Foreign Affairs Putin’s Goals in His Own Words The Russian president’s annual appearance at the Valdai International Discussion Club provided a window into the president’s thinking. href=”https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/putin-vladimir-vector-sketch-illustration-portrait-1038439138″>(Natata/Shutterstock) Russia’s President Vladimir Putin gave a lengthy speech on October 2 before the 22nd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, often called “Russia’s Davos,” before answering questions for three hours. In this nearly four-hour long media appearance, the president communicated his views on a variety of subjects, ranging from to immigration to multipolarity, to Russian elites in various sectors of society for the coming year’s planning.  The subject of the conference was polycentrism and multipolarity (two related concepts in international relations referring to the end of the unipolar moment). Putin expressed a belief that we already live in a multipolar era. “In fact, the multipolarity that has emerged is already shaping the framework, within which the governments act.” “It’s a much more open, one might even say creative, space for foreign policy behavior.” Putin stated. “Practically nothing is predetermined, everything can go differently.” Putin also opined that, unlike the geopolitical order between the Treaty of Westphalia and the dawn of the Cold War, the forces beyond those of the nation-state will play an increasing role in the multipolar world. “This [geopolitical] space is much more democratic,” Putin told the audience. “It opens up opportunities and pathways for a large number of political and economic players.”  Per Putin, this growth in the number of influential forces in this multipolar world makes the local and the particular more important, rather than less so, unlike in the earlier era of globalization: “A greater role, than at any time, is played by the cultural-historical and civilizational specificities of different countries. It is necessary to look for points of contact and convergence of interests. Already, no one is prepared to play by the rules given by someone from somewhere far away.”  The Russian president attributed the new rise of multipolarity to the desire of U.S. elites to use the unipolar moment to try to gain global hegemony. “Paradoxically, multipolarity came as a direct consequence of [the West’s] attempts to create and preserve global hegemony,” Putin observed. Accordingly, multipolarity is but “a response by the international system and history itself to the obsessive desire to align everyone into a single hierarchy, with Western countries at the top.” According to Putin, these attempts at global hegemony by the collective West ultimately led to the alienation of the Western elites from their populations. Western overextension, Putin noticed, has increasingly “rais[ed] legitimate questions among citizens of countries that are trying to play this role of ‘grandees’: ‘Why do we need all this?’” Putin argued that this geopolitical overextension has led to the erosion of Western, and particularly American, uniqueness. Putin cited an anecdote of an American colleague who told him, “We gained the world, but lost America itself.”  “Was it worth it? And did you gain anything at all?” Putin wondered aloud. Putin estimates that growing dissatisfaction with the political class in the West highlights that most people do not think it was worth it. “In the societies of leading Western European countries, a clear rejection of the exorbitant ambitions of the political elites of these countries has matured and is growing,” Putin said. “Public opinion barometers show this everywhere.” In response to this growing rejection of the hawkishness of Western elites by their populations, Putin commented that Western states are becoming increasingly authoritarian and unresponsive to the desires of their peoples. “The establishment does not want to cede power, resorts to outright deception of its own citizens, escalates the situation externally, resorts to any tricks within its own countries—increasingly on the edge, and even beyond the law,” Putin commented.  He continued, But endlessly turning democratic and electoral procedures into a farce and manipulating the will of the people won’t work…. In many countries this is happening; in some countries they are trying to ban their political opponents who are already gaining greater legitimacy and greater trust from voters…. We know this; we experienced it in the Soviet Union. Remember [Vladimir] Vysotsky’s songs: “Even the military parade was cancelled! Soon they’ll ban all of everything….” But it doesn’t work; bans don’t work. Putin cited last year’s American presidential election as an example of the futility of the attempts to ban and censor the opponents of Western liberal adventurism. He added that elections such as these were potentially “contagious,” leading to the weakening of the stranglehold held by elites in other Western democracies. Putin also seemed fairly positive about the chances of detente with the United States and the future of American–Russian relations under the Trump administration, given the latter’s concern for American national interests. “We see that the current administration of the U.S. is guided primarily by the interests of its own country—as it understands them,” Putin stated. “I believe this is a rational approach.”  