The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin

A soldier in camouflage gear in a forest whose trees have been largely stripped of leaves.
A Ukrainian Army soldier in a forest near Russian lines this month. A C.I.A.-supported network of spy bases has been constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border.Credit…Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

For more than a decade, the United States has nurtured a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine that is now critical for both countries in countering Russia.

Nestled in a dense forest, the Ukrainian military base appears abandoned and destroyed, its command center a burned-out husk, a casualty of a Russian missile barrage early in the war.

But that is above ground.

Not far away, a discreet passageway descends to a subterranean bunker where teams of Ukrainian soldiers track Russian spy satellites and eavesdrop on conversations between Russian commanders. On one screen, a red line followed the route of an explosive drone threading through Russian air defenses from a point in central Ukraine to a target in the Russian city of Rostov.

The underground bunker, built to replace the destroyed command center in the months after Russia’s invasion, is a secret nerve center of Ukraine’s military.

There is also one more secret: The base is almost fully financed, and partly equipped, by the C.I.A.

“One hundred and ten percent,” Gen. Serhii Dvoretskiy, a top intelligence commander, said in an interview at the base.

Now entering the third year of a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, the intelligence partnership between Washington and Kyiv is a linchpin of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. The C.I.A. and other American intelligence agencies provide intelligence for targeted missile strikes, track Russian troop movements and help support spy networks.

But the partnership is no wartime creation, nor is Ukraine the only beneficiary.

It took root a decade ago, coming together in fits and starts under three very different U.S. presidents, pushed forward by key individuals who often took daring risks. It has transformed Ukraine, whose intelligence agencies were long seen as thoroughly compromised by Russia, into one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.

A part of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which was shot down over Ukraine in 2014, in a field.
A part of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which was shot down over Ukraine in 2014, killing nearly 300 people.Credit…Mauricio Lima for The New York Times
Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton at lecterns in a 2016 debate.
The Ukrainians also helped U.S. officials pursue the Russian operatives who meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton.Credit…Damon Winter/The New York Times

The listening post in the Ukrainian forest is part of a C.I.A.-supported network of spy bases constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border. Before the war, the Ukrainians proved themselves to the Americans by collecting intercepts that helped prove Russia’s involvement in the 2014 downing of a commercial jetliner, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The Ukrainians also helped the Americans go after the Russian operatives who meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Around 2016, the C.I.A. began training an elite Ukrainian commando force — known as Unit 2245 — which captured Russian drones and communications gear so that C.I.A. technicians could reverse-engineer them and crack Moscow’s encryption systems. (One officer in the unit was Kyrylo Budanov, now the general leading Ukraine’s military intelligence.)

And the C.I.A. also helped train a new generation of Ukrainian spies who operated inside Russia, across Europe, and in Cuba and other places where the Russians have a large presence.

The relationship is so ingrained that C.I.A. officers remained at a remote location in western Ukraine when the Biden administration evacuated U.S. personnel in the weeks before Russia invaded in February 2022. During the invasion, the officers relayed critical intelligence, including where Russia was planning strikes and which weapons systems they would use.

“Without them, there would have been no way for us to resist the Russians, or to beat them,” said Ivan Bakanov, who was then head of Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency, the S.B.U.

A dead Russian soldier in the snow by a military vehicle, on the day after the 2022 invasion.
A dead Russian soldier in Kharkiv the day after the 2022 invasion.Credit…Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Ukrainians cleaning up debris after a residential building was hit by missiles in south Kyiv, the day after the 2022 invasion.Credit…Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

The details of this intelligence partnership, many of which are being disclosed by The New York Times for the first time, have been a closely guarded secret for a decade.

In more than 200 interviews, current and former officials in Ukraine, the United States and Europe described a partnership that nearly foundered from mutual distrust before it steadily expanded, turning Ukraine into an intelligence-gathering hub that intercepted more Russian communications than the C.I.A. station in Kyiv could initially handle. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence and matters of sensitive diplomacy.

Now these intelligence networks are more important than ever, as Russia is on the offensive and Ukraine is more dependent on sabotage and long-range missile strikes that require spies far behind enemy lines. And they are increasingly at risk: If Republicans in Congress end military funding to Kyiv, the C.I.A. may have to scale back.

To try to reassure Ukrainian leaders, William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, made a secret visit to Ukraine last Thursday, his 10th visit since the invasion.

From the outset, a shared adversary — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — brought the C.I.A. and its Ukrainian partners together. Obsessed with “losing” Ukraine to the West, Mr. Putin had regularly interfered in Ukraine’s political system, handpicking leaders he believed would keep Ukraine within Russia’s orbit, yet each time it backfired, driving protesters into the streets.

Mr. Putin has long blamed Western intelligence agencies for manipulating Kyiv and sowing anti-Russia sentiment in Ukraine.

Toward the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Mr. Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the C.I.A., together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow.

But the Times investigation found that Mr. Putin and his advisers misread a critical dynamic. The C.I.A. didn’t push its way into Ukraine. U.S. officials were often reluctant to fully engage, fearing that Ukrainian officials could not be trusted, and worrying about provoking the Kremlin.

A man standing by a destroyed vehicle, with military vehicles behind him.
Valeriy Kondratiuk, a former commander of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency.Credit…Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times
An artillery gun with soldiers nearby and a forest in the background.
Ukraine is more dependent on sabotage and long-range missile strikes that require spies far behind enemy lines.Credit…Ivor Prickett for The New York Times

Yet a tight circle of Ukrainian intelligence officials assiduously courted the C.I.A. and gradually made themselves vital to the Americans. In 2015, Gen. Valeriy Kondratiuk, then Ukraine’s head of military intelligence, arrived at a meeting with the C.I.A.’s deputy station chief and without warning handed over a stack of top-secret files.

That initial tranche contained secrets about the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet, including detailed information about the latest Russian nuclear submarine designs. Before long, teams of C.I.A. officers were regularly leaving his office with backpacks full of documents.

“We understood that we needed to create the conditions of trust,” General Kondratiuk said.

As the partnership deepened after 2016, the Ukrainians became impatient with what they considered Washington’s undue caution, and began staging assassinations and other lethal operations, which violated the terms the White House thought the Ukrainians had agreed to. Infuriated, officials in Washington threatened to cut off support, but they never did.

“The relationships only got stronger and stronger because both sides saw value in it, and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv — our station there, the operation out of Ukraine — became the best source of information, signals and everything else, on Russia,” said a former senior American official. “We couldn’t get enough of it.”

This is the untold story of how it all happened.

The C.I.A.’s partnership in Ukraine can be traced back to two phone calls on the night of Feb. 24, 2014, eight years to the day before Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Millions of Ukrainians had just overrun the country’s pro-Kremlin government and the president, Viktor Yanukovych, and his spy chiefs had fled to Russia. In the tumult, a fragile pro-Western government quickly took power.

The government’s new spy chief, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, arrived at the headquarters of the domestic intelligence agency and found a pile of smoldering documents in the courtyard. Inside, many of the computers had been wiped or were infected with Russian malware.

“It was empty. No lights. No leadership. Nobody was there,” Mr. Nalyvaichenko said in an interview.

He went to an office and called the C.I.A. station chief and the local head of MI6. It was near midnight but he summoned them to the building, asked for help in rebuilding the agency from the ground up, and proposed a three-way partnership. “That’s how it all started,” Mr. Nalyvaichenko said.

A large city square with burned remains of protest encampments and large crowds.
Independence Square in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, in February 2014, when popular protests ousted the pro-Russia president at the time.Credit…Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times
People using lights from their cellphones during a funeral ceremony at Independence Square in Kyiv, in 2014.Credit…Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

The situation quickly became more dangerous. Mr. Putin seized Crimea. His agents fomented separatist rebellions that would become a war in the country’s east. Ukraine was on war footing, and Mr. Nalyvaichenko appealed to the C.I.A. for overhead imagery and other intelligence to help defend its territory.

With violence escalating, an unmarked U.S. government plane touched down at an airport in Kyiv carrying John O. Brennan, then the director of the C.I.A. He told Mr. Nalyvaichenko that the C.I.A. was interested in developing a relationship but only at a pace the agency was comfortable with, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.

To the C.I.A., the unknown question was how long Mr. Nalyvaichenko and the pro-Western government would be around. The C.I.A. had been burned before in Ukraine.

Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine gained independence and then veered between competing political forces: those that wanted to remain close to Moscow and those that wanted to align with the West. During a previous stint as spy chief, Mr. Nalyvaichenko started a similar partnership with the C.I.A., which dissolved when the country swung back toward Russia.

Now Mr. Brennan explained that to unlock C.I.A. assistance the Ukrainians had to prove that they could provide intelligence of value to the Americans. They also needed to purge Russian spies; the domestic spy agency, the S.B.U., was riddled with them. (Case in point: The Russians quickly learned about Mr. Brennan’s supposedly secret visit. The Kremlin’s propaganda outlets published a photoshopped image of the C.I.A. director wearing a clown wig and makeup.)

Mr. Brennan returned to Washington, where advisers to President Barack Obama were deeply concerned about provoking Moscow. The White House crafted secret rules that infuriated the Ukrainians and that some inside the C.I.A. thought of as handcuffs. The rules barred intelligence agencies from providing any support to Ukraine that could be “reasonably expected” to have lethal consequences.

Masked Russian soldiers guarding a Ukrainian military base in Perevalnoe, Crimea, in 2014.Credit…Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times
The wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, in 2014.Credit…Mauricio Lima for The New York Times

The result was a delicate balancing act. The C.I.A. was supposed to strengthen Ukraine’s intelligence agencies without provoking the Russians. The red lines were never precisely clear, which created a persistent tension in the partnership.

In Kyiv, Mr. Nalyvaichenko picked a longtime aide, General Kondratiuk, to serve as head of counterintelligence, and they created a new paramilitary unit that was deployed behind enemy lines to conduct operations and gather intelligence that the C.I.A. or MI6 would not provide to them.

Known as the Fifth Directorate, this unit would be filled with officers born after Ukraine gained independence.

“They had no connection with Russia,” General Kondratiuk said. “They didn’t even know what the Soviet Union was.”

That summer, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, blew up in midair and crashed in eastern Ukraine, killing nearly 300 passengers and crew. The Fifth Directorate produced telephone intercepts and other intelligence within hours of the crash that quickly placed responsibility on Russian-backed separatists.

The C.I.A. was impressed, and made its first meaningful commitment by providing secure communications gear and specialized training to members of the Fifth Directorate and two other elite units.

“The Ukrainians wanted fish and we, for policy reasons, couldn’t deliver that fish,” said a former U.S. official, referring to intelligence that could help them battle the Russians. “But we were happy to teach them how to fish and deliver fly-fishing equipment.”

In the summer of 2015, Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, shook up the domestic service and installed an ally to replace Mr. Nalyvaichenko, the C.I.A.’s trusted partner. But the change created an opportunity elsewhere.

In the reshuffle, General Kondratiuk was appointed as the head of the country’s military intelligence agency, known as the HUR, where years earlier he had started his career. It would be an early example of how personal ties, more than policy shifts, would deepen the C.I.A.’s involvement in Ukraine.

Unlike the domestic agency, the HUR had the authority to collect intelligence outside the country, including in Russia. But the Americans had seen little value in cultivating the agency because it wasn’t producing any intelligence of value on the Russians — and because it was seen as a bastion of Russian sympathizers.

Trying to build trust, General Kondratiuk arranged a meeting with his American counterpart at the Defense Intelligence Agency and handed over a stack of secret Russian documents. But senior D.I.A. officials were suspicious and discouraged building closer ties.

The general needed to find a more willing partner.

