Day: May 17, 2024

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

With reports that the infamous private military company Wagner was attempting to recruit Serbian volunteers to fight for Russia in Ukraine, Serbia’s controversial relationship with Russia is once again making international headlines. The news sparked alarm in Western capitals, which pressured Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to put an immediate end to Wagner’s efforts. 

Ostensibly, that pressure was successful. Vucic not only condemned Wagner’s activities, reiterating that mercenaries are illegal under Serbian law, but also publicly stated that Serbia does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and considers Crimea and Donbas part of Ukraine. Such an outcome is widely being viewed as Belgrade’s long-awaited attempt to start distancing itself from Moscow and its brutal war. But is it?

As is often the case in Serbia’s relations with Russia, the standoff between Belgrade and Wagner was more about PR stunts and media coverage than real developments on the ground. Both sides skillfully manipulated popular stereotypes about the affinity between Russia and Serbia to their own ends and achieved the desired effect.

It is difficult to determine who initiated the whole story, but the media storm started to gather back in December 2022, when two right-wing Serbian activists visited the newly inaugurated Wagner headquarters in St. Petersburg. They represented tiny fringe groups consisting of just a few members, but the visit was apparently part of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by Wagner’s owner, the shady businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin. 

He has always been keen to demonstrate that Wagner is capable of doing more than just fighting, and that it can also further Russia’s interests around the globe by other means if the Kremlin provides it with more powers and resources. The reception of two Serbs in St. Petersburg was publicized by media outlets also owned by Prigozhin with the aim of making the Russian leadership take notice of his efforts and growing international outreach.

The resulting publicity surpassed all expectations. Given Wagner’s international notoriety, a number of media misinterpreted the visit as a sign that Prigozhin was opening an office in Serbia to recruit volunteers to fight against Ukraine. The misinterpretation fitted the stereotype of Russian-Serbian brotherhood in arms so well that it persists to this day, despite having been refuted on numerous occasions. It was further bolstered in January by a few minor episodes that acquired disproportionate significance in the already charged atmosphere.

In early January, the Serbian version of the Russian propaganda mouthpiece RT ran an article openly promoting Wagner as an attractive employer. The text did not address Serbs directly and was soon rescinded, but still made waves. It was followed by news of several Serbian volunteers already training to fight in Ukraine, while on January 14 a mural celebrating Wagner appeared in Belgrade. It was painted over on the next day, but enough Wagner-related noise had built up in Serbia in the preceding weeks to secure the company’s activities a spot on the agenda of Vucic’s talks with Western diplomats.

The Serbian president appeared eager to react. He publicly reproached Russia for abusing his goodwill, and emphasized that Wagner was not welcome in Serbia, since the country had outlawed mercenary fighting. Dispelling any remaining doubts, Vucic stated that Belgrade does not support Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine and will not recognize Crimea, Donbas, or the other newly annexed Ukrainian territories as part of Russia. The strong statements of the Serbian leader were welcomed in the West and earned him favorable coverage in international media.

We should not, however, exaggerate either the courage required for Vucic to take such steps, or the impact they will have on Serbia’s relations with Russia. There is no evidence that Wagner was systematically targeting Serbs in its recruitment campaign, never mind establishing an office in the country. Given the ease with which Prigozhin has been recruiting Russian convicts into his private army, which is currently estimated to number 50,000 fighters, it makes little military sense for Wagner to invest in recruitment efforts in Serbia for the sake of a few dozen volunteers. 

Causing a media stir appears to have been Prigozhin’s priority from the very beginning, and far from the Serbian leadership hindering him in that aim, it actually assisted him. Leading world media ran the story about Wagner expanding to the Balkans, allowing the businessman to show the Kremlin that his nimble company can bolster Russia’s international clout more efficiently than the bloated and corrupt state apparatus. Commenting on the scandal, Prigozhin refrained from his usual harsh language, instead respectfully stating that he holds no grudge against the Serbs, who are able to manage on their own. 