He continued, But then, excuse me, Russia also reserves the right to be guided by our national interests, one of which, by the way, is the restoration of full-fledged relations with the United States. And no matter what the contradictions, if we treat each other with respect, then bargaining​—even the toughest, most persistent one​—will still have the goal of reaching a consensus, and this means that, in the end, mutually acceptable solutions are possible. Putin also praised the bluntness of the current Trump administration. “The current White House administration states its interests and desires clearly,” Putin said. “It is always better to clearly understand what your interlocutor wants, what he is trying to achieve, than to try to guess the real meaning in a series of equivocations, ambiguous and vague hints.” Putin also addressed immigration to Russia and his beliefs on the foundation of Russian identity in his address. Putin cited shared values (downstream of Eastern Christianity) as the foundation of Russian civilization, rather than ethnicity or race, and asserted that those sharing those values can become Russian: In the personal identification documents of subjects of the Russian Empire, there was not a column [for] nationality—there was none. In the Soviet passport there was, but in the Russian one—there was not. But what was there? “Religious faith.” There was a common value, a religious value, association with Eastern Christian religion, with Orthodoxy… There were other values, but this was the defining one: which values do you share? That’s why, even today, it doesn’t matter to us whether a person is from the east, west, south, or north. If they share our values, they’re one of us. Putin’s media appearance seemed to hint that the Russian president may intend to retire after the resolution to the Ukraine crisis and associated geopolitical challenges. When a questioner asked him if he ever feels in negotiations with the West like Emperor Alexander I at the Congress of Vienna, Putin replied, “No, I don’t feel [like that]. Alexander I was an emperor, and I am president, chosen by the people for a specific term—that’s a big difference.” This emphasis on the president’s term being for a set duration signals that Putin perhaps wishes for a younger successor to step into his shoes following the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine. The post Putin’s Goals in His Own Words appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Can Jay Jones Still Win in Virginia? A late-in-the-game scandal has shaken up a Virginia statewide election that had been mostly an afterthought. (Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post via Getty Images) Republicans are in disbelief. Jerrauld “Jay” Jones, the Democratic candidate for Virginia attorney general in this year’s elections, has yet to drop out of the race despite nauseous texts that reveal he once fantasized about gunning down then-Speaker of the Virginia House Todd Gilbert, a Republican. But, laying aside decency and decorum, why exactly should Jones drop out of the race? On the prediction market website Kalshi, where Americans can bet on anything from the release date of Taylor Swift’s latest album to the number of times Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell will utter the word “uncertainty” during his economic outlook speech, Jones and the Democrats are still in the lead. And though the race between Jones and the current Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares has tightened considerably, Jones still holds a thin lead. That suggests the young Democrat may have already weathered the worst of the storm. And Democrats, who have grown accustomed to making excuses for lame-duck candidates (cf., for example, the former President Joe Biden), appear ready to argue that Jones is still a viable candidate despite text messages that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger this week called “inexcusable.” Sure enough, during a Monday appearance on CNN, Sen. Tim Kaine, a stalwart of the Virginia Democratic Party, refused to call for Jones to abandon his campaign. “The comments are completely indefensible,” Kaine told CNN host Manu Raju. “I’ve known Jay Jones for 25 years, and those comments are very much out of character for him. So if I put the comments, which are clearly beyond the pale, against knowing this guy for 25 years, I’m still supporting Jay Jones.”No doubt, the scars of 2024 run deep in the Democratic camp. The decision to scrap Biden and push then–Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket late last summer is a strategic decision that will be regretted for years to come. With the Virginia elections only one month out, and with Democrats holding sizable polling advantages in all three major statewide races, what exactly is the benefit of allowing the outcries of Republicans to dictate whether Jones remains in the race? And then there is just the boring political reality of an election already in full swing. Brian Tynes, a spokesman for Virginia’s Department of Elections, confirmed to CNN this week that early voting is well under way and it’s simply too late to add or remove names to the physical ballot to be used in less than four weeks. Even if the Democrats pulled the plug in an attempt to rid themselves of this embarrassing scandal, Jones’s name would still appear alongside Spanberger and the Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate Ghazala Hashmi. For Republicans, the Jones debacle should be a slam-dunk. His disturbing remarks should prove fertile ground for a comeback. Miyares, who lagged behind Jones by 6 points in pre-scandal polling conducted by Christopher Newport University, has struggled for months to paint Jones as weak and ineffective. In an election year when Virginians have