Months earlier, while still with the domestic agency, General Kondratiuk visited the C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va. In those meetings, he met a C.I.A. officer with a jolly demeanor and a bushy beard who had been tapped to become the next station chief in Kyiv.

Four men and a woman in suits, cast in shadow, walking between government buildings with trees in the background.
The C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va.Credit…Charles Ommanney/Getty Images
A man in a dark jacket by a tree and a depiction of a statue.
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a former deputy foreign minister and commander for the Security Service of Ukraine in Kyiv, this month.Credit…Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

After a long day of meetings, the C.I.A. took General Kondratiuk to a Washington Capitals hockey match, where he and the incoming station chief sat in a luxury box and loudly booed Alex Ovechkin, the team’s star player from Russia.

The station chief had not yet arrived when General Kondratiuk handed over to the C.I.A. the secret documents about the Russian Navy. “There’s more where this came from,” he promised, and the documents were sent off to analysts in Langley.

The analysts concluded the documents were authentic, and after the station chief arrived in Kyiv, the C.I.A. became General Kondratiuk’s primary partner.

General Kondratiuk knew he needed the C.I.A. to strengthen his own agency. The C.I.A. thought the general might be able to help Langley, too. It struggled to recruit spies inside Russia because its case officers were under heavy surveillance.

“For a Russian, allowing oneself to be recruited by an American is to commit the absolute, ultimate in treachery and treason,” General Kondratiuk said. “But for a Russian to be recruited by a Ukrainian, it’s just friends talking over a beer.”

The new station chief began regularly visiting General Kondratiuk, whose office was decorated with an aquarium where yellow and blue fish — the national colors of Ukraine — swam circles around a model of a sunken Russian submarine. The two men became close, which drove the relationship between the two agencies, and the Ukrainians gave the new station chief an affectionate nickname: Santa Claus.

In January 2016, General Kondratiuk flew to Washington for meetings at Scattergood, an estate on the C.I.A. campus in Virginia where the agency often fetes visiting dignitaries. The agency agreed to help the HUR modernize, and to improve its ability to intercept Russian military communications. In exchange, General Kondratiuk agreed to share all of the raw intelligence with the Americans.

Now the partnership was real.

Today, the narrow road leading to the secret base is framed by minefields, seeded as a line of defense in the weeks after Russia’s invasion. The Russian missiles that hit the base had seemingly shut it down, but just weeks later the Ukrainians returned.

With money and equipment provided by the C.I.A., crews under General Dvoretskiy’s command began to rebuild, but underground. To avoid detection, they only worked at night and when Russian spy satellites were not overhead. Workers also parked their cars a distance away from the construction site.

In the bunker, General Dvoretskiy pointed to communications equipment and large computer servers, some of which were financed by the C.I.A. He said his teams were using the base to hack into the Russian military’s secure communications networks.

“This is the thing that breaks into satellites and decodes secret conversations,” General Dvoretskiy told a Times journalist on a tour, adding that they were hacking into spy satellites from China and Belarus, too.

Another officer placed two recently produced maps on a table, as evidence of how Ukraine is tracking Russian activity around the world.

The first showed the overhead routes of Russian spy satellites traveling over central Ukraine. The second showed how Russian spy satellites are passing over strategic military installations — including a nuclear weapons facility — in the eastern and central United States.

A bunker and roadblocks by the road with snow-covered trees and a field around them.
A military checkpoint, with a sign indicating land mines along the roadside, blocking the road to the Russian border in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, in December last year.Credit…David Guttenfelder for The New York Times
Two Ukrainian police offices standing by snow, a road and buildings.
Ukrainian police officers setting up a mobile checkpoint in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region near the Russian border in December.Credit…David Guttenfelder for The New York Times

The C.I.A. began sending equipment in 2016, after the pivotal meeting at Scattergood, General Dvoretskiy said, providing encrypted radios and devices for intercepting secret enemy communications.

Beyond the base, the C.I.A. also oversaw a training program, carried out in two European cities, to teach Ukrainian intelligence officers how to convincingly assume fake personas and steal secrets in Russia and other countries that are adept at rooting out spies. The program was called Operation Goldfish, which derived from a joke about a Russian-speaking goldfish who offers two Estonians wishes in exchange for its freedom.

The punchline was that one of the Estonians bashed the fish’s head with a rock, explaining that anything speaking Russian could not be trusted.

The Operation Goldfish officers were soon deployed to 12 newly-built, forward operating bases constructed along the Russian border. From each base, General Kondratiuk said, the Ukrainian officers ran networks of agents who gathered intelligence inside Russia.

C.I.A. officers installed equipment at the bases to help gather intelligence and also identified some of the most skilled Ukrainian graduates of the Operation Goldfish program, working with them to approach potential Russian sources. These graduates then trained sleeper agents on Ukrainian territory meant to launch guerrilla operations in case of occupation.

It can often take years for the C.I.A. to develop enough trust in a foreign agency to begin conducting joint operations. With the Ukrainians it had taken less than six months. The new partnership started producing so much raw intelligence about Russia that it had to be shipped to Langley for processing.

But the C.I.A. did have red lines. It wouldn’t help the Ukrainians conduct offensive lethal operations.

“We made a distinction between intelligence collection operations and things that go boom,” a former senior U.S. official said.

It was a distinction that grated on the Ukrainians.

First, General Kondratiuk was annoyed when the Americans refused to provide satellite images from inside Russia. Soon after, he requested C.I.A. assistance in planning a clandestine mission to send HUR commandos into Russia to plant explosive devices at train depots used by the Russian military. If the Russian military sought to take more Ukrainian territory, Ukrainians could detonate the explosives to slow the Russian advance.

When the station chief briefed his superiors, they “lost their minds,” as one former official put it. Mr. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, called General Kondratiuk to make certain that mission was canceled and that Ukraine abided by the red lines forbidding lethal operations.

General Kondratiuk canceled the mission, but he also took a different lesson. “Going forward, we worked to not have discussions about these things with your guys,” he said.

Late that summer, Ukrainian spies discovered that Russian forces were deploying attack helicopters at an airfield on the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula, possibly to stage a surprise attack.

General Kondratiuk decided to send a team into Crimea to plant explosives at the airfield so they could be detonated if Russia moved to attack.

This time, he didn’t ask the C.I.A. for permission. He turned to Unit 2245, the commando force that received specialized military training from the C.I.A.’s elite paramilitary group, known as the Ground Department. The intent of the training was to teach defensive techniques, but C.I.A. officers understood that without their knowledge the Ukrainians could use the same techniques in offensive lethal operations.

Joe Biden and Petro Poroshenko talking by a stairway.
Petro Poroshenko, then the president of Ukraine, right, and Joseph R. Biden Jr., then the U.S. vice president, during a meeting in Kyiv in 2015.Credit…Pool photo by Mikhail Palinchak
A man sitting in a chair with camouflage gear on and a patch on his sleeve with the Ukrainian flag.
General Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency in Kyiv, this month.Credit…Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

At the time, the future head of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, General Budanov, was a rising star in Unit 2245. He was known for daring operations behind enemy lines and had deep ties to the C.I.A. The agency had trained him and also taken the extraordinary step of sending him for rehabilitation to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland after he was shot in the right arm during fighting in the Donbas.

Disguised in Russian uniforms, then-Lt. Col. Budanov led commandos across a narrow gulf in inflatable speedboats, landing at night in Crimea.

But an elite Russian commando unit was waiting for them. The Ukrainians fought back, killing several Russian fighters, including the son of a general, before retreating to the shoreline, plunging into the sea and swimming for hours to Ukrainian-controlled territory.

It was a disaster. In a public address, President Putin accused the Ukrainians of plotting a terrorist attack and promised to avenge the deaths of the Russian fighters.

“There is no doubt that we will not let these things pass,” he said.

In Washington, the Obama White House was livid. Joseph R. Biden Jr., then the vice president and a champion of assistance to Ukraine, called Ukraine’s president to angrily complain.

“It causes a gigantic problem,” Mr. Biden said in the call, a recording of which was leaked and published online. “All I’m telling you as a friend is that my making arguments here is a hell of a lot harder now.”

Some of Mr. Obama’s advisers wanted to shut the C.I.A. program down, but Mr. Brennan persuaded them that doing so would be self-defeating, given the relationship was starting to produce intelligence on the Russians as the C.I.A. was investigating Russian election meddling.

Mr. Brennan got on the phone with General Kondratiuk to again emphasize the red lines.

The general was upset. “This is our country,” he responded, according to a colleague. “It’s our war, and we’ve got to fight.”

The blowback from Washington cost General Kondratiuk his job. But Ukraine didn’t back down.

Men in military uniforms on an armored vehicle, with one man saluting.
The pro-Russian rebel commander Arseny Pavlov, known as “Motorola,” saluting while taking part in a military parade in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine in 2016.Credit…Oleksii Filippov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Crews in reflective vests working around the wreckage of a car that exploded.
Police officials examining the wreckage of Maksym Shapoval’s car after he was killed in an explosion in Kyiv, in 2017.Credit…Sergii Kharchenko/Pacific Press, via LightRocket, via Getty Images

One day after General Kondratiuk was removed, a mysterious explosion in the Russian-occupied city of Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine, ripped through an elevator carrying a senior Russian separatist commander named Arsen Pavlov, known by his nom de guerre, Motorola.

The C.I.A. soon learned that the assassins were members of the Fifth Directorate, the spy group that received C.I.A. training. Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency had even handed out commemorative patches to those involved, each one stitched with the word “Lift,” the British term for an elevator.

Again, some of Mr. Obama’s advisers were furious, but they were lame ducks — the presidential election pitting Donald J. Trump against Hillary Rodham Clinton was three weeks away — and the assassinations continued.

A team of Ukrainian agents set up an unmanned, shoulder-fired rocket launcher in a building in the occupied territories. It was directly across from the office of a rebel commander named Mikhail Tolstykh, better known as Givi. Using a remote trigger, they fired the launcher as soon as Givi entered his office, killing him, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.

A shadow war was now in overdrive. The Russians used a car bomb to assassinate the head of Unit 2245, the elite Ukrainian commando force. The commander, Col. Maksim Shapoval, was on his way to meeting with C.I.A. officers in Kyiv when his car exploded.

At the colonel’s wake, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, stood in mourning beside the C.I.A. station chief. Later, C.I.A. officers and their Ukrainian counterparts toasted Colonel Shapoval with whiskey shots.

“For all of us,” General Kondratiuk said, “it was a blow.”

The election of Mr. Trump in November 2016 put the Ukrainians and their C.I.A. partners on edge.

Mr. Trump praised Mr. Putin and dismissed Russia’s role in election interference. He was suspicious of Ukraine and later tried to pressure its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate his Democratic rival, Mr. Biden, resulting in Mr. Trump’s first impeachment.

But whatever Mr. Trump said and did, his administration often went in the other direction. This is because Mr. Trump had put Russia hawks in key positions, including Mike Pompeo as C.I.A. director and John Bolton as national security adviser. They visited Kyiv to underline their full support for the secret partnership, which expanded to include more specialized training programs and the building of additional secret bases.

The base in the forest grew to include a new command center and barracks, and swelled from 80 to 800 Ukrainian intelligence officers. Preventing Russia from interfering in future U.S. elections was a top C.I.A. priority during this period, and Ukrainian and American intelligence officers joined forces to probe the computer systems of Russia’s intelligence agencies to identify operatives trying to manipulate voters.

Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia, talking with Donald J. Trump, then the U.S. president, talking in 2017.Credit…Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Mike Pompeo holding flowers in front of clergy by a memorial to Ukrainian soldiers.
Mike Pompeo, then the U.S. secretary of state, laying flowers at a memorial to Ukrainian soldiers in Kyiv in 2020.Credit…Genya Savilov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

In one joint operation, a HUR team duped an officer from Russia’s military intelligence service into providing information that allowed the C.I.A. to connect Russia’s government to the so-called Fancy Bear hacking group, which had been linked to election interference efforts in a number of countries.

General Budanov, whom Mr. Zelensky tapped to lead the HUR in 2020, said of the partnership: “It only strengthened. It grew systematically. The cooperation expanded to additional spheres and became more large-scale.”

The relationship was so successful that the C.I.A. wanted to replicate it with other European intelligence services that shared a focus in countering Russia.

The head of Russia House, the C.I.A. department overseeing operations against Russia, organized a secret meeting at The Hague. There, representatives from the C.I.A., Britain’s MI6, the HUR, the Dutch service (a critical intelligence ally) and other agencies agreed to start pooling together more of their intelligence on Russia.

The result was a secret coalition against Russia — and the Ukrainians were vital members of it.

In March 2021, the Russian military started massing troops along the border with Ukraine. As the months passed, and more troops encircled the country, the question was whether Mr. Putin was making a feint or preparing for war.

That November, and in the weeks that followed, the C.I.A. and MI6 delivered a unified message to their Ukrainian partners: Russia was preparing for a full-scale invasion to decapitate the government and install a puppet in Kyiv who would do the Kremlin’s bidding.

U.S. and British intelligence agencies had intercepts that Ukrainian intelligence agencies did not have access to, according to U.S. officials. The new intelligence listed the names of Ukrainian officials whom the Russians were planning to kill or capture, as well as the Ukrainians the Kremlin hoped to install in power.

Russian howitzers being loaded on a train car.
Russian self-propelled howitzers being loaded to the train car at the station outside Taganrog, Russia, days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Credit…The New York Times
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, sitting on a chair by a lectern at a news conference in 2022.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at a news conference in Kyiv in March 2022.Credit…Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

President Zelensky and some of his top advisers appeared unconvinced, even after Mr. Burns, the C.I.A. director, rushed to Kyiv in January 2022 to brief them.

As the Russian invasion neared, C.I.A. and MI6 officers made final visits in Kyiv with their Ukrainian peers. One of the M16 officers teared up in front of the Ukrainians, out of concern that the Russians would kill them.

At Mr. Burns’s urging, a small group of C.I.A. officers were exempted from the broader U.S. evacuation and were relocated to a hotel complex in western Ukraine. They didn’t want to desert their partners.

After Mr. Putin launched the invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, the C.I.A. officers at the hotel were the only U.S. government presence on the ground. Every day at the hotel, they met with their Ukrainian contacts to pass information. The old handcuffs were off, and the Biden White House authorized spy agencies to provide intelligence support for lethal operations against Russian forces on Ukrainian soil.

Often, the C.I.A. briefings contained shockingly specific details.

On March 3, 2022 — the eighth day of the war — the C.I.A. team gave a precise overview of Russian plans for the coming two weeks. The Russians would open a humanitarian corridor out of the besieged city of Mariupol that same day, and then open fire on the Ukrainians who used it.

The Russians planned to encircle the strategic port city of Odesa, according to the C.I.A., but a storm delayed the assault and the Russians never took the city. Then, on March 10, the Russians intended to bombard six Ukrainian cities, and had already entered coordinates into cruise missiles for those strikes.

The Russians also were trying to assassinate top Ukrainian officials, including Mr. Zelensky. In at least one case, the C.I.A. shared intelligence with Ukraine’s domestic agency that helped disrupt a plot against the president, according to a senior Ukrainian official.

When the Russian assault on Kyiv had stalled, the C.I.A. station chief rejoiced and told his Ukrainian counterparts that they were “punching the Russians in the face,” according to a Ukrainian officer who was in the room.

A man shoveling sand on a beach where fortifications were built.
A Ukrainian Army soldier preparing defenses at a beachfront position in Odesa in 2022.Credit…Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
A crowd of people with police officers at the edges.
Crowds gathering for food handouts in the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson after it was retaken from Russian occupation, in 2022.Credit…Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times

Within weeks, the C.I.A. had returned to Kyiv, and the agency sent in scores of new officers to help the Ukrainians. A senior U.S. official said of the C.I.A.’s sizable presence, “Are they pulling triggers? No. Are they helping with targeting? Absolutely.”

Some of the C.I.A. officers were deployed to Ukrainian bases. They reviewed lists of potential Russian targets that the Ukrainians were preparing to strike, comparing the information that the Ukrainians had with U.S. intelligence to ensure that it was accurate.

Before the invasion, the C.I.A. and MI6 had trained their Ukrainian counterparts on recruiting sources, and building clandestine and partisan networks. In the southern Kherson region, which was occupied by Russia in the first weeks of the war, those partisan networks sprang into action, according to General Kondratiuk, assassinating local collaborators and helping Ukrainian forces target Russian positions.

In July 2022, Ukrainian spies saw Russian convoys preparing to cross a strategic bridge across the Dnipro river and notified MI6. British and American intelligence officers then quickly verified the Ukrainian intelligence, using real-time satellite imagery. MI6 relayed the confirmation, and the Ukrainian military opened fire with rockets, destroying the convoys.

At the underground bunker, General Dvoretskiy said a German antiaircraft system now defends against Russian attacks. An air-filtration system guards against chemical weapons and a dedicated power system is available, if the power grid goes down.

The question that some Ukrainian intelligence officers are now asking their American counterparts — as Republicans in the House weigh whether to cut off billions of dollars in aid — is whether the C.I.A. will abandon them. “It happened in Afghanistan before and now it’s going to happen in Ukraine,” a senior Ukrainian officer said.

Referring to Mr. Burns’s visit to Kyiv last week, a C.I.A. official said, “We have demonstrated a clear commitment to Ukraine over many years and this visit was another strong signal that the U.S. commitment will continue.”

The C.I.A. and the HUR have built two other secret bases to intercept Russian communications, and combined with the 12 forward operating bases, which General Kondratiuk says are still operational, the HUR now collects and produces more intelligence than at any time in the war — much of which it shares with the C.I.A.

“You can’t get information like this anywhere — except here, and now,” General Dvoretskiy said.

Natalia Yermak contributed reporting.

A home flying an American and Ukrainian flag.
A home, flying Ukrainian and American flags, standing in the destroyed and mostly abandoned village of Rubizhne in the Kharkiv region, close to the Russian border, in December.Credit…David Guttenfelder

New York Times – February 25, 2024

Trump’s Georgia Lawyers Surface Phone Records in Effort to Remove Prosecutors

The lawyers presented an affidavit describing cellphone records they will likely use to try to prove the prosecutors lied about when they began a romantic relationship.

Fani Willis stands at a podium next to Nathan Wade.
District Attorney Fani Willis, left, with Nathan Wade at a news conference in August.Credit…Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Lawyers representing former President Donald J. Trump are continuing to press their argument that the lead prosecutors in the Georgia election interference case are lying about when their romantic relationship began, surfacing phone records on Friday that they will likely use to try to undercut the prosecutors’ testimony.

In a court filing that Ms. Willis’s office challenged later in the day, Mr. Trump’s lawyers in Atlanta presented an affidavit describing phone records obtained through a subpoena that they said showed “just under 12,000” calls and text messages between Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, and Nathan Wade, the lawyer she hired to help oversee the case, in the first 11 months of 2021.

The affidavit from Charles Mittelstadt, an investigator hired by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, also described cellphone location data that the lawyers said showed Mr. Wade’s phone, on at least 35 occasions, being connected “for an extended period” to a cell tower near a condominium where Ms. Willis was living.

The investigator said the data suggested that on two occasions, Mr. Wade was in the vicinity of Ms. Willis’s residence from late at night until dawn. One of those occasions was on the night of Sept. 11, 2021.

Ms. Willis’s office responded with its own filing on Friday night, saying that the records “do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade was ever at any particular location or address.” The response also said that the phone records showed only that Mr. Wade “was located somewhere within a densely populated, multiple-mile radius where various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs and other businesses are located.”

The district attorney’s office included copies of some of Ms. Willis’s emails and calendars that it said refuted specific claims made by Mr. Trump’s legal team about her whereabouts.

There is no dispute that Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis were in contact in 2021. They are longtime friends, and after Ms. Willis was elected district attorney in 2020, she appointed Mr. Wade to a hiring committee to screen applicants for jobs in the district attorney’s office. She also consulted with Mr. Wade on a number of issues, including strategic questions about big cases, after taking office in January 2021.

His advisory role extended into the period covered by the cellphone data that Mr. Trump’s new motion cites, Jan. 1, 2021 to Nov. 30, 2021. At a hearing in the case last week, former Gov. Roy Barnes of Georgia, an experienced trial lawyer, recalled that Ms. Willis and a team that included Mr. Wade met with him in October 2021 and asked if he wanted to take the job that Ms. Willis eventually gave to Mr. Wade.

Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade recently acknowledged that they had been in a romantic relationship, but they said it began after she hired him to work on the Trump case

Mr. Trump’s lawyers did not release the data used by their investigator, so it was not possible to immediately verify their claims amid their shifting accounts of what the data revealed.

The original affidavit claimed that the two exchanged roughly 2,000 calls and 12,000 text messages over those 11 months in 2021. But later on Friday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers released a corrected affidavit that removed the reference to the 12,000 total text messages, and instead claimed that “just under 12,000 interactions” occurred between the two lawyers. The updated affidavit defined “interactions” as including voice calls and text messages.

It was also not clear on Friday what effect Mr. Trump’s filing might have on the defense’s ongoing effort to disqualify Mr. Wade, Ms. Willis and her entire office based on allegations that the romantic relationship led to a conflict of interest.

But the records will almost certainly be used by defense lawyers to argue that the two prosecutors began their romantic relationship before Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade on Nov. 1, 2021 — and not in 2022, as the two prosecutors have insisted.

The reliability of such cellphone tracking technology has come under fire before, including when it was deployed by allies of Mr. Trump to help advance false claims about widespread ballot stuffing during the 2020 election. Such technology can be limited in how precisely it can pinpoint someone’s location.

The relationship first came to light in a filing last month by Michael Roman, one of 15 co-defendants in the election interference case and a former Trump campaign official. Mr. Roman contends that the two prosecutors engaged in “self-dealing” behavior that amounted to a conflict of interest, because Mr. Wade used money he was paid by the district attorney’s office to fund trips that he and Ms. Willis took together.

Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade have denied any improper financial benefits, and have testified that they roughly split the costs of their vacations.

But the question of exactly when the relationship started has also become a matter of contention, with Mr. Roman’s lawyer claiming that it started before November 2021 — which would mean, in essence, that Ms. Willis hired a boyfriend for the lucrative and high-profile job of managing the Trump case.

The lawyers are scheduled to continue arguing over the disqualification question in a hearing set for next Friday.

Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University who has followed the Trump case in Georgia closely, said he doubted that the cellphone data would factor heavily into the judge’s ruling on disqualification. Because Ms. Willis has acknowledged that Mr. Wade was a mentor and close adviser, Professor Kreis said, “it’s not contradictory for them to spend time together and exchange text messages, especially in the run-up to the investigation of Donald Trump.”

Still, Mr. Kreis said the data “could be problematic” if the judge believes that it damages Mr. Wade’s and Ms. Willis’s credibility.

New York Times – February 23, 2024

The sheer number of phone calls and texts, which tends to prove that the two persons were not near each other during these calls and conversations, shows that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were not living together in 2021.

The contents of most, if not all, of these phone calls and conversations are confidential to the extent that they relate to criminal cases.