The Kremlin is also unlikely to take offense at Vucic’s statements, since there is nothing new in them. Serbia prohibited its nationals from volunteering to fight in foreign conflicts back in 2015, reacting to reports about Serbian citizens fighting in Syria and Ukraine’s Donbas region. Since then, several dozen Serbs have been sentenced under that law, prompting no reaction from Russia. Why, then, would it be nettled by Vucic now, when he is simply maintaining the status quo?

The same is true of Vucic’s statements that Serbia respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This has been Belgrade’s official stance since Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008, repeatedly reiterated since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Moscow is well aware of this position and has never objected to it, understanding that Serbia cannot afford to waver over the principle of territorial integrity in its ongoing attempts to prevent full recognition of its breakaway province of Kosovo. 

Nor is Russia troubled by Vucic taking advantage of the scandal to portray himself to the West as a constructive pro-Western leader regrettably constrained by an unholy alliance between the Kremlin and Serbian right-wing radicals. Moscow understands perfectly that cooked-up “concessions” such as closing down the nonexistent Wagner office in Serbia help Vucic to evade Western pressure on more substantial issues, such as energy cooperation with Russia, joining in with anti-Russian sanctions, or recognition of Kosovo. Similar scandals in the past, when Vucic accused Moscow of stoking anti-Covid protests in 2020 or bribing a Serbian official in 2019, left no trace on the two countries’ relations.

There is no indication that the outcome of the Wagner row will be any different. There will be no arrests or crackdowns on pro-Russian groups in Serbia. On the contrary, the scandal has demonstrated how firmly they remain under Vucic’s thumb. RT Balkan swiftly rescinded the publication that had evoked the authorities’ ire, while the creators of the Wagner mural have made no attempts to replicate it since the first one was painted over. The pro-government tabloids will not tone down their rabid pro-Russian narratives: in any case, they gave only cursory attention to the Wagner story, which targeted Western audiences, not domestic ones.

The scandal has helped both countries to gain the kind of publicity they strived for without damaging their relations. Russia and Serbia will continue to utilize their cooperation for various propaganda purposes. Their readiness to treat each other’s needs with tolerance and understanding, along with their ability to prioritize issues of substance over PR stunts, are precisely what make this relationship so resilient. 

Maxim Samorukov is currently a visiting fellow at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP) and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This article is also published with Carnegie Politika and with the weekly newspaper NiN (in Serbian).

WASHINGTON, May 17 (Reuters) – Some of Donald Trump’s allies are assembling proposals to curtail the Justice Department’s independence and turn the nation’s top law enforcement body into an attack dog for conservative causes, nine people involved in the effort told Reuters.

If successful, the overhaul could represent one of the most consequential actions of a second Trump presidency given the Justice Department’s role in protecting democratic institutions and upholding the rule of law.

The plan is essentially twofold, according to the nine people interviewed by Reuters, some of whom requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

First: flood the Justice Department with stalwart conservatives unlikely to say “no” to controversial orders from the White House. Second: restructure the department so key decisions are concentrated in the hands of administration loyalists rather than career bureaucrats.

The FBI – which many Republicans see as biased against them – would have new constraints on its authority, with many of its responsibilities shifted to other law enforcement agencies, those people said.

“Trump feels that the DoJ has institutional problems,” said Steve Bannon, a prominent Trump ally who was prosecuted by the Justice Department and convicted for contempt of Congress. “It’s not just personnel: you do need to purge the DoJ, but you also need to reform it.”

In response to questions from Reuters, the Trump campaign pointed to a December statement from co-campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita.

“Unless a message is coming directly from President Trump or an authorized member of his campaign team, no aspect of future presidential staffing or policy announcements should be deemed official,” they said.

The campaign itself has few full-time policy staffers. Trump and his team are in frequent contact with outside groups, such as those formulating recommendations on the Justice Department.

With Trump holding a lead in most swing states likely to decide November’s election, the former president’s advisers may have a shot at putting their ideas into practice.

Trump’s promises to remodel the Justice Department have been well documented, but less attention has been given to identifying the specific measures his allies and advisers are advocating.

