying to further his campaign for Europe to develop strategic autonomy.

After Mr. Macrons speech, Europes top foreign policy official, Josep Borrell Fontelles, spoke to both Mr. Blinken and Mr. Stoltenberg and agreed on what he called the need for a strong, clear and united trans-Atlantic front.. The European Union has agreed to further strengthen coordination with the United States and with NATO, Mr. Borrell said, and he invited Mr. Blinken to attend a meeting of E.U. foreign ministers on Monday to discuss the Ukraine crisis.

Mr. Stoltenberg then said in a separate statement that the call was a strong signal of unity, repeating Mr. Blinkens plea on Wednesday to avoid divisions between and within our countries.

Michael Crowley reported from Berlin, and Steven Erlanger from Brussels. Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington.

See the rest here:
On Ukraine and Russia, Biden Flusters European Allies by Stating the Obvious - The New York Times

Facing an imminent Russian reinvasion of Ukraine, the European Union should ask China where it stands on this crisis.

The EU should ask that question because Russia's threat to Ukraine undermines a core EU principle: that no European nation should attack another. Considering China's oft-stated claim that it is an EU friend that seeks only "win-win cooperation" with the political bloc, the EU deserves to know whether its largest trade partner regards Vladimir Putin's threat as acceptable.

This is not a question that Xi Jinping's regime wants to address.

Normally hyperbolic in its messaging on matters of major geopolitical consequence, the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda organs are largely silent on the current Ukraine crisis. In contrast to just about every other global newspaper, on Thursday, the Central Foreign Affairs Commission-run Global Times newspaper carried not one article on Ukraine. Perhaps the Global Times needs a name change?

In contrast, on Thursday, Chinese domestic state media trumpeted an exchange of pleasantries between Xi and Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko, a possible partner to any Russian invasion of Ukraine. The two countries, Xinhua said, "enjoy unbreakable political mutual trust, fruitful cooperation in various fields, firm support for each other on issues concerning each other's core interests, and close and effective coordination in international and regional affairs."

China's salutation of Lukashenko and simultaneous silence on Ukraine should be a wake-up call for the EU. China will not criticize Putin's prospective invasion because to do so would risk aggravating its authoritarian partner. At the same time, however, Beijing doesn't want European attention to fall on its Ukraine silence. Beijing knows that such silence is incompatible with its claim to seek constructive European partnerships.

As EU leaders and the European Parliament consider the next steps in their relationship with China, they should pay close heed to Beijing's willingness to watch Europe burn. It says much about the political nature and duplicity of this regime.

Read more:
Will the European Union ask China where it stands on Ukraine? - Washington Examiner

By Philip Blenkinsop

BRUSSELS (Reuters) The European Union is seeking to resolve the impasse with Britain over Northern Irelands trading arrangements by the end of February, aware that campaigning then begins for the provinces assembly, the EUs chief negotiator told lawmakers on Thursday.

European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic, who oversees post-Brexit relations with Britain, told a closed session of European Parliament members that a window of opportunity was likely to close by the end of February, according to attendees at the meeting and those briefed on it.

Northern Ireland elects its assembly on May 5.

Sefcovic, who will also brief EU diplomats later on Thursday, and British counterpart, foreign minister Liz Truss, issued a rare joint EU-UK statement at the end of their first in-person meeting last Friday, describing the atmosphere as cordial.

Truss separately said she believed there was a deal to be done https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-truss-welcomes-good-brexit-talks-with-eus-sefcovic-2022-01-14. The two are to meet again in Brussels on Monday after a week of intensified technical talks.

Britain and the European Union are also discussing EU fishing rights in British waters and the post-Brexit situation of Gibraltar, but it is Northern Ireland that has proven most divisive.

The British provinces trading arrangements are governed by the Northern Ireland protocol, which is designed to keep an open border between it and EU member Ireland, but which has effectively created one in the Irish Sea, angering the provinces pro-British unionists.

Sefcovic said the EU and Britain agreed that the protocol risked becoming one of the main issues in the Northern Irish assembly election.