Ukraine Marks 2nd Anniversary of Russian Invasion, Determined Despite Setbacks

European and other Western leaders gathered in Kyiv to pledge support for Ukraine amid U.S. reluctance, while its troops suffer growing losses on the battlefield, where the Russians have been gaining ground.

At a ceremony under a bridge, people place items on an altar.
People lay flowers and other items beneath the destroyed Romanivskyi Bridge in Irpin, Ukraine, on Saturday to mark the anniversary of Russia’s invasion.Credit…Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

In solemn ceremonies and small vigils, state visits, stirring speeches and statements of solidarity, Ukraine and its allies marked the dawn of the third year of Russia’s unprovoked invasion with a single message: Believe.

“When thousands of columns of Russian invaders moved from all directions into Ukraine, when thousands of rockets and bombs fell on our land, no one in the world believed that we would stand,” said Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, Ukraine’s newly named top military commander. “No one believed, but Ukraine did!”

On the 731st day of the war, Ukrainian soldiers once again find themselves outmanned and outgunned, fighting for their nation’s survival while also trying to convince a skeptical world that they can withstand the relentless onslaught, even as they suffer losses on the battlefield and are challenged up and down the front line by Russian forces.

The leaders of Canada, Belgium and Italy, as well as the head of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen, were among the dignitaries who traveled to Kyiv in a show of solidarity. While many analysts at the outbreak of the war believed that European nations would go wobbly in their support of Ukraine in a prolonged struggle, these countries are now stepping up, trying to help fill the void left by the U.S., where Republicans in Congress have for months blocked any new military assistance to Kyiv.

With Ukraine’s allies by his side outside the wrecked hangar that once housed a gigantic Mriya cargo plane, President Volodymyr Zelensky presented awards to soldiers at Hostomel Airport, where a pivotal early battle played out two years ago.

“When our soldiers destroyed the Russian killers’ landing and didn’t allow Russia to create its foothold here, the world saw the most important thing,” he said. “It saw that any evil can be defeated, and Russian aggression is no exception.”

However, Ukrainians needed no reminders about why they are fighting or the cost of a defeat.

In Bucha — where a massacre of civilians, one of the first widely documented atrocities of the war, has became emblematic of Russia’s brutal occupation — residents gathered at a memorial where a mass grave holding the remains of 117 people was discovered. Some of the victims had been burned to death. Others had been shot. Many showed signs of torture.

“Two years of fear, two years of Russia mocking us,” Oleksandr Hrytsynenko, 77, said as he paid his respects to his fallen neighbors. “We need to arm ourselves with infinite patience.”

As people gathered outside, Vira Katanenko was inside the church preparing to bury her son, Andrii, 39. He was killed along with two other soldiers this week by a Russian missile in a village outside Avdiivka, a stronghold of Ukrainian defenses that fell last week to Russian troops.

Mourners surround a casket draped in a yellow cloth and laden with flowers.
Vira Katanenko, right, standing by her son Andrii’s coffin before his burial.Credit…Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

“The Russians killed my son,” she said. “Will America help us get rid of the Russians?”

That is a question on the minds of many. But as Kyiv waits for an answer, the Ukrainian military pointed to the sky on Saturday as evidence that it can still cause Moscow pain.

Lt. Gen. Mykola Oleshchuk said on Saturday that a Russian A-50 early warning and control aircraft had been shot down by Ukrainian forces near Yeysk in Russia, some 250 miles from the Ukrainian border.

The claim could not be independently confirmed, but the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based research group, confirmed that a plane had crashed in the region, saying, “Footage posted on February 23 shows a fixed-winged aircraft falling, and geolocated footage shows a significant fire with secondary detonations.”

The A-50, with its distinct circular radar arrays rising from the fuselage, is critical in coordinating aerial Russian bombardments of Ukrainian positions on the front, where its forces have used powerful guided bombs to devastating effect. The loss of two A-50s in recent weeks, military analysts said, would be a significant blow that could help temporarily relieve pressure on the troops at the front.

General Syrsky, who has conceded that Russia has the initiative across the front, said Ukrainian attacks on planes reflected a broader effort to use asymmetric tactics against a far larger enemy.

As part of that campaign, the Ukrainians have also vowed to take the fight to inside Russia itself.

Spectators look at a wall of photos.
Photographs of Ukrainian soldiers killed since 2014 in the war with Russia on a wall outside St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Saturday.Credit…Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

Two years after the Kremlin directed missiles and rockets at cities across Ukraine, Ukrainian intelligence officials said on Saturday they orchestrated a drone assault on one of Russia’s largest steel plants, one that provided raw materials for Russian companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Igor Artamonov, the governor of Russia’s Lipetsk region, confirmed that there was a fire at the main plant of Russian metallurgy company, Novolipetsk Steel, and said preliminary reports indicated it was caused by a drone, according to a statement he released on Telegram.

Ukraine’s claims could not be independently confirmed.

The Ukrainian military has said such strikes are a central part of its effort to degrade the Kremlin’s military-industrial complex, undermine key industries that finance its war effort and make Russians feel the cost of the war on their territory. But Russia has shown an ability to overcome the effects of sanctions to boost its armaments production.

The Ukrainian drones targeted installations at the plant designed for the primary cooling of raw coke gas, in an effort to halt production at the plant for a prolonged period, according to Ukrainian security officials speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations.

For the Ukrainian soldiers fighting on the front, anything that can degrade the Russian war machine is welcome, but they are under no illusions. The road ahead will be as long as it is likely to be deadly.

“Every anniversary comes with the thought that it should finish,” said Shaman, 40, a battalion commander fighting in eastern Ukraine. “Every year that goes by is another year stolen from us. The time is spent away from your wife and children. All life is on hold.”

Lana Chupryna, 15, has lived most of her life in the shadow of war. On Saturday, she joined other schoolchildren under a bridge in Irpin that was blown up by Ukrainian soldiers desperate to slow the Russian advance on Kyiv in the opening days of the war.

“Feb. 24 was just an ordinary day,” she said of the start of Russia’s invasion. “I was supposed to go to school, but at five in the morning, shelling began. I went to my mom, and she said that war had started.”

A crowd of people stand under a bridge with hands over their hearts.
School children and residents of Irpin at a commemoration ceremony beneath the destroyed Romanivskyi Bridge on Saturday.Credit…Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

She still struggles to understand how her life had been turned upside down, but the memories of those first days, she said, “will remain in my soul, I think, forever.”

Wrapped in a Ukrainian flag, she sang a heartbreaking song written by her mother to the crowd gathered as the river flowed past the wreckage of war all around her.

“My land will never become the land of the strangers,” she sang. “Together with you, I will pass through cannons and smoke.”

New York Times – February 24, 2024

This is asinine – Africa’s Donkeys Are Coveted by China. Can the Continent Protect Them?

Governments are seeking to curb donkey skin exports to China, where demand for traditional medicine and other products is threatening animals that rural households need.

A shepherd with donkeys in southern Ethiopia last year.Credit…Eduardo Soteras/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

For years, Chinese companies and their contractors have been slaughtering millions of donkeys across Africa, coveting gelatin from the animals’ hides that is processed into traditional medicines, popular sweets and beauty products in China.

But a growing demand for the gelatin has decimated donkey populations at such alarming rates in African countries that governments are now moving to put a brake on the mostly unregulated trade.

The African Union, a body that encompasses the continent’s 55 states, adopted a continentwide ban on donkey skin exports this month in the hope that stocks will recover.

Rural households across Africa rely on donkeys for transportation and agriculture.

Yet donkeys only breed a foal every couple of years.

“A means of survival in Africa fuels the demand for luxury products from the middle class in China,” said Emmanuel Sarr, who heads the West Africa regional office of Brooke, a nongovernment organization based in London that works to protect donkeys and horses.

“This cannot continue.”

China is the main trading partner for many African countries. But in recent years its companies have been increasingly criticized for depleting the continent’s natural resources, from minerals to fish and now donkey skins, a censure once largely aimed at Western countries.

A donkey’s hide about to be cured at a licensed slaughterhouse in Baringo, Kenya, in 2017.

“This trade is undermining the mutual development talks between China and African countries,” said Lauren Johnston, an expert on China-Africa relations and an associate professor at the University of Sydney.

Some Chinese companies or local intermediaries buy and slaughter donkeys legally, but government officials have also dismantled clandestine slaughterhouses.

Rural communities in some African countries have also reported increasing cases of donkey theft, although there is no estimate of how widespread illegal trafficking has been.

Ethiopia is home to the largest population of donkeys in Africa, according to the Donkey Sanctuary, a British advocacy group. During a research trip there in 2017, Dr. Johnston said that many locals had shared their anger at China, “because they’re killing our donkeys,” she recounted.

China’s donkey skin trade is the key component of a multibillion-dollar industry for what the Chinese call ejiao, or donkey gelatin. It is a traditional medicine recognized by China’s health authorities, but whose actual benefits remain debated among doctors and researchers in China.

In recent years, what was once a luxury product became increasingly mainstream as incomes have risen among China’s middle and upper classes. Vendors of traditional Chinese medicine and health food companies have marketed ejiao (pronounced UH-jee-ow in Mandarin) as having potential benefits for people with circulatory, gynecological or respiratory issues.

Ejiao-based food products have flourished: pastries made with ejiao, walnuts, sesame and sugar have become a popular snack across China; a well-known brand of a tea beverage has targeted young consumers with ejiao milk tea.

Cathy Sha, a 30-year-old resident of Guangzhou, the commercial hub of southeastern China, said that months of taking ejiao might have helped with recurring respiratory issues and cold sweat. Whatever the benefits, she said in text messages that she planned to keep consuming ejiao, a common practice among users of traditional Chinese medicine.

Processing facilities of the world’s largest donkey skin gel producer, The Dong-E-E-Jiao Corporation Limited, in Dong’e, China, in 2018.

China’s ejiao industry now consumes between four and six million donkey hides every year — about 10 percent of the world’s donkey population, according to Chinese news reports and estimates by the Donkey Sanctuary. China used to source ejiao from donkeys in China. But its own herd has plummeted from more than nine million in 2000 to just over 1.7 million in 2022.

So over the past decade China started turning to Africa, home to 60 percent of the world’s donkeys, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Donkeys are highly resistant to harsh climate conditions and can carry heavy loads for a sustained period of time, making them a prized resource in some areas in Africa. Yet unlike other four-legged mammals, they are very slow to breed and efforts to raise donkey breeding to industrial levels, including in China, have shown limited success.

The decline in some countries has been sudden and sharp. Kenya’s donkey population declined by half from 2009 to 2019, according to research by Brooke. A third of Botswana’s donkeys have disappeared in recent years. Ethiopia, Burkina Faso and other countries have also seen their stocks decline at a high rate.

Beijing has been unusually quiet about the African Union’s ban on donkey hide exports, even though it has criticized other measures to stop the flow of goods into China, including restrictions recently imposed by the West on the export of semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China.

Vintage donkey skin gel packaging on display at a museum run by the Dong-E-E-Jiao Corporation Limited, in Dong’e, in 2018.Credit…Sam McNeil/Associated Press

Neither China’s mission to the African Union nor its Ministry of Commerce responded to requests for comment.

Some African countries, like Ethiopia, Ivory Coast and Tanzania, have already implemented nationwide bans on donkey skin exports. But porous borders and lax implementation of fines have made it difficult to stem the trade.

For instance, in West Africa, donkeys are being trafficked from landlocked countries before they are slaughtered in often gruesome conditions in border areas with nations that have access to the sea. The pelts are then exported through cargo ports.

“Traffickers look for exit ways, like ports, which we must fight to keep closed,” said Vessaly Kallo, the head of veterinary services in the West African coastal country of Ivory Coast.