Two prominent Trump allies told Reuters they support eliminating the FBI’s general counsel, an office that enraged Republicans during Trump’s 2017-2021 term for its role in approving an inquiry into contacts between his 2016 campaign and Russian officials.

The general counsel provides legal advice to FBI employees regarding ongoing probes and other matters. Closing it would force the bureau to receive legal guidance from people closer to Trump’s attorney general in the chain-of-command and limit the FBI’s ability to conduct investigations without close political oversight, according to several Trump supporters and legal professionals with knowledge of the department’s workings.

Biden campaign spokesperson Ammar Mousa said in a statement that Trump and his allies “were putting Trump’s own revenge and retribution ahead of what is best for America.” The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s allies argue that, as head of the executive branch, the president should have broad powers to command and oversee the Justice Department as he or she sees fit.

Most Democrats and even some Republicans reject that view. They say the Justice Department requires an unusual amount of independence because it’s responsible for administering justice in a non-partisan fashion. At times, that mandate includes investigating a president’s close political allies.

“There are always enforcement disputes … That is standard politics,” said Kristy Parker, a former federal prosecutor who is now at Protect Democracy, a non-profit legal advocacy organization.

“What is not standard politics is somebody basically coming in and saying we are going to jettison the idea that the Department of Justice should have a wall of separation between it and the personal political agenda of the president.”

Many Trump allies making these proposals are affiliated with a consortium of conservative think tanks known as “Project 2025”, which has been making detailed plans for a second Trump presidency. In a statement to Reuters, Project 2025 said it could not speak for the Trump campaign.

These allies are also combing through federal regulations for novel ways to bring stalwart conservatives into the Justice Department at the start of a potential Trump term, according to two people with knowledge of those deliberations.

These detailed preparations contrast with Trump’s chaotic 2016 transition, which involved relatively little policy planning, several people involved have acknowledged.

The former president spent the opening months of his first administration butting heads with his attorney general and FBI director, both of whom angered the president by failing to halt inquiries into his 2016 campaign.

It’s an experience, according to several associates who speak to Trump, that he’s determined not to repeat.

Trump currently faces a total of 88 charges in four criminal cases – two of which have been brought by the DoJ – over efforts to subvert the 2020 election, retaining classified documents after leaving office, and alleged efforts to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star.

The 77-year-old denies wrongdoing in all the cases and points to the charges as proof the Justice Department is biased against him. The department denies this and says it conducts all of its probes impartially.

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday deplored what he called “a series of unprecedented and frankly unfounded attacks on the Justice Department.”

While promising to establish a non-partisan justice system, Trump has called for many of his political opponents to be arrested. Last June, he pledged in a post on Truth Social to have a “special prosecutor” probe the 81-year-old Biden.

Some allies stop short of embracing Trump’s rhetoric of revenge. But they agree Trump should have greater control over the Justice Department and FBI.

“Whenever you have power centers … that have enormous resources, coercive power and investigative tools at their disposal, and they are presumed to be independent of any control down the chain of command from the president, that is a recipe for abuse of power,” said Steve Bradbury, a former Justice official who briefly served as Trump’s acting Transportation Secretary.

In interviews with Reuters, Bradbury and Gene Hamilton, a senior Justice Department official under Trump, both endorsed the measure to eliminate the FBI’s general counsel.

They said they do not speak for Trump, but both are contributing ideas to Project 2025. Hamilton is a trusted lieutenant of Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s closest policy advisers. Miller did not respond to requests for comment.

Both Bradbury and Hamilton also endorsed changing the Justice Department’s chain of command so the FBI director reports to a pair of politically appointed assistant attorneys general.

The director currently reports to the deputy attorney general, a more senior official who in practice is too busy and has too large a portfolio to oversee and guide FBI probes, Bradbury said.

Bradbury and other legal experts said that change could be done without congressional authorization. He said these steps are necessary to ensure that the bureau’s enforcement priorities align with the White House’s policy preferences. Detractors say these measures will undermine the independence of the Justice Department and the FBI.

