The Nightmare Politics of Fighting the Recovery Bill - POLITICO | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

The Nightmare Politics of Fighting the Recovery Bill – POLITICO

Published

 on


.cms-textAlign-lefttext-align:left;.cms-textAlign-centertext-align:center;.cms-textAlign-righttext-align:right;.cms-magazineStyles-smallCapsfont-variant:small-caps;

President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill may have helped avoid a second Great Depression, but it was a political fiasco. As then-congressman Barney Frank liked to say: “Things Would’ve Sucked Even Worse Without Us” was an unappealing message for a Democratic bumper sticker. Republicans relentlessly mocked the $800 billion stimulus as a wasteful porkfest, while Democrats tried fervently to change the subject.

Twelve years later, the politics of stimulus has flipped.

Democrats are relentlessly hyping President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill, while Republicans are trying to change the subject to Dr. Seuss, Mr. Potato Head and the Mexican border. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, arguably the shrewdest Republican strategist in Washington, has started floating a half-hearted anti-stimulus message that the coming recovery would have happened anyway.

“We are about to have a boom,” McConnell said last week after the Biden bill passed. “And if we do have a boom, it will have absolutely nothing to do with this $1.9 trillion.”

As a message, this amounts to “Things Would’ve Been Just As Great Without It”—an even less appealing bumper sticker than Barney Frank’s.

It may be an overstated political cliché that if you’re explaining, you’re losing. But you’re almost certainly losing if you’re explaining, ahead of time, why the economic boom you’re expecting on your opponent’s watch shouldn’t be attributed to your opponent. One lesson of the volatility of the past dozen years is that fairly or not, the president’s party tends to get the credit or blame for the economy—or at least for the way people perceive the economy. Biden is visiting swing states this week to sell American Rescue Plan’s focus on giving Americans vaccines and money, but with economists across the ideological spectrum forecasting explosive growth, many veterans of the 2009 stimulus wars believe the economy will be all the sales pitch the bill needs.

“We’re going to see some fairly amazing economic numbers, and I imagine for the next few years, people will look around and say: ‘This is pretty darn good!’” says American Enterprise Institute fellow James Pethokoukis, a conservative economist who believes the Biden stimulus is somewhat excessive. “I’m sure Republicans will try to spin this, and I have long-term concerns myself, but the reality of a crazy strong expansion will be tough to spin away.”

Democrats seemed to have learned a bunch of lessons from the backlash against the Obama stimulus—that it’s important to sell your own product, that it’s even more important not to trash your own product, and that it’s supremely important to make sure your product works as well as possible. Even though the Obama White House pushed for the biggest possible stimulus it could get out of a bailout-weary Congress in 2009, most economists believe the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would have produced a stronger recovery if it had been even bigger. Biden was determined to make sure his relief act didn’t undershoot as well, even if that meant he would face criticism for ignoring the budget deficit and failing to attract Republican votes.

Republicans, by contrast, seem to have learned one major lesson from the Obama stimulus—the power of No. Three Republican senators did vote yes in 2009, but the rest of the party consistently and vociferously trashed the “porkulus” as a deficit-busting big-government goody bag, a message that helped the GOP reclaim the House in a landslide in 2010.

This time, not a single congressional Republican voted for the Biden bill, even though the party overwhelmingly supported five earlier relief bills under President Donald Trump.

So far, though, political history is not repeating itself. The approval rating for Obama’s recovery plan dropped more than 20 points from his election until he signed it into law three months later, even though Obama himself remained quite popular at the time. By contrast, the Biden stimulus is polling in the 70s, while Biden himself is polling in the fifties. If the pandemic ends and the economy roars, as independent forecasters like J.P. Morgan are predicting, the rescue plan could get even more popular, and the strategy of No could get even more difficult.

“It worked in 2009, when the economy was still struggling, but I don’t see how it works if we get mammoth job creation numbers,” says Republican strategist Tony Fratto, a former assistant Treasury secretary in the Bush administration. “Maybe you could say the economy is running too hot, but I don’t think ‘the Biden bill was too effective’ would sell too well.”