expressed deep concerns over the state of the economy and President Donald Trump’s federal overreach, Miyares and the Republican gubernatorial candidate Winsome Earle-Sears, have attempted (and mostly failed) to leverage fears about transgenderism and a perceived lack of fairness in high school athletics as the key for returning Republicans to the Governor’s mansion. But instead of embracing the golden goose, Republicans, as Republicans are wont, have inexplicably attempted to run Jones out of the race. Trump, writing to his social media feed on Sunday, called Jones a “Radical Left Lunatic” and joined similar calls from top Virginia Republicans who have demanded Jones abandon his campaign immediately. But that’s the last thing Republicans should be doing at this moment if they want to win. What they should be doing is thanking National Review, which first published the incendiary texts by Jones last Thursday, and then going on the attack. Miyares, at least, seems to have gotten the message. Officials with the Miyares campaign announced Monday that they are launching a $1.5 million ad buy that will highlight the violent text messages sent by Jones in August of 2022. Whether the messages can erase a sizable lead for Jones during an election cycle that appears primed to act as a direct repudiation of Trump’s second administration is yet to be seen, but the ad buy could prove decisive. Despite weathering the initial 48 hours of national news coverage, the 36-year-old Jones is still bracing for further impact. On Monday, the news site Virginia Scope published an alleged phone conversation that took place between Jones and the Republican Del. Carrie Coyner, the same person who shared the Gilbert text messages with National Review. Speaking to the Scope, Coyner said Jones made explosive comments about police officers during a heated phone conversation about qualified immunity in 2020. After Coyner voiced support for qualified immunity, which protects officers from personal liability in the field, Jones allegedly replied: “Well, maybe if a few of them died, that they would move on, not shooting people, not killing people.” Though the unrecorded and alleged conversation is unlikely to whip up the same sort of fervor that the text messages did, for independents yet to make up their minds, the compounding nature of the graphic and violent messaging might be just enough to swing the race to Miyares. Facing a tidal wave of criticism, Jones has done the only thing he can do: apologize. In a statement released Friday, Jones said he was embarrassed and ashamed. “I cannot take back what I said,” Jones said. “I can only take full accountability and offer my sincere apology.” The chaotic and unnatural political atmosphere of the mid 20s, supercharged by the incredibly divisive Trump, suggests that not only can Jones survive this calamity but that he may still be capable of winning a race where Miyares, Earle-Sears, and the Republican lieutenant governor candidate John Reid have all struggled to gain meaningful traction. On Monday night, the local ABC affiliate in Richmond broadcast two street interviews with voters who sounded ready to hold their noses and vote Jones. One woman said that although she “didn’t like” the comments, she was still willing to give Jones a second chance. A second woman said that although the disturbing comments from Jones would make her “swallow hard” in the voting booth, at the end of the day, she “has to vote blue because there’s no other choice.” If voters aren’t afraid to publicly support Jones after this debacle, why exactly should Jones be afraid to soldier forward? At the end of the filmmaker Denis Villeneuve’s brilliant 2015 crime thriller Sicario, Benicio Del Toro holds idealistic FBI agent Kate Macer at gunpoint and forces her to sign a statement against her will. As tears roll down her face, Del Toro mutters one of the all-time great lines of cinema: “You should move to a small town, somewhere the rule of law still exists. You will not survive here. You are not a wolf, and this is a land of wolves now.” In the age of Dark MAGA (and Dark Brandon), American politics is no longer an environment of class and decency. It is the land of wolves. The only decision left for Jones now is whether he is a sheep or a wolf. Jones, if he stays in this race, can still win it. But it will require thick skin and an acknowledgement from Jones and the Democratic Party that to admit defeat is the nature of sheep. The post Can Jay Jones Still Win in Virginia? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Lumber-Tariff Innovations Show How to Fix Metal Tariffs The administration’s latest tranche of duties show a framework for stopping importer cheating. Last week, President Donald Trump signed a Section 232 proclamation imposing tariffs on wood and wood products—everything from construction lumber to cabinets and vanities. As with all of Trump’s sectoral Section 232 actions, the tariff is especially well received by domestic producers, as Section 232 tariffs are by default deployed globally. This is a welcome development for manufacturers who have spent countless resources fighting transhipment, whereby products’ countries of origin are falsely labeled to avoid country-specific tariffs. But this Section 232 action is the best yet, as it gave American producers something even more; it hopefully will serve as a template for all future tariff actions. Tucked away near the end of the proclamation, in paragraph 17, the president directed the Department of Commerce to prepare a process for producers to request a switch from percentage-based duties, known formally as “ad valorem” tariffs, to equivalent specific or compound rates. That’s the breakthrough tariff supporters have been asking for—because it addresses long standing problems with ad valorem tariffs. What’s the downside to ad valorem tariffs? They are assessed against whatever the importer claims they paid overseas. WTO customs rules define that price in ways that reward fraudsters. Under the WTO valuation regime, the primary basis is the importer’s “transaction value,” i.e., whatever they claim to have paid overseas. The vulnerabilities are obvious: (1) supplying fake invoices—how will Customs ever know? (2) transfer-pricing tricks that depress the declared value when the overseas entity and the U.S.