In some countries where donkey skins are legal, they also have been used to smuggle protected items like elephant ivory, rhino horns or pangolin scales that are wrapped in the skins, according to an investigation by the Donkey Sanctuary.

Donkeys at a market in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in 2021.Credit…Tiksa Negeri/Reuters

Governments have also faced pressure from farmers who raise donkeys and who reap a significant profit from the donkey skin trade. Botswana banned the export of donkey products in 2017, but backtracked a year later as a result of intense lobbying by farmers and instead set export quotas.

Pressure to limit the trade in donkey skins is mounting elsewhere. Since December, Amazon no longer sells donkey meat and other food supplements containing ejiao to customers in California to comply with that state’s animal welfare law.

U.S. Representative Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, has repeatedly introduced a bill that would ban the production of ejiao and prohibit the sale and purchase of products with that ingredient.

In Africa, it is unclear yet how the continentwide ban might help save donkeys: African states now have to implement the ban through national legislation, a process that will take years. And national law enforcement agencies may not have the resources or will to tackle the illegal trafficking of donkey pelts.

Some African countries, like Eritrea and South Africa, had long been reluctant to embrace a ban, arguing that they had the right to decide how to use their natural resources, said Mwenda Mbaka, a leading animal welfare expert from Kenya, and a member of the African Union’s body for animal resources.

But he said the declining number of donkeys has reached a crisis level.

Last September, Mr. Mbaka took dozens of African diplomats on a two-day retreat in Kenya to raise awareness about animal mistreatment and the dangers that depleted donkey populations pose to rural households.

He showed the diplomats images of donkeys illegally slaughtered in the bush and emphasized that without donkeys, some of the heavy work they do would likely fall on children or women.

It didn’t take long to convince his audience, Dr. Mbaka said. “Once they saw the evidence, they were on board.”

Donkey skins drying in the sun at a licensed slaughterhouse in Baringo, Kenya, in 2017.Credit…Tony Karumba/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

New York Times – February 23, 2024

41 references to God in the ruling – Alabama Rules Frozen Embryos Are Children, Raising Questions About Fertility Care

The ruling raises worrisome legal issues for would-be parents far beyond Alabama whose hopes for children may depend on in vitro fertilization.

The Alabama Supreme Court, which ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.Credit…Kim Chandler/Associated Press

An Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos in test tubes should be considered children has sent shock waves through the world of reproductive medicine, casting doubt over fertility care for would-be parents in the state and raising complex legal questions with implications extending far beyond Alabama.

On Tuesday, Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said the ruling would cause “exactly the type of chaos that we expected when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and paved the way for politicians to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.”

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as President Biden traveled to California, Ms. Jean-Pierre reiterated the Biden administration’s call for Congress to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law.

“As a reminder, this is the same state whose attorney general threatened to prosecute people who help women travel out of state to seek the care they need,” she said, referring to Alabama, which began enforcing a total abortion ban in June 2022.

The judges issued the ruling on Friday in appeals cases brought by couples whose embryos were destroyed in 2020, when a hospital patient removed frozen embryos from tanks of liquid nitrogen in Mobile and dropped them on the floor.

Referencing antiabortion language in the state constitution, the judges’ majority opinion said that an 1872 statute allowing parents to sue over the wrongful death of a minor child applies to unborn children, with no exception for “extrauterine children.”

“Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote in a concurring opinion, citing scripture.

Infertility specialists and legal experts said the ruling had potentially profound effects, which should be of concern to every American who may need to access reproductive services like in vitro fertilization.

One in six families grapples with infertility, according to Barbara Collura, the president and chief executive of Resolve, which represents the interests of infertility patients.

“You’ve changed the status of a microscopic group of cells to now being a person or a child,” Ms. Collura said. “They didn’t say in vitro fertilization is illegal, and they didn’t say that you can’t freeze embryos. It’s even worse — there is no road map.”

It has become standard medical protocol during in vitro fertilization to extract as many eggs as possible from a woman, then to fertilize them to create embryos before freezing them. Generally, only one embryo is transferred at a time into the uterus in order to maximize the chances of successful implantation and a full-term pregnancy.

“But what if we can’t freeze them?” Ms. Collura asked. “Will we hold people criminally liable because you can’t freeze a ‘person’? This opens up so many questions.”

Reproductive medicine scientists also blasted the ruling, saying it was a “medically and scientifically unfounded decision.”

“The court held that a fertilized frozen egg in a fertility clinic freezer should be treated as the legal equivalent of an existent child or a fetus gestating in a womb,” said Dr. Paula Amato, the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“Science and everyday common sense tell us they are not,” she said. Even in the natural world, she added, several eggs are often fertilized before one successfully implants in the uterus and results in a pregnancy.

Dr. Amato predicted that young doctors would stop going to Alabama to train or to practice medicine in the aftermath of the ruling, and that doctors would close fertility clinics in the state if operating them meant running the risk of being brought up on civil or criminal charges.

“Modern fertility care will be unavailable to the people of Alabama,” Dr. Amato predicted.

Couples in the midst of grueling and costly infertility treatments in Alabama said they were overwhelmed with questions and concerns, and some said they feared their providers would be forced to close their clinics.

Megan Legerski, 37, of Tuscaloosa, Ala., who is currently undergoing infertility treatment, said that she recently became pregnant after being implanted with an embryo created through in vitro fertilization, but that she miscarried after eight weeks.

She and her partner have three more frozen embryos that they can implant, she said.

“The embryos to me are our best chance at having children, and we are extremely hopeful,” Ms. Legerski said. “But having three embryos in the freezer is not the same to me as having one that implants and become a pregnancy, and it’s not the same as having a child.

“We have three embryos. We don’t have three children.”

New York Times – February 20, 2024

Heat death and cataclysmic storms are only the start of our worries

Ibrahim Rayintakath

How deadly could climate change be? Last fall, in an idiosyncratic corner of the internet where I happen to spend a lot of time, an argument broke out about how to quantify and characterize the mortality impact of global warming. An activist named Roger Hallam — a founder of Extinction Rebellion who now helps lead the harder-line group Just Stop Oil — had told the BBC that, if global temperatures reach two degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average, “mainly richer humans will be responsible for killing roughly one billion mainly poorer humans.”

Hallam was quoting from a somewhat obscure paper, published by an engineer and a musicologist and focused less on climate impacts than on climate justice. The claim was quickly picked apart by experts: “An oft-quoted adage within the climate-modeler community is that garbage in equals garbage out,” the climate advocate Mark Lynas wrote. “Getting the science right will strengthen rather than weaken the case for climate activism, both in the public mind and in court.”

These are inarguable principles, and I don’t think it’s right to suggest that reaching two degrees of warming (which now looks very likely) will mean a billion people dead. Certainly that isn’t scientific consensus. But it did make me wonder: How big would the number have to be to strike you as really big? And how small to seem acceptable?

I ask because many more rigorous estimates, while lower, are still quite shocking. Some calculations run easily into the tens of millions. If you include premature deaths from the air pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuels, you may well get estimates stretching into the hundreds of millions. These are all speculations, of course. Estimating climate mortality involves a huge range of calculations and projections, all of which are shrouded by large clouds of uncertainty — it’s literally a climate-scale puzzle, with billions of human variables and many more political and environmental ones, and settling on a number also requires separating the additional impact of warming from the ongoing mortality produced by social and environmental systems running continuously in the background today.

In a recent commentary for Nature Medicine, the Georgetown University biologist Colin Carlson used a decades-old formula to calculate that warming had already killed four million people globally since 2000 just from malnutrition, floods, diarrhea, malaria and cardiovascular disease. As Carlson notes, this means that, since the turn of the millennium, deaths from climate change have already exceeded those from all World Health Organization global-health emergencies other than Covid-19 combined. “Vanishingly few of these deaths will have been recognized by the victims’ families, or acknowledged by national governments, as the consequence of climate change,” he says.

Going forward, most estimates suggest the impact should grow along with global temperature. According to one 2014 projection by the W.H.O., climate change is most likely to cause 250,000 deaths annually from 2030 to 2050. According to research by the Climate Impact Lab, a moderate emissions trajectory, most likely leading to about two degrees of warming by the end of the century, would produce by that time about 40 million additional deaths.

Other work is even more striking. In a recent paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team led by Drew Shindell of Duke University calculated that heat exposure alone is already killing more than 100,000 Indians and about 150,000 Chinese each year. Not all of these deaths are attributable to warming — people died from heat exposure in the preindustrial past, of course — but the trends for all the examined countries were clear and concerning. By the end of the century, the team calculated, even in a low-emissions, low-warming scenario, annual mortality from heat exposure could reach 500,000 in India and 400,000 in China. This is just from heat, remember, and as Shindell points out, there are plenty of known climate impacts that are so hard to model that they are often simply not modeled. “There’s all kinds of stuff missing, and we still get big numbers,” Shindell says. “That should actually be scary.”

One thing that is almost always left out is air pollution. This is the research area for which Shindell is best known, and his most notorious finding on the subject is that simply burning the additional fossil fuel necessary to bring the planet from 1.5 degrees of warming up to two degrees would produce air pollution that would prematurely kill an estimated 153 million people.

If that number shocks you, consider that, according to the new paper, the present-day figures are more than two and a half million Chinese deaths each year, more than two million in India and about 200,000 annually in Pakistan, Bangladesh and the United States each. Even given rapid decarbonization, Shindell and his co-authors find that, by the end of the century, particulate pollution might be responsible for the annual premature deaths of four million Indians, two million Chinese, 800,000 Pakistanis, 500,000 Bangladeshis and 100,000 Americans.

Not all of the particulate pollution is a result of the burning of fossil fuels. (And even fossil-fuel pollution isn’t, technically, a climate impact, though it is produced by the same activities that produce the lion’s share of warming.) But over the course of the century, even in a low-emissions scenario, the total mortality impact of air pollution in just those five countries could reach half a billion.

Now, air pollution is probably not what you have in mind when you picture significant climate change; probably diarrhea and malnutrition aren’t either, or the elevated risk of stroke or respiratory disease that comes, empirically, with higher temperatures. Instead, you’re likely to imagine mass heat death or a world-historical storm. But that is a major lesson of the research on mortality and warming: that our climate fantasies can lead us astray, pulling us toward apocalyptic visions of environmental disaster rather than the simple but tragic accumulation of what today look like ordinary, if unfortunate, events — heat waves like those we’ve already lived through, infectious-disease outbreaks like those we’ve already read about, air-pollution problems like those we’ve mostly left behind in places like the United States. Climate scientists worry a lot about what they often call “discontinuities” or “nonlinearities.” But the world is a very large place, and you don’t need a major phase-shift in our experience of climate to produce a harrowing death toll. You just need things that kill people now to be made worse by warming.

Perversely, it’s also the case that some of the increased death toll can be seen as a sign of more general social progress. Everyone dies of something, mortality researchers like to point out, and you get to die of environmental causes only if you don’t die earlier from something else: childbirth, say, or measles, or smoking. Over the course of the century, Shindell says, he expects the share of overall death attributable to environmental factors to grow — not just because those conditions will worsen but also because other measures of human health and well-being will improve globally. There may well be catastrophic surprises in store, as well — extreme disasters, underestimated impacts and rapidly passed tipping points. But the science of climate mortality today suggests a different experience, of even large-scale climate mortality softening into a grim sort of background noise, never quite deafening, no matter how loud it gets.

When, a few years ago, in the midst of a period of intense climate alarm, a few more hardheaded climate minds invoked instead the analogy of planetary “diabetes,” they got a whiplash of criticism from activists in response. But while we can’t really see the deep future with much clarity, disease may prove a more precise analogy than apocalypse. This is not to say that the size of the impact will be small. It’s to say that imagining a climate future dominated by sudden ruptures and overwhelming catastrophes is perhaps to risk preparing for the wrong future — and remaining oblivious, in the meantime, to the death and suffering of the present.