So what changed?

There are obvious differences between 2009 and today.

The Great Recession was a complex economic implosion caused by a systemic financial panic triggered by a national mortgage meltdown. The pandemic was different: America lost even more jobs and economic activity during the initial Covid lockdowns, but that downturn was a relatively straightforward economic problem caused by a virus. As Obama’s former communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, points out, there’s no vaccine for a housing and banking crisis.

Obama also took office at a time when job losses were accelerating and the economy was hurtling toward the abyss, while Biden took office well after the abyss, as job losses were starting to ease. Obama faced massive economic headwinds, and while Biden didn’t inherit tailwinds—he inherited a pandemic that was continuing to spread—he did take the oath during a bit of an economic lull.

There were also consequential political differences between the past and the present. Obama had to push for stimulus after Congress had already bailed out the Wall Street banks that sparked the crisis in 2008, which, Pfeiffer quips, was like asking for money today after Congress had already given a trillion dollars to Covid itself. By contrast, Biden had the luxury of seeking relief after Congress had passed several popular bipartisan relief bills in 2020. Most importantly, Obama needed to round up 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, including the three Republicans and half a dozen fiscally conservative Democrats who refused to spend more than $800 billion. Biden engineered his bill to pass through a budget process called reconciliation, so he only needed only the 50 Democrats in the Senate.

The Recovery Act was by far the largest economic stimulus in history at the time, and it helped end the Great Recession and get the economy growing modestly again within a few months. But it was smaller than it needed to be to plug the rapidly expanding hole in the economy. Unemployment kept rising toward 10 percent, and the White House assumption that Congress would keep spending as long as people kept hurting turned out to be mistaken, as the deficit soared and the Beltway narrative echoed Republican demands for austerity. Biden was determined not to repeat that mistake, vowing to go “a hell of a lot bigger” to create more jobs and more economic activity. Even though a $15 minimum wage and a few other provisions got stripped out of the bill, he got the entire $1.9 trillion he wanted to pump into the economy, with only one House Democrat voting no.

“My fear was that Democrats would again self-limit the size of the package to appease the deficit hawks who sat around the ‘Morning Joe’ round table, and they just didn’t,” Pfeiffer says. “For all the talk about how to sell the bill, they learned the lesson that what matters most is the facts on the ground. There’s no good message for double-digit unemployment.”

That said, Biden himself believes that marketing matters. He said last week that he urged Obama to take a “victory lap” after signing the Recovery Act, but that Obama focused instead on his emergency plans to fix the housing market and the banking system as well as his longer-term effort to reform health care. On Tuesday, Biden kicked off his own “Help Is Here” tour with an event at a minority-owned flooring business outside Philadelphia, touting a rescue plan that will ramp up vaccine distribution, extend unemployment aid, dramatically expand tax credits for parents and low-income workers, bail out state and local governments, help schools reopen, subsidize rent and health insurance, and send most Americans $1,400 checks.

Vice President Kamala Harris pushed a similar message at a school for baristas in Las Vegas, emphasizing the importance of telling Americans what they’re entitled to receive from the stimulus. “It’s not selling it; it literally is letting people know their rights,” Harris said. “Think of it more as a public education campaign.”

Many of Biden’s aides served in the Obama White House, and they’re keenly aware that it’s politically counterproductive to let people know Washington is spending lots of money without letting them know the money is being spent on them. Obama dribbled out his stimulus tax cuts to most Americans through an inconspicuous withholding mechanism that few Americans noticed, a decision Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, has called “stupid.” Many Democrats are still irritated that the infrastructure projects in the Obama stimulus had signs touting “ARRA” or “TIGER” or other incomprehensible acronyms that ordinary people had no reason to connect to the stimulus, or Obama, or Democrats.

Most economists believe the Recovery Act saved or created millions of jobs, and its longer-term investments helped launch a clean energy revolution, digitize health care, and reinvigorate government-funded scientific research. But as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy accurately pointed out last week, the percentage of Americans who believed in 2010 that it had created any jobs was lower than the percentage of Americans who believed Elvis was alive.