Some Trump allies and advisers also want to narrow dramatically the types of crimes the FBI can investigate, arguing the bureau’s focus is too sprawling for political appointees to oversee effectively.

In a publicly available policy memo, which was published last July but received little attention, Bradbury said other law enforcement agencies, like the Drug Enforcement Administration, could take the lead where their jurisdiction overlaps with the bureau.

The remnants of the bureau, Bradbury wrote, could focus exclusively on “large-scale crimes and threats to national security” that require a federal response.

As important as restructuring the department, Trump allies argue, is ensuring it is stacked with allies unlikely to slow-walk Trump’s demands.

Trump has publicly embraced a potential executive order known as “Schedule F” that would give him the power to replace thousands of civil servants with conservative allies.

That would allow his administration to expand the number of political appointments in the Justice Department, which sits in the low hundreds, though allies have not settled on precisely how many positions could be created.

Some Trump allies at Project 2025 also want to expand the use of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, an obscure statute that allows departments to bring in outside experts with the help of non-profits, several people with knowledge of those deliberations said.

AFSCME Local 2830, a union representing some Justice Department employees, said in a statement to Reuters it is “concerned that Trump officials will fill positions to further their partisan agenda instead of impartially carrying out federal laws and regulations and upholding the Constitution.”

With the right structure and personnel in place, Trump will be better prepared to pursue conservative policy goals, his supporters say. While his allies have floated dozens of ideas, many relate broadly to how the federal government polices civil rights.

For instance, Hamilton argued that the Justice Department should examine whether corporations are discriminating against whites by instituting programs designed to boost the number of people of color in the workplace.

The department could derive its authority, he said, from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars hiring or compensation decisions based on “race” or “sex.”

Hamilton also called for radically curtailing court-monitored settlements known as “consent decrees” between the Justice Department and local police departments, which are used to help curb civil rights abuses against people of color, the disabled and the mentally ill.

Conservatives portray these agreements as heavy-handed federal actions that interfere with local agencies trying to fight crime. Rights advocates say such arguments ignore centuries of documented inequities.

Christy Lopez, a Georgetown professor who formerly served as a Justice Department Civil Rights Division official, said the department reduced its police accountability work during Trump’s first term.

“There’s no reason to believe that his administration won’t double down,” she said.

Sign up here.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

An F.B.I. agent, testifying for the government, described his search of Senator Robert Menendez’s house in New Jersey.

Jurors in the corruption trial of Senator Robert Menendez on Thursday were handed plastic bags containing gold bars, allowing them to touch an object at the heart of the government’s case.Credit…Andrew Kelly/Reuters

By Benjamin Weiser and Maia Coleman

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have issued a one-sentence statement about nuclear war as part of their “new era” strategic partnership.

Putin and Xi announced plans to deepen their partnership on Thursday, issuing a statement addressing their position on a number of issues facing the world, ranging from questions about the economy to the war between Russia and Ukraine. China and Russia have steadily strengthened ties as the two countries have found regularly themselves at odds with much of the West.

The United States has seen its long-frayed relations with both countries become even more strained in recent years. Washington emerged as a staunch supporter of Ukraine after Putin ordered an invasion of the Eastern European nation in February 2022, delivering billions of dollars of aid to help Kyiv defend itself.

Meanwhile, relations with China remain tense over, among other concerns, Taiwan. The question of Taiwanese independence has been a sticking point between the U.S. and China.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping appear in Beijing on May 16, 2024. In a joint statement, Putin and Xi addressed their position on the use of nuclear weapons.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping appear in Beijing on May 16, 2024. In a joint statement, Putin and Xi addressed their position on the use of nuclear weapons.
ALEXANDER RYUMIN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Beijing’s “One China” policy dictates that Taiwan, an island off the country’s coast, is part of China. Taiwan’s leaders, however, consider the island to be its own nation. While the United States does not officially recognize the island’s independence, it has pledged to defend it against a Chinese invasion.