How deadly could climate change be? Last fall, in an idiosyncratic corner of the internet where I happen to spend a lot of time, an argument broke out about how to quantify and characterize the mortality impact of global warming. An activist named Roger Hallam — a founder of Extinction Rebellion who now helps lead the harder-line group Just Stop Oil — had told the BBC that, if global temperatures reach two degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average, “mainly richer humans will be responsible for killing roughly one billion mainly poorer humans.”

Hallam was quoting from a somewhat obscure paper, published by an engineer and a musicologist and focused less on climate impacts than on climate justice. The claim was quickly picked apart by experts: “An oft-quoted adage within the climate-modeler community is that garbage in equals garbage out,” the climate advocate Mark Lynas wrote. “Getting the science right will strengthen rather than weaken the case for climate activism, both in the public mind and in court.”

These are inarguable principles, and I don’t think it’s right to suggest that reaching two degrees of warming (which now looks very likely) will mean a billion people dead. Certainly that isn’t scientific consensus. But it did make me wonder: How big would the number have to be to strike you as really big? And how small to seem acceptable?

I ask because many more rigorous estimates, while lower, are still quite shocking. Some calculations run easily into the tens of millions. If you include premature deaths from the air pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuels, you may well get estimates stretching into the hundreds of millions. These are all speculations, of course. Estimating climate mortality involves a huge range of calculations and projections, all of which are shrouded by large clouds of uncertainty — it’s literally a climate-scale puzzle, with billions of human variables and many more political and environmental ones, and settling on a number also requires separating the additional impact of warming from the ongoing mortality produced by social and environmental systems running continuously in the background today.

In a recent commentary for Nature Medicine, the Georgetown University biologist Colin Carlson used a decades-old formula to calculate that warming had already killed four million people globally since 2000 just from malnutrition, floods, diarrhea, malaria and cardiovascular disease. As Carlson notes, this means that, since the turn of the millennium, deaths from climate change have already exceeded those from all World Health Organization global-health emergencies other than Covid-19 combined. “Vanishingly few of these deaths will have been recognized by the victims’ families, or acknowledged by national governments, as the consequence of climate change,” he says.

Going forward, most estimates suggest the impact should grow along with global temperature. According to one 2014 projection by the W.H.O., climate change is most likely to cause 250,000 deaths annually from 2030 to 2050. According to research by the Climate Impact Lab, a moderate emissions trajectory, most likely leading to about two degrees of warming by the end of the century, would produce by that time about 40 million additional deaths.

Other work is even more striking. In a recent paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team led by Drew Shindell of Duke University calculated that heat exposure alone is already killing more than 100,000 Indians and about 150,000 Chinese each year. Not all of these deaths are attributable to warming — people died from heat exposure in the preindustrial past, of course — but the trends for all the examined countries were clear and concerning. By the end of the century, the team calculated, even in a low-emissions, low-warming scenario, annual mortality from heat exposure could reach 500,000 in India and 400,000 in China. This is just from heat, remember, and as Shindell points out, there are plenty of known climate impacts that are so hard to model that they are often simply not modeled. “There’s all kinds of stuff missing, and we still get big numbers,” Shindell says. “That should actually be scary.”

One thing that is almost always left out is air pollution. This is the research area for which Shindell is best known, and his most notorious finding on the subject is that simply burning the additional fossil fuel necessary to bring the planet from 1.5 degrees of warming up to two degrees would produce air pollution that would prematurely kill an estimated 153 million people.

If that number shocks you, consider that, according to the new paper, the present-day figures are more than two and a half million Chinese deaths each year, more than two million in India and about 200,000 annually in Pakistan, Bangladesh and the United States each. Even given rapid decarbonization, Shindell and his co-authors find that, by the end of the century, particulate pollution might be responsible for the annual premature deaths of four million Indians, two million Chinese, 800,000 Pakistanis, 500,000 Bangladeshis and 100,000 Americans.

Not all of the particulate pollution is a result of the burning of fossil fuels. (And even fossil-fuel pollution isn’t, technically, a climate impact, though it is produced by the same activities that produce the lion’s share of warming.) But over the course of the century, even in a low-emissions scenario, the total mortality impact of air pollution in just those five countries could reach half a billion.

Now, air pollution is probably not what you have in mind when you picture significant climate change; probably diarrhea and malnutrition aren’t either, or the elevated risk of stroke or respiratory disease that comes, empirically, with higher temperatures. Instead, you’re likely to imagine mass heat death or a world-historical storm. But that is a major lesson of the research on mortality and warming: that our climate fantasies can lead us astray, pulling us toward apocalyptic visions of environmental disaster rather than the simple but tragic accumulation of what today look like ordinary, if unfortunate, events — heat waves like those we’ve already lived through, infectious-disease outbreaks like those we’ve already read about, air-pollution problems like those we’ve mostly left behind in places like the United States. Climate scientists worry a lot about what they often call “discontinuities” or “nonlinearities.” But the world is a very large place, and you don’t need a major phase-shift in our experience of climate to produce a harrowing death toll. You just need things that kill people now to be made worse by warming.

Perversely, it’s also the case that some of the increased death toll can be seen as a sign of more general social progress. Everyone dies of something, mortality researchers like to point out, and you get to die of environmental causes only if you don’t die earlier from something else: childbirth, say, or measles, or smoking. Over the course of the century, Shindell says, he expects the share of overall death attributable to environmental factors to grow — not just because those conditions will worsen but also because other measures of human health and well-being will improve globally. There may well be catastrophic surprises in store, as well — extreme disasters, underestimated impacts and rapidly passed tipping points. But the science of climate mortality today suggests a different experience, of even large-scale climate mortality softening into a grim sort of background noise, never quite deafening, no matter how loud it gets.

When, a few years ago, in the midst of a period of intense climate alarm, a few more hardheaded climate minds invoked instead the analogy of planetary “diabetes,” they got a whiplash of criticism from activists in response. But while we can’t really see the deep future with much clarity, disease may prove a more precise analogy than apocalypse. This is not to say that the size of the impact will be small. It’s to say that imagining a climate future dominated by sudden ruptures and overwhelming catastrophes is perhaps to risk preparing for the wrong future — and remaining oblivious, in the meantime, to the death and suffering of the present.

New York Times – February 21, 2024

The 17th-Century Heretic We Could Really Use Now

A painting of the philosopher Baruch Spinoza that shows him with long black hair and a thin mustache, wearing a black robe with a white collar and cuffs, reading a book.
Credit…Alamy

The Enlightenment philosopher Baruch Spinoza almost died for his ideals one day in 1672.

Spinoza, a Sephardic Jew born in Amsterdam in 1632, was a passionate and outspoken defender of freedom, tolerance and moderation. And so when Johan de Witt, the great liberal statesman of the Dutch Republic, whose political motto was “true freedom,” was lynched and mutilated by a mob whipped into a frenzy by reactionary rabble-rousers tacitly backed by orthodox Calvinist clerics, Spinoza wanted to rush onto the scene and place a sign that read (in Latin): “The lowest of barbarians.” If his landlord hadn’t held him back, the gentle philosopher would surely have been lynched himself.

Spinoza suffered much for his lifelong dedication to the freedom of thought and expression. His view that God did not create the world, and his disbelief in miracles and the immortality of the soul so enraged the rabbis of his Sephardic synagogue in Amsterdam that he was banished from the Jewish community for life at the age of 23. Only one of his books, about the French philosopher Descartes, could be published under his own name during his lifetime. His other works, arguing against religious superstition and clerical authority, and for intellectual and political liberty, were considered so inflammatory that his authorship had to be disguised.

There were other great thinkers in the 17th century, such as Thomas Hobbes and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who prepared the ground for the Enlightenment of the 18th century. But few still appeal as to our imagination as Spinoza does. Living now as we do in a time of book-banning, intellectual intolerance, religious bigotry and populist demagoguery, his radical advocacy of freedom still seems fresh and urgent.

This is perhaps why new books about him are coming out all the time, including Jonathan Israel’s 2023 magnum opus “Spinoza, Life and Legacy” and even a best-selling French novel, “Le Problème Spinoza,” by Irvin Yalom. And all that for a philosopher who was denounced by Christians and Jews as the devil’s disciple long after his own time. Spinoza’s idea that God was not a thinking or creative being but nature itself was considered so scandalous that George Eliot, the British novelist who translated Spinoza’s “Ethics” in the 1850s, still insisted that her name not be mentioned in connection with the thinker she unreservedly admired.

Spinoza was convinced that all people, regardless of their religious or cultural background, were imbued with the capacity to reason and that we should seek the truth about ourselves and the world we live in. He insisted that our rational faculties could provide us with not only more precise knowledge, but with a path toward a happier life and better politics. In an essay called “On the Correction of the Understanding,” he wrote: “True philosophy is the discovery of the ‘true good’, and without knowledge of the true good human happiness is impossible.” That true good, in Spinoza’s view, can only be found through reason and not through religion, tribal feelings or authoritarianism.

Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who believed that only an absolute monarch could keep man’s violent impulses in check, Spinoza was an early proponent of a democratic ideal and representative government. But a free republic could only survive under a government of reasonable men who knew how to cope with conflicting interests rationally. As Spinoza put it, perhaps a little too optimistically, in his “Theoretical-Political Treatise”: “To look out for their own interests and retain their sovereignty, it is incumbent on them most of all to consult the common good, and to direct everything according to the dictate of reason.”

If Spinoza was the devil’s disciple, he was a very gentle one. Nothing in his life gave off even a whiff of scandalous behavior. The German poet Heinrich Heine compared Spinoza to Jesus Christ, as a Jew who suffered for his teaching. A quiet, introspective bachelor, who wore a signet ring with the Latin word for “caution,” he hated conflict, and had the courtly manners of his Iberian ancestry. But his virtuous life only made religious believers even more furious: How could a Godless man be morally irreproachable? Here, then, was a clash which we can still recognize today, between those who believe that moral behavior can only come from religious belief, and those who think it can emanate from reason.

The greatest enemies of his kind of truth-seeking in Spinoza’s time were the orthodox Calvinists who still dominated academic and religious life — and to some extent politics — in the Dutch Republic. Catholics in France, strict Anglicans in England, and the rabbis who expelled him, were no different. Their idea of truth was revealed in the Holy Bible by God’s words. They saw Spinoza’s philosophy as a direct challenge to their authority. And so, his blasphemous insistence on rational thinking, and the freedom to challenge religious dogma, had to be crushed.

Religious dogma is often still used today to crack down on the free thought. This is the case in Muslim theocracies, such as Iran. But it is true also of evangelical Christians in the United States, who insist on the removal of books in public libraries and schools that supposedly offend their moral beliefs grounded in religion.

Dogmatic oppression of intellectual freedom need not always be religious, however. Chinese citizens cannot express themselves freely, as long as the government insists that all views conform to party ideology. As with religious ideologues, they like to claim that dissident ideas “offend the feelings of the people.”

In the United States, and increasingly in many parts of Europe, other kinds of ideological thinking, some of them with commendable social goals, such as social or racial justice, put pressure on intellectual freedom as well. Spinoza’s insistence on the primacy of our capacity to reason would not sit well with the notion that our thoughts are driven by collective identities and historical traumas. He was against tribalism of any kind. And he would not have considered offended communal feelings as a rational argument.