It was the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who first articulated how deficit spending by the public sector can help revive an economy when the private sector slumps, creating a virtuous cycle in which families start spending again and businesses start hiring again. But while Keynes emphasized that any deficit spending is helpful, even hiring unemployed workers to dig holes and fill them back up again, Keynes didn’t have to worry about public opinion polling. Jared Bernstein, who was Biden’s chief economist in the Obama White House and is now a member of Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, recently told me that “the one thing they never taught in grad school was how to message Keynesian stimulus.”

Still, the Biden team believes the American Rescue Plan will be much easier to message than the Recovery Act, because it mostly just gives tons of money to families and hard-hit businesses like restaurants and airlines, while pouring cash into vaccines and other public health measures to help end the national nightmare. “Shots in arms and money in pockets,” the White House mantra in recent days, would make a decent bumper sticker.

The Obama stimulus was much tougher to explain; Jon Favreau, Obama’s former speechwriter, likes to joke that “the Recovery Act was divided into three parts” will be emblazoned on his tombstone. It’s actually something of a myth that the Obama White House never bothered to try to sell the Recovery Act. Obama did have a lot on his plate—he announced his foreclosure relief plan the day after he signed the stimulus into law—but visited plenty of stimulus projects, especially after Biden persuaded him to launch a “Recovery Summer” campaign in 2010. But the campaign flopped after two months of weak jobs data suggested the recovery was stalling. The most memorable Obama event turned out to be his visit to a solar manufacturer called Solyndra that later went bust. The White House published a report documenting the Recovery Act’s successes, from keeping 5 million people out of poverty to improving 42,000 miles of roads, but the only Obama stimulus commentary anyone remembers was his lament that supposedly “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects didn’t turn out to be so shovel-ready.

Ultimately, Pfeiffer says, it was impossible to brag about a jobs bill during a jobs crisis. Obama’s political team warned him not to accentuate the positive when people were in pain; nobody cared that the economy was less awful than it would’ve been without the Recovery Act.

“We tested that proposition in focus groups, and people would throw stuff at you,” Pfeiffer says. “I have an interest in saying that communications matter, but no amount of speeches or press events or messaging was going to change the reality on the ground.”

The other reality on the ground in February 2009 was political: The Republican minority was remarkably united in its message that the Recovery Act was a disaster on stilts, while the Democrats who dominated Washington produced a cacophony of kvetching about the stimulus being too big or small, too focused on the short term or long term, too full of pork or too stingy with this or that particular priority. The result was news coverage suggesting bipartisan agreement that the stimulus was a mess.

Again, the current situation is like a photographic negative of 2009. Now it’s the Democrats who are remarkably united in their positivity. Senator Bernie Sanders, Biden’s socialist rival in the Democratic primary, called his relief bill “the most significant piece of legislation to help working people in decades,” while Senator Joe Manchin, the most conservative Democratic senator, called it “what West Virginia needs to put this pandemic behind us once and for all.” Meanwhile, Republicans are flailing around for a coherent message of opposition, and even complaining to POLITICO about their inability to find one.

McConnell, who galvanized the opposition to the Obama stimulus as an un-Republican deficit-buster before Obama even took office, had a tougher task this year—partly because his caucus had already supported $4 trillion worth of Covid relief and $2 trillion worth of tax cuts under Trump without much discussion of deficits, partly because his party was already divided over the January 6 insurrection that had inspired seven GOP senators to vote for Trump’s impeachment and his own wife to resign as Trump’s Transportation secretary.

McConnell did manage to get his entire caucus to vote no on the stimulus, a task made easier by Biden’s decision to blow off a proposal by moderate Republicans for a much smaller bill, and he did reprise some of his 2009 messaging about a “purely partisan” and fiscally irresponsible “liberal spending spree.” But his main message was recognizably defensive, arguing that “Democrats inherited a turning tide” even before the stimulus passed, and that Biden shouldn’t get any credit for the upcoming good times because “the trillions we spent on rescue policies in 2020 have the economy prepped to come roaring back.”