Some experts and officials have raised concerns that these regional conflicts could eventually escalate into a wider war with the United States, culminating in fears that nuclear weapons could eventually be used.

However, China and Russia addressed their stance on nuclear war in their joint statement issued on Thursday.

“There can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be fought,” the statement reads.

Newsweek reached out to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and China’s International Press Center for further comment via email.

Javed Ali, a professor at the University of Michigan and former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, told Newsweek on Thursday the statement “indicates the confidence both countries feel about declared nuclear powers and how those weapons—like for the United States, France, and Great Britain–are part of each country’s national security posture.”

The summit is an “indicator of the strong relationship” between the two counties as the two leaders both believe the U.S. and allies have worked to diminish their influence, according to Ali.

“The degree to which these Russian and Chinese ties endure is an open question, since both President Xi and President Putin also have to manage their national interests and may view the current framework as more transactional than strategic,” he said noting that U.S. policy treats Russia and China differently given deeper economic ties to Beijing.

Putin warned during a statement in March that the chances of nuclear war would increase if Western nations send troops to Ukraine, which has long been viewed as a red line for Russia that Ukraine’s allies have not been willing to cross.

While Russian authorities have long sought to downplay nuclear fears, pundits on Russian state TV, which aligns with the Kremlin, have repeatedly discussed the possibility of nuclear war, fueling concerns.

In response to Putin’s remarks in March, Mao Ning, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, warned about the risks of nuclear war just days later.

“In January 2022, leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states issued a joint-statement, affirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” she said. “China believes that all nuclear weapon states need to embrace the idea of common security and uphold global strategic balance and stability.”

Mao continued: “Under the current circumstances, parties need to jointly seek de-escalation and lower strategic risks.”

Moscow says it will keep pushing its offensive in Ukraine, though NATO doubts Russia has the resources to make a significant breakthrough.

ADVERTISEMENT

NATO’s top military officer has said Russia’s armed forces are incapable of any major advance.

“The Russians don’t have the numbers necessary to do a strategic breakthrough,” NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe Christopher Cavoli told reporters on Thursday.

“More to the point, they don’t have the skill and the capability to do it; to operate at the scale necessary to exploit any breakthrough to strategic advantage,” the general said. 

His comments come as Ukrainian forces engage in fierce battles with Russia’s troops for control of Vovchansk, a key town in Ukraine’s northeastern Kharkiv region. 

Kyiv claimed on Thursday it had checked Russia’s advance, but a senior Moscow official said the Russian army had enough resources to keep going. 

Euronews could not independently verify either claim. 

Vovchansk, located just 5 kilometres from the Russian border, has been a hotspot in the fighting in recent days. 

Asked if Russia was about to launch its anticipated summer offensive early, top US and NATO commander, Cavoli said: “We can never be sure.” 

However, he added: “What we don’t see is large numbers of reserves being generated some place” needed for such an offensive.

Russia began an operation in the Kharkiv region last week, marking its most significant border incursion since the full-scale invasion began in 2022.

The move has piled pressure on Ukraine’s outnumbered and outgunned forces which are waiting for deliveries of crucial military supplies from the West. 

Delays in Western assistance have “likely helped” Russia’s offensive by forcing Ukrainian forces to conserve material and limiting their ability to defend themselves, according to the US-based Insitute for the Study of War. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met top military commanders in Kharkiv on Thursday, saying the region “is generally under control.” 

But he acknowledged on social media that the situation was “extremely difficult”.

Former Russian defence minister – now the head of the National Security Council – Sergei Shoigu insisted Russian troops are pushing the offensive in many directions and that “it’s going quite well.”

“I hope we will keep advancing. We have certain reserves for the purpose, in personnel, equipment and munitions,” he said in televised remarks.

The Institute for the Study of War calculated that Moscow’s army had advanced no more than 8 kilometres from the shared border in Kharkiv.

It says Moscow’s main aim in the region is to create a “buffer zone” that will prevent Ukrainian cross-border strikes on Russia’s neighbouring Belgorod region.