Britain wants the removal of customs controls on goods moving from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland, but the European Union says this could become a backdoor route for British goods entering the single trading bloc unchecked.

Sefcovic told lawmakers there was no clear progress on substance. The EU wanted guarantees and might be more flexible on checks if Britain gave it full access to data on goods transported across the Irish Sea.

The Commission vice president would not be drawn on the possible impact of Britains partygate scandal, which has led to growing calls for Prime Minister Boris Johnson to step down.

(Reporting by Philip Blenkinsop; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Original post:
EU seeks to resolve N. Ireland impasse with UK by end of Feb - WHBL News

Open and fair markets are a shared objective across the Atlantic, promised European Commission competition chief Margrethe Vestager in a speech last month to the US Chamber of Commerce. I sense there is a strong convergence in the concerns we share. Vestagers optimistic comments shed a light on the numerous developments in the transatlantic antitrust space over the past year that have the potential to be far-reaching. And while approaches to enforcement may differ, officials on both sides of the ocean clearly agree its time to rein in Big Tech.

In the United States, the Biden administration has targeted Big Tech with a renewed emphasis on enforcement of current antitrust rules, while Congress has introduced several potentially significant antitrust reform bills aimed at providing enforcers with an updated toolkit for dealing with the challenges posed by the digital economy. In the European Union (EU), much of the focus has been on the landmark Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is meant to create fairer and more competitive digital markets by setting ex ante ground rules for the worlds largest tech companies.

As both sides seek to address difficult questions swirling around some of the worlds biggest companies, 2022 is shaping up to be another busy year for transatlantic tech antitrust regulation.

In Europe, most of the early attention will be on trilogues, where the European Parliament (EP), European Council (Council), and the European Commission will attempt to reach an agreement on the final text of the DMA.

While they broadly agree on most of the legislative content, important issues remain to be settledfor example, on the definition of a gatekeeper within the context of the DMA. The proposal defines a gatekeeper as a company that operates a core platform service and possesses a significant and durable position on the EUs internal market. The strength of a companys position is determined by its revenue or market capitalization; whether the durability requirement has been satisfied depends on the number of years those thresholds have been met. Compared to the Council, the EP wants to increase the quantitative thresholds for individual companies, as well as expand the DMAs exhaustive list of core platform services. It remains to be seen how quickly the parties can come to an agreement on these and other outstanding issues.

Now that it holds the EUs rotating presidency, France will be in charge of driving the trilogues toward consensus. Adding both a wrinkle and urgency to these negotiations is the fact that France will also hold a presidential election in April, meaning that officials will try to move quickly to reach a deal on the DMA, at least in part for domestic political reasons. Vestager expressed her own sense of urgency, saying late last year that its better to pass 80 percent now than 100 percent never. Foot-dragging runs the risk that corporate lobbying may upend key provisions of the draft legislation, or succeed in scrapping it altogether.

In fact, a potential compromise could be that a skinnier version of the DMA is agreed to, with the aim of bolstering relevant provisions post-adoptionsimilar to what was intended with the ePrivacy regulation with respect to the General Data Protection Regulation. And just as they did with the ePrivacy regulation, lobbyists from various sectors will undoubtedly target the DMA during the trilogues. That said, it would be very surprising if the DMA fails to pass during the first half of this year.

In the United States, the picture of what to expect is less clear. Despite a strong desire in the White House and various agencies to better enforce current antitrust rules, the ability of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to effect substantial change on their own is fairly limited, due to legal and institutional constraints. On the legislative front, its unclear what, if anything, will happen, especially since 2022 is also an election year in the United States.

Nevertheless, to understand what lies ahead for transatlantic digital competition, its important to understand the different antitrust frameworks that underpin the larger debate in the EU and United States.

While there is a fair amount of overlap in the antitrust approaches of the United States and the European Union, there are also significant differences. To understand these differences, it is helpful to distinguish between substantive (legal) and institutional issuesand to recognize the diverging ideas about the role of government in antitrust enforcement that underpin the entire enterprise.