Spinoza is sometimes dismissed as a rationalist, who had no understanding of human emotions, but he knew perfectly well that we are feeling human beings, and that emotions can get the better of us. One of his greatest fears, no less germane today than in his time, was that mobs, whipped up by malevolent leaders, would squash free thinking with violence.

The way to deal with religious beliefs and human emotions, in Spinoza’s opinion, was not to try and ban them, or pretend they didn’t exist. Let people believe what they want, as long as philosophers could enjoy the freedom to think. In his ideal republic, there would be a kind of civic religion, beyond the authority of clerics, that would improve and safeguard moral behavior. In his own words: “The worship of God and obedience to him consists only in Justice and Loving-Kindness, or in love toward one’s neighbor.”

In the universities, too, Spinoza did not think that the religious approach to truth could be abolished. The answer was to separate religious knowledge from science. There was room for both, without one encroaching on the turf of the other.

In our own time, we see demagogues inciting the masses with irrational and hateful fantasies. We see universities torn by ideological struggles that make free inquiry increasingly difficult. Once again there is a conflict between the scientific and the ideological approaches to truth. For example, the notion in some progressive circles that the teaching of mathematics is a form of toxic white supremacy and must be pressed into the service of correcting racial injustices, is, as some people might put it, problematic.

This certainly would have puzzled Spinoza, but he might have helped us find a way out. We could follow his example of distinguishing between different ways to find the truth. It is true that racial and other social injustices persist and should be corrected, but the logic of mathematics is universal and must not be compromised to further the interests of particular minorities. Scientific inquiry should be culturally and racially neutral.

The freedom to act and think rationally, not dogmatically, is by far Spinoza’s greatest legacy. It is the only way to combat the threat of irrational ideas, stirred up hatreds and the confusion of science and faith. And it may be the only way to save our Republic.

Ian Buruma is the author of several books, including, “The Collaborators” and, most recently, “Spinoza: Freedom’s Messiah.”

New York Times – -February 20, 2024

Mr. Johnson believes God told him that he is called to be Moses (Republicans Push Hard Line on Russia While Defending Trump’s NATO Comments)

Fearful of antagonizing the former president, congressional Republicans downplayed the remarks, instead lauding the former president’s record and criticizing President Biden.

Senator Tim Scott standing behind a lectern with a sign that says “Trump Make America Great Again 2024.”
Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, ignored the fact that former President Donald J. Trump has remained silent in the days after the death of the Russian opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny.Credit…Kendrick Brinson for The New York Times

Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, said on Sunday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a “murderous dictator” responsible for the death of the opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny, and that “we need strong leadership coming from America that actually pushes back against Russia and other dictators.”

Then Mr. Scott followed up with the leap of logic that many ambitious Republicans have employed in trying to toe a tough line on Russia while pledging fealty to a former president who has done the opposite. He said the one man for that job was Donald J. Trump.

“Unfortunately, Joe Biden is not up for that charge and Donald Trump is,” Mr. Scott, who has been mentioned as a potential running mate for Mr. Trump, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Mr. Scott’s comments on the Sunday television circuit were a reflection of the fear that congressional Republicans with political ambitions have of alienating Mr. Trump and his base: They purport to take a hard line against Russia while being careful not to say anything that could antagonize the former president.

Mr. Trump has recently said he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies that do not contribute sufficiently to collective defense. And during the 2016 election, Mr. Trump’s campaign sought close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected, according to a bipartisan congressional report.

On Sunday, Representative Michael R. Turner, Republican of Ohio and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that it was “very, very important for the United States to stand strong and stand with Ukraine.” He warned of the effects of allowing Russia to continue its aggression, noting that it would “jeopardize other areas of Europe.”

But when pressed about Mr. Trump’s recent comment encouraging Russia to attack NATO allies, he downplayed it and defended the former president. “This is what I know,” Mr. Turner said. “Donald Trump’s political rallies don’t really translate into Donald Trump’s actual policies.”

He added, “If you look at his policies, if you look at his record, he actually increased funding for NATO, increased the European Reassurance Initiative,” which bolsters the readiness of forces in Europe.

Mr. Scott, for his part, also ignored the fact that Mr. Trump has remained silent in the days after Mr. Navalny’s death, avoiding a question from Jake Tapper of CNN on Sunday about why that was and whether he wanted Mr. Trump to say something.

“I think a better question is, let’s look at the middle of the challenges we face today,” he said. “What you see front and center is the failure of Joe Biden.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that he wanted to make Russia “pay a price for killing Navalny” by designating the country as a state sponsor of terrorism.

“They deserve this designation,” he said. “Putin’s been killing people, opposition leaders, for decades now. He’s dismembered Syria. He’s one of the world’s worst actors and an indicted war criminal.”

But Mr. Graham has also been defending Mr. Trump’s comments about NATO. And he voted against a Senate foreign aid package sending funding to Ukraine, saying he would support critical aid for Kyiv only if it were in the form of a loan, an idea pitched by Mr. Trump.

The former president has opposed sending more aid to Ukraine, putting pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson to block from the House floor a $95 billion assistance package for Israel and Ukraine that the Senate overwhelmingly passed last week.

Mr. Johnson said last week that Mr. Navalny’s death was “emblematic of Putin’s global pattern of silencing critics and eliminating opponents out of fear of dissent.” He added that “as Congress debates the best path forward to support Ukraine, the United States, and our partners, must be using every means available to cut off Putin’s ability to fund his unprovoked war in Ukraine.”

But Mr. Johnson has also suggested that he has no intention of allowing the bill to receive a vote on the House floor.

Liz Cheney, a former Republican representative from Wyoming whose criticism of Mr. Trump led to her ousting from Congress, said the best way to deter Mr. Putin was for the House to pass the bill.

“One man, one man has the power to get that done, and that’s Mike Johnson,” Ms. Cheney said on “State of the Union.”

She said the bill could be on President Biden’s desk awaiting his signature tomorrow if Mr. Johnson chose to bring it to the floor for a vote.

“Mike Johnson ought to search deep in his conscience,” Ms. Cheney said, adding: “He has said, and I take him at his word, that he believes God has told him that he’s called to be Moses. I think Mike Johnson ought to look at whether or not this is actually that moment.”

New York Times – February 18, 2024

What Do We Gain by Eating With Our Hands?

The sense of touch can be a crucial part of dining, one thing that some cultures have understood better than others.

BEFORE THE $135-PER-PERSON tasting menu begins, you are gently invited to wash your hands. A sink stands along the wall. It’s important to make these ablutions publicly, to show everyone that your hands are clean, because at Naks, a Filipino restaurant that opened in Manhattan’s East Village in December, there are no forks on the tables — no eating implements of any kind.

You may hardly notice at first. It’s easy enough to down a shot of duck broth spiked with sour-bright bilimbi and spiced coconut-sap vinegar, delivered in an eggshell with the top broken off — the chef Eric Valdez’s winking take on the street food balut (fertilized duck egg) — and to daintily lift canapés like sea urchin on a pad of ground white corn small enough to tuck into a ring box, slippery sea cucumber held in place by firmer slices of its land-bound cousin and raw beef tenderloin sandwiched between ruffles of beef chicharron and doused with beef bile for a faint, anchoring bitterness. Later, whimsical alternatives to utensils appear: a chicken-and-shrimp meatball speared by the end of a whistle-clean bone so that it looks like a drumstick; grilled chicken skin, crispy and plush at once, on skewers that turn out to be twigs.

Between courses, servers offer batons of hot towels and silently whisk them away after use. Then kamayan, Tagalog for eating with the hands, truly begins. Pancit batil patong, noodles dressed in a deep beefy broth, are scooped out directly onto the banana leaves that cover the tables. For some diners, this might be a novel experience, winding the strands around the fingers, feeling them slick against the skin. Next comes lechon liempo (roasted pork belly), the luscious meat rolled tight around a bouquet of lemongrass, ginger, garlic, scallions and green chiles. The skin, dark gold and translucent as stained glass, is pure crackle. It snaps effortlessly. But the meat resists: You have to dig in, grasp for purchase, wrestle to tear off a piece. The night I went to Naks, the lechon arrived still hot to the touch; I had to snatch my hand back and wait, yearning.

In parts of Africa, South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East, eating with the hands has long been tradition and today for some remains routine, whether done in the comfort of home or at banquets where the highest levels of propriety prevail. But in the West, only certain foods and scenarios are exempt from flatware: on the high end, the kind of finger food doled out to guests as they mill about at cocktail parties, bites at once rarefied and pragmatic, built to be popped into the mouth with minimal trickle and spill; and on the low, the likes of burgers and chicken wings, foods that mark a momentary reprieve from table manners, juices running down the fingers. So clearly demarcated are these categories that in the United States, it can be as much of a faux pas to use utensils as not, as the former New York City mayor Bill de Blasio discovered when he was photographed applying fork and knife to a pizza in Staten Island in 2014. He pleaded his heritage, noting that in Italy, this choice was acceptable, even recommended. Critics scoffed. One declared it “blasphemy.”

The more formal the occasion, the more silver on the table. An elaborate place setting might call for a total of nine forks, spoons and knives, each with a specialized mission (e.g., fish, entree, salad, soup, oysters, cake) and alignment around the plate. Their usage correlates to the path of a newcomer to this lofty sphere: Start from the outside and work your way in. Is this about hygiene, or just materialism — the need to accumulate and display objects, as proof of sophistication? Does it make the experience of eating more profound, the food more delicious? Or is the opposite true — has something been lost?

Clockwise from bottom left, an Indian egg curry; a vegetable curry; jalebi (a flour-based South Asian sweet); jeera rice; masoor dal; another plate of daing na bangus; and Indian flatbreads with onion and chiles.Credit…Photograph by Kyoko Hamada. Set design by Suzy Kim

IN THE TEMPLE hush of a high-end sushi restaurant, the chef may silently bid you to lift each piece of nigiri with just the fingers. This may be because the rice under the fish is so delicately pressed together, it might fall apart if pinched by chopsticks (when wielded by a less than certain hand). But there is also something meticulous and almost reverential in the gesture — an acknowledgment that this food is precious and requires a gentle touch.

Eating with the hands isn’t a free-for-all. The rules are as carefully observed as those governing all that cutlery around the plate. There are variations among cultures, but generally: Wash the hands before meals, publicly and ritualistically, even if they’re already clean, as a sign of respect for your fellow diners. Use only the right hand and only three fingers, middle, index and thumb — only the top two joints of each — with the thumb pushing the food into the mouth. Some caution against holding food in the palm or licking any part of the hand. If anything, the fingers should touch only the lips.

Nevertheless, the notion persists in the West that eating without utensils is somehow primal; that clawing at food makes us look beholden to our appetites and reveals the wolf within. The restaurateur Nicole Ponseca, the daughter of Filipino immigrants who settled in Southern California, remembers non-Filipinos mocking her father for picking up food with his bare hands. Years later, she found herself wanting to reclaim that act — to make people see it as something desirable. In 2013, she started what she called Kamayan Night at her restaurant Jeepney in downtown Manhattan. (Jeepney closed in 2021; in a passing of the torch, Naks has taken over its former address.) The pitch: a $40-per-person prix fixe meal of multiple dishes and “no plates, no silverware.” One ad showed Ponseca clutching a fried fish and biting into its head, the loud red of her lipstick matching her nails. It was a promise and a dare.

Guests sat down at a table draped in banana leaves with a great mound of rice molded so it snaked down the center, surrounded by chubby scarlet longganisa (sweet garlicky sausages) and lumpia like bars of gold, leafy bulbs of bok choy and bright pops of kamatis (tomatoes), and diners’ choice of entrees, maybe ink-dark chicken adobo and whole deep-fried fish poised as if midswim, its crust like a bronze cloud, and oxtail simmered in a peanut-rich stew until freed of its knots. A server would demonstrate how to form a ball of rice and use it to grasp vegetables and meat. “I was teaching people to do the very thing I’d asked my dad not to,” Ponseca recalls.