-based importer are related; (3) foreign currency depreciation that silently shrinks the duty owed because the exporter’s currency weakens. Fraud is so easy, you basically have to do it, or your competition will. We used to have rules to stop this kind of thing. For example, Section 482 of the Tariff Act of 1930 required those foreign invoices to be certified by the nearest American consular office abroad. Globalists didn’t like that, so they had it banned by the WTO, and Section 482 was repealed. We also used to have “minimum customs valuation rules” rules, which essentially said, “the tariff is 20%, but if the invoice price is less than $X-per-[some metric], then the invoice price shall be treated as if it was $X.” This too was banned by the WTO, with the ban promptly codified by Congress. ‘Specific tariffs’ don’t rely or even care about overseas invoices. Rather, the tariff is assessed on what actually shows up in our ports by a unit of volume that can be counted, measured, or weighed by U.S. customs officers. For example, the Tariff Act of 1789 set tariffs so: “50¢ per pair of boots” and “4¢ per pound of cheese”. The father of the American System himself prioritized specific over ad valorem tariffs. Henry Clay pressed for specific duties precisely because ad valorem rates were a magnet for “false valuations” and “double invoices,” and Congress answered by replacing many ad valorem rates with specific duties in the Whig-backed 1842 Tariff. The core insight hasn’t aged: The more a duty relies on a number the foreign seller can manipulate, the less protective it becomes. The 1842 shift to specific duties was an anti-fraud measure as much as a policy statement—and that logic belongs in today’s tool kit. That’s why the wood proclamation’s invitation to deploy specific and compound rates matters so much. It acknowledges that percentage tariffs can be whittled down in the real world and that a sturdier architecture—anchored in units, not paperwork—sometimes has to take their place. It also creates a channel for producer input, so Commerce can target conversions to the exact HTS lines where invoice games and undervaluation are most corrosive. That’s how you turn headline rates into actual industrial protection. Now to the other half of the story—the giant misstep in the current aluminum and steel 232 tariffs. On June 4, the administration doubled the ad valorem rate to 50 percent. That made for tough-sounding headlines. But someone got too clever by half, and they changed the way the tariff was assessed. Instead of applying the 50 percent tariff against the importer’s purchase price, the proclamation said the duty was to be assessed only on the value of the steel or aluminum content. The non-metal content is carved out and left the “reciprocal” tariff labyrinth. If you’ve been following along, you know that “value” is shakier than a fiddler’s elbow at a barn dance. Indeed, the “metal-content-only” valuation approach is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. At least with normal ad valorem tariffs, the tariff is applied against the importer’s purchase price, and the importer is under U.S. jurisdiction (at least theoretically—we won’t get into the problem of Non-Resident Importers here). So for U.S.-based importers, we could—again, in theory—audit their books, and arrest them for fraud. But the “metal-content” approach severed even this enforcement path: After all, how is the importer supposed to know the “value” of the metal? Well, U.S. Customs and Border Protection answered that question in their official F.A.Q.: “The value of the steel/aluminum content should be determined in accordance with the principles of the [WTO] Customs Valuation Agreement, as implemented in 19 U.S.C. 1401a.” Put more simply: the “value” is whatever the overseas fabricator claims they paid for the metal in their country. This is ridiculous. There’s no way for an importer to verify what their overseas supplier paid for something. So now we cannot even in theory enforce against invoice fraud. Fortunately, Monday’s wood proclamation points to the path forward. Commerce should replicate the wood model in metals: allow producers to ask for product tariffs to be converted to specific or compound rates that charge by the ton, the kilogram, or a mixed per-unit-plus-percent formula. Stop letting importer paperwork set the duty owed. The final lesson: This “metal content” valuation problem first appeared back in the February 18 steel and aluminum proclamations, but it was limited to a much smaller subset of goods not included in the main metal chapters of the tariff schedule. The June 4 proclamation expanded this bad approach. This serves as a valuable lesson that bad ideas need to be nipped in the bud, even if the immediate impact is negligible. The post Lumber-Tariff Innovations Show How to Fix Metal Tariffs appeared first on The American Conservative.