As far as the substantive antitrust rules, there is broad overlap. For example, authorities on both sides of the Atlantic tend to fall in line with one another when evaluating proposed mergers. If something is deemed unacceptable commercial behavior in the United States, it is generally also considered out of bounds in Europe (and vice versa). But when it comes to single-firm conductparticularly relevant in the context of Big Techthere are notable differences. Historically, the EU Commission and some EU member states have been much more aggressive in finding abuse of dominance than the DOJ or the FTC in their pursuit of unlawful monopolizations, likely because the market-share thresholds required to establish dominance under EU law are significantly lower than under US law. And once a company is found to have a dominant position, the European Court of Justice has held that it has a special responsibility to preserve competition in that market. No similar obligation exits in the United States.

The biggest difference, however, is the way in which individual cases are examined and adjudicated. In the United States, federal antitrust enforcers at the DOJ and the FTC lack the authority to decide cases independently. If, after an investigation, the DOJ determines that there has been an antitrust violation, its only option is to bring a civil lawsuit against the offending party in federal district court. In addition to going to district court, the FTC also has the option of pursuing the matter before an administrative law judge; but in either case, the FTC, like the DOJ, merely acts as a prosecutor.

In the European Union, the entire processfrom initial investigation through final adjudication, including the imposition of sometimes heavy finesis conducted by and within the EU Commission. This setup has led some in the United States to raise concerns about due process. While the Commissions powers are more far-reaching than those enjoyed by either the DOJ or the FTC, any concerns about a lack of due process are, according to EU law experts, misplaced. Besides reflecting the administrative-type enforcement systems found in most EU member states, its simply an example of how legal systems on continental Europe differ from that of the United States. Also, any party that gets an adverse decision from the Commission has an absolute right of appeal to EU courts.

The DMA would allow EU competition enforcers to regulate the behavior of dominant digital platforms (the aforementioned gatekeepers) ex ante, meaning it would allow them to set general guidelines for what those companies can or cannot do rather than rely on ex post competition enforcement (which is what the current rules allow). This would require companies that satisfy the gatekeeper definition to follow a list of guidelines or incur penalties for non-compliance.

The question of what can be done in the United States is more complicated than in the EU. In addition to US antitrust authorities being institutionally more limited than their EU counterparts in their enforcement actions, US antitrust law (and its enforcement) is controlled by the consumer welfare standardwhich means it focuses almost exclusively on whether alleged anti-competitive behavior harms the interests of consumers. The focus of EU competition law is much broader, and therefore as a baseline proposition allows for greater flexibility in exploring novel approaches to new challenges. The bills currently pending in Congress would tread new ground, but if consumer harm remains the sole legal standard, the focus of US antitrust law would remain the same.

In sum, there is a strong desire to curb the market power of Big Tech on both sides of the Atlantic. Given the EUs comparatively advanced legislative progress, together with the political imperative of getting something done, its highly likely the DMA will be passed this yearthereby strengthening the EU Commissions ability to constrain the alleged anticompetitive behavior of the largest tech companies. But the fate of the various bills pending before the US Congress remains an open question. The year ahead will be revealing about whether shared transatlantic values on Big Tech lead to shared policy.

Morten Skroejer is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and former counselor to Denmarks ambassador to the United States.

Nicole Lawler is a former Young Global Professional at the Atlantic Council.

Wed, Dec 8, 2021

GeoTech CuesByMathew Burrows, Julian Mueller-Kaler, Kaisa Oksanen, and Ossi Piironen

With no sign of Beijing backing down, the US administration lays out a strategy for restructuring NATO to be targeted on Russia and China, combining its allies from Asia and Europe into an enlarged, redefined alliance.

Mon, Jan 10, 2022

New AtlanticistByKatherine Walla

This year will remain a year of very constrained supply chains, Intel CEO Patrick Gelsinger said at the Atlantic Council, and we expect the shortages to continue into 2023.