A few Filipinos criticized her, saying, “You’re pushing us back,” as if eating with the hands were a primitive custom that should be denied. But diners were clamoring for seats. Jeepney may not have been the first Filipino restaurant in America to serve food on banana leaves or to encourage diners to abandon utensils, but Ponseca’s vision of kamayan broke through to a wider audience, so much so that non-Filipinos now often mistake the word “kamayan” to mean a meal, as opposed to a way of eating. Today there are kamayan offerings at restaurants across America, from the private parties catered by Kuya Lord in Los Angeles to the reservations-required $95-per-person dinner at Abacá in San Francisco, loaded with luxuries that might include Wagyu beef tartare and lobster pancit with truffles. (The historians Daniel E. Bender and Adrian De Leon have written about the resemblance between the kamayan feasts served in the West and the Filipino military tradition of the boodle fight, instituted under U.S. occupation in the 20th century, in which mess-hall rations were heaped together — the name may be derived from “kit and caboodle” — for soldiers to attack with their hands.)

Still, the rise of the kamayan dinner shouldn’t be taken as a sign that Americans are relinquishing their hold on cutlery. If anything, part of the appeal of eating with the hands, at least for those who don’t do it regularly, is precisely that it’s a break from the norm, made permissible because the food itself is unfamiliar. The American philosopher Lisa Heldke has called such forays “eating adventures” and questioned her own curiosity in pursuing them, wondering if she was unconsciously following the same impulse that drove “19th- and early 20th-century European painters, anthropologists and explorers who set out in search of ever ‘newer,’ ever more ‘remote’ cultures.” Although she was trying “to learn about other cultures in ways I intended to be respectful,” she writes in “Exotic Appetites: Ruminations of a Food Adventurer” (2003), “I could not deny that I was motivated by a deep desire to have contact with, and to somehow own an experience of, an Exotic Other, as a way of making myself more interesting.” Are diners who wander outside their own culture doomed, then, forever to be tourists?

Herein lies the conundrum for chefs and restaurateurs trying to introduce the food of their heritage to a Western audience: how to do so without either self-exoticizing or whitewashing, playing up or playing down what might be considered the more challenging elements of a cuisine — the crunch of a duck embryo’s bones, say, or the frank scent of fermented fish sauce that remains on the fingers long after the food is gone.

SPOONS OF MAMMOTH bone from around 23,000 to 22,000 years ago have been found in western Russia; chopsticks, known in China as zhu and later kuaizi, may go back as far as 5000 B.C. But historians can only speculate what these early utensils were used for, whether they were all-purpose tools or designated for cooking, rather than for individual dining. Knives were weapons first. In a 1927 survey of antique cutlery collections, the English curator C.T.P. Bailey noted that, even in the Middle Ages, only the nobility had dedicated table knives, while “the ordinary citizen carried at his girdle a knife which served all purposes and could be used equally well for carving his food or cutting his enemy’s throat.” In 17th-century France, Louis XIV banned all pointed knives, perhaps, Bailey muses, “to discourage assassination at mealtimes.” In China around the fourth century B.C., people began to shift from hands to spoons (shaped like daggers) and chopsticks, perhaps because those living in the colder north preferred foods that were boiled and presented in hot broth, as the Chinese American historian Q. Edward Wang suggests in “Chopsticks: A Cultural and Culinary History” (2015).

In Europe, people deployed spoons for soup and knives for cutting and impaling, but otherwise continued to rely on their hands. Forks came late. The “Iliad,” composed in the eighth century B.C., refers to “five-pronged forks” arrayed for the roasting of an animal sacrifice, but these were essentially large stabbing tools. A smaller, five-inch bronze implement with two rippled tines from the sixth or seventh century A.D., excavated in modern Iran, may be evidence that some Persians had adopted them for eating around that time. In the 11th century, an Italian Benedictine monk noted disapprovingly that a Constantinople-born bride of the Doge of Venice had brought with her to the West the decadent habit of dining with a fork. “She did not touch her food with her hands,” the monk wrote, outraged, and pointed to her death from plague as an apparently suitable fate for one of such “excessive delicacy.” To a man of God, this was a dangerous foreign affectation and betrayal of nature. And for centuries the fork remained suspect in Europe, as the effete accessory of aristocrats; as late as the 17th century, Louis XIV, amid the pomp of Versailles, is said to have insisted on grabbing food — off a gold plate — with his fingers.

We know how the story ends. There were practical reasons to submit to utensils. Not for purposes of hygiene, which was little understood at the time; the 12th- and early 13th-century Sephardic physician and philosopher Maimonides, who was born in Andalusia and spent most of his life in northern Africa, advocated washing the hands in medical settings to prevent contagion, but that practice wasn’t standardized until after the advent of germ theory in the 19th century. (If anything, tableware allowed for a different, more magical kind of contagion: The English historian Emanuel Green, in a paper presented to the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society in 1886, slyly offers a quote from a man of Malay origin, confronted with a British place setting: “What do I know of this fork? It has been in a hundred or more mouths — perhaps in the mouth of my greatest enemy.”)

Various miniature recreations of dishes are displayed on a model’s hand, including a plate of Ethiopian curries and vegetables on injera, balanced on the model’s fingers which have been rubbed with turmeric.
An array of miniatures including, second from bottom left, West African maafé (groundnut stew).Credit…Photograph by Kyoko Hamada. Set design by Suzy Kim

Instead, cutlery may have triumphed in part simply because it made some foods easier to eat. As the Italian historian Massimo Montanari chronicles in “A Short History of Spaghetti With Tomato Sauce” (2019), in Europe, the Italians were early adopters of the fork, whose tines proved handy for twirling up pasta (introduced to southern Italy by the Arabs who ruled Sicily starting in the ninth century) — a development akin to chopsticks gaining dominance over spoons in China around the first century A.D., corresponding to the popularization of wheat-based foods like dumplings and noodles, as Wang recounts.

For the Chinese, Wang writes, eating with utensils represented “cultural advancement.” So, too, in the West, where flatware, like other material goods and imports from abroad that were initially available only to those with access to knowledge and resources, became a marker of status. For of course with these tools came rules, extensions of those table manners that were “set down and codified for the primary reason of raising a boundary, fencing in a protected area of privilege and power by distinguishing its uses from those ‘outside’ of it,” Montanari writes in “Medieval Tastes: Food, Cooking and the Table” (2015). Yet another way of delineating and enforcing hierarchy was born. Europeans carried cutlery, alongside their swords and guns, around the world. Cultures that resisted this new technology, this imagined advancement, were also resisting the empires that brought it.

ALTHOUGH ITALIANS WERE the first Europeans to master the fork, some inhabitants of Naples, in the south, still ate pasta with their hands as late as the early 1900s. Black-and-white photographs testify to people standing in the street, strands clasped in fists. Tourists gawked. (It’s hard to know if at some point the activity became a relic of itself, re-enacted solely for the pleasure of outsiders.) The Italian food designer Giulia Soldati paid homage to this Neapolitan tradition in her 2016 interactive performance, “Mangiamaccheroni,” at Design Academy Eindhoven in the Netherlands, where diners lined up at long, skinny tables — no chairs — on which spaghetti al pomodoro was laid out in what appeared to be one continuous tangle, and spun the noodles around their fingers. In later works, Soldati placed food directly on diners’ bodies: a daub of burrata and a collapsed tomato on the inside of a wrist; a coil of spaghetti inside a palm, with garlic powder and chile scattered across fingertips.

This may be provocation, a refusal to abide by conventional etiquette and codified gestures, or simply a reminder of the importance of touch. Without cutlery as mediator, we feel everything. The nerve endings in our fingers are triggered; our senses expand. We taste more. The Italian poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, the founder of the Futurist movement, included a recipe in his 1932 “Futurist Cookbook” that calls for eating an olive, a kumquat and a sliver of fennel while stroking scraps of silk, velvet and sandpaper, and proposed abolishing knives and forks.

Maybe this is all too intimate. Maybe we need table manners as a veil, to hide what the act of eating actually is. The French literary theorist Roland Barthes, writing in “Empire of Signs” (1970), champions chopsticks as “the converse of our knife (and of its predatory substitute, the fork): They are the alimentary instrument which refuses to cut, to pierce, to mutilate.” He argues that chopsticks transform the experience of eating, so that we’re no longer committing violence, so that the food isn’t conquered, like prey, but “harmoniously transferred.” Yet who are we kidding? Our jaws, however shortened and weakened over the course of evolution; our teeth, however diminished — still they are tools of destruction. The wolf remains.

For what is cutlery, in the end, but a system of control, imposing distance not only between diner and dish but between diner and self? “The history of good table manners is marked by the gradual abandonment of both indiscriminate behavior and openly exhibited physicality,” the Italian medieval historian Daniela Romagnoli has written. Montanari, in “Medieval Tastes,” calls this a “process of enclosure,” and surely all of history could be described thus: as a series of fencings in — of land, as property; of time, cordoned off for labor; and of ourselves, tame and placid, animal instincts carefully, barely, contained.

New York Times – February 18, 2024

MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America

Amid the constant drumbeat of sensational news stories — the scandals, the legal rulings, the wild political gambits — it’s sometimes easy to overlook the deeper trends that are shaping American life. For example, are you aware how much the constant threat of violence, principally from MAGA sources, is now warping American politics? If you wonder why so few people in red America seem to stand up directly against the MAGA movement, are you aware of the price they might pay if they did?

Late last month, I listened to a fascinating NPR interview with the journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman regarding their new book, “Find Me the Votes,” about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?”

He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.

Don’t think for a moment that this is unusual today. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted, as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.

The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats after it ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.

Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.

Nor is the challenge confined to national politics. In 2021, Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, “We know who you are” and “We will find you.”

My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists. People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.

And no, threats of ideological violence do not come exclusively from the right. We saw too much destruction accompanying the George Floyd protests to believe that. We’ve seen left-wing attacks and threats against Republicans and conservatives. The surge in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7 is a sobering reminder that hatred lives on the right and the left alike.

But the tsunami of MAGA threats is different. The intimidation is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.

The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.

But I don’t want to be too bleak. So let me end with a point of light. In the summer of 2021, I received a quite direct threat after I’d written a series of pieces opposing bans on teaching critical race theory in public schools. Someone sent my wife an email threatening to shoot me in the face.

My wife and I knew that it was almost certainly a bluff. But we also knew that white nationalists had our home address, both of us were out of town and the only person home that night was my college-age son. So we called the local sheriff, shared the threat, and asked if the department could send someone to check our house.

Minutes later, a young deputy called to tell me all was quiet at our home. When I asked if he would mind checking back frequently, he said he’d stay in front of our house all night. Then he asked, “Why did you get this threat?”

I hesitated before I told him. Our community is so MAGA that I had a pang of concern about his response. “I’m a columnist,” I said, “and we’ve had lots of threats ever since I wrote against Donald Trump.”

The deputy paused for a moment. “I’m a vet,” he said, “and I volunteered to serve because I believe in our Constitution. I believe in free speech.” And then he said words I’ll never forget: “You keep speaking, and I’ll stand guard.”

I didn’t know that deputy’s politics and I didn’t need to. When I heard his words, I thought, that’s it. That’s the way through. Sometimes we are called to speak. Sometimes we are called to stand guard. All the time we can at least comfort those under threat, telling them with words and deeds that they are not alone. If we do that, we can persevere. Otherwise, the fear will be too much for good people to bear.

New York Times – February 18, 2024