Image: EU Commission Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager walks during a debate on the Digital Markets Act (DMA) at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France December 14, 2021. Photo by Jean-Francois Badias/Pool via Reuters.

Continued here:
Can the US and EU rein in Big Tech with diverging approaches? - Atlantic Council

The European Union needs a new collective security pact to deal with NATO and Russia, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Wednesday.

"Europe today is confronted with escalating tension on our borders," Macron said in a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

"As Europeans, we need to collectively make our own demands and put ourselves in a position to enforce them," he added.

France took over the presidency of the Council of the European Union at the start of the year.

The French proposal intends to "create together a European power of the future ... an independent Europe that has given itself the means to decide its own future and not rely on the decisions of other major powers," he said.

France intends to create a new "security framework" during the presidency. "We need to build it between us, Europeans, share it with our allies in NATO, and propose it for negotiation to Russia," Macron said.

The EU was not directly involved in talks with Moscow over a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine as tens of thousands of Russian troops amass on the country's border.

Katarina Barley, a vice president of the European Parliament and a member of Germany's Social Democrats, told DW that the EU "does not have an original competence in foreign policy."

"We are actually a group of 27 member states and their interests, who unite to have a common foreign policy. And that is a weakness at times because reactions are sometimes not as quick and as firm as a single member state can give them," she said.

"But, on the other hand," she said, "we have such a variety of historical experiences, of networks, that we should turn this into our strength and be, as a European Union, one of the forces that really contributes to dialogue, and to search a solution for this conflict that is actually in a very crucial phase at the moment."

The European Union has been threatening "severe consequences" should Russia invade Ukraine. However, these consequences have not been laid out.

"There are discussions about reacting at the level of the SWIFT accord, which is the question of Russia being part of the international banking system. Imagine if Russian companies, the Russian government, Russian oligarchs would not be able anymore to exchange their money with other states," Barley said. "That would be a huge impact on the Russian economy. And this, for example, is a threat but is on the table."

Looking inward, Macron told lawmakers that France would push to include the right to abortion and defense of the environment in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

"Let us open up this debate freely with our fellow citizens ... to breathe new life into the pillar of law that forges this Europe of strong values," he said.

It comes just a day after the parliament elected Malta's Roberta Metsola, a staunch abortion opponent, as its president.

Macron said the European Unionneeded to "move from words to deeds, transforming our industries in investing in new technologies" to prevent climate change.

France plans to forge a new EU alliance with African countries. Macron said he would host an EU-African Union summit for that purpose next month.

"We can't just look at the subject of migration without looking at the deep-rooted causes and see that we have a common destiny with the African continent. We want our African friends to allow us to help them," Macron said.

He also touched on the bloc's relationship with the United Kingdom in the post-Brexit era.

"Nothing will call into question the bond of friendship which connects us to our British friends," he said.

He, however, insisted that the United Kingdom stick to the Brexit agreement, especially regarding fishing and the Northern Ireland protocol.

Macron faces an election challenge, with polls scheduled for April 10 and 24.

France's EU presidency comes at a beneficial time for Macron politically, as it is a chance for him to showcase France as a European power.

Macron is expected to formally announce his reelection bid in February.

Some French lawmakers suggested that Macron used his remarks on Wednesday to promote his candidacy rather than EU issues.

French Greens lawmaker Yannick Jadot, who is running in France's presidential election, told Macron: "You undoubtedly made a nice speech ... except you have been presiding over France for five years. You must be held accountable," Jadot said. "You will go down in history as the president of climate inaction."

Jordan Bardella,an EU lawmaker andmember of French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally party, also criticized Macron:"The presidential election will decide the future of France, but also the future of the whole Europe. How can you claim you'll bring Europe together when you have been until the end the one widening divisions in France?''

Stephane Sejourne, an EU lawmaker from Macron's party, said: "What a shame to transform [the European Parliament] into the [French]National Assembly."

fb, lo/rc (AFP, Reuters)

View original post here:
Macron proposes security pact to make Europe a 'power of the future' - DW (English)