Economically, he’s got a point. But Democrats also had a point in 2017 when they argued that Trump was inheriting an eight-year boom that had begun under Obama and had already reduced unemployment to historic lows. It didn’t resonate politically. Trump still got high marks from the public for managing the economy until the pandemic vaporized 20 million jobs, and he continued to get higher marks on the economy than any other issue afterward.

It’s just hard to convince the public that the party in power isn’t responsible for the state of the country—a problem Obama learned after inheriting the Great Recession from George W. Bush. Similarly, Trump tried last week to claim credit for the mass vaccinations happening on Biden’s watch in an oddly plaintive statement: “I hope everyone remembers when they’re getting the COVID-19 (often referred to as the China Virus) Vaccine, that if I wasn’t president, you wouldn’t be getting that beautiful ‘shot’ for 5 years, at best, and probably wouldn’t be getting it at all. I hope everyone remembers!” It’s true that the Trump administration was aggressive about funding vaccines, although it was much less adept at distributing them or any other aspects of the pandemic, but the former president probably wouldn’t have repeated his wish twice if he had any expectation that it would come true.

“The economy will probably take off, the vaccines will be available in the checkout aisle at T.J. Maxx, and that won’t be easy to turn against the Democrats,” says Fratto, the Republican operative. “Maybe they’ll find examples of stupid spending like golden toilet seats, they can say your money is being wasted in Chicago or Philadelphia or whatever. But it’ll be tough.”

It has been tough so far. Republicans have attacked the bill’s $350 billion in state and local aid as a “blue state bailout,” but while there’s a reasonable case to be made that states might get more than they absolutely need, there’s broad agreement among economists that helping governments avoid service cuts and tax hikes is good stimulus, and there’s nothing in the bill that favors blue states over red states. Republicans have also attacked provisions that were in previous stimulus bills they supported, like stimulus checks for prison inmates or increased funding for arts organizations, and complained that only 9 percent of the bill goes to fighting the pandemic, which is true only if you don’t count economic relief for a pandemic-battered nation as fighting the pandemic.

Some Republicans have argued that the rescue plan will actually overheat the economy, creating inflation that will boost the cost of gas and groceries. “Democrats are living in a fantasy land where debt doesn’t matter, spending has no consequences, and inflation is impossible,” said GOP senator Rick Scott. Republican predictions of runaway inflation in 2009 never came true, but the conservative economist Pethokoukis says that this time, they’re not necessarily unfounded. It’s not outlandish to think that pumping $6 trillion worth of federal funding into an economy that was only temporarily hobbled by a virus would create real estate bubbles, upward wage pressures and other signs of overheating once the virus is under control—especially since Biden is now hoping to add another $4 trillion in infrastructure spending.

The problem for Republicans, Pethokoukis says, is that it’s hard to see why ordinary voters would object to an overheated economy with upward wage pressures—which, in plain English, means they’re getting paid more and their retirement funds are going up. There would always be the danger of the Federal Reserve spoiling the party by raising interest rates, but until then, voters would probably enjoy the party of robust economic activity—and they might wonder why it happened under a political party that Republicans insisted was addicted to socialism.

“The bottom line is, Trump said if you elect me, you’ll get a super-recovery, and if you elect Biden, you’ll get a depression,” Pethokoukis says. “We’re looking at a super-recovery, not a depression.”

This helps explain why the most consistent Republican message about the Biden stimulus has been to change the subject to the dangers of “cancel culture” or the increased flow of migrants at the southern border. Ever since Trump rose to power, the Republican coalition has frayed on economic issues like trade and government spending that pit traditional corporate-friendly conservatives against populists who want to broaden the party’s appeal to the working class. But Republicans remain united on culture-war issues like political correctness, illegal immigration and the voting restriction bills they’re pushing in many states.

The bad news for Republicans is that Biden’s infrastructure bill could create similar problems for the party. Many GOP conservatives see infrastructure as a euphemism for big government, which is why Trump never got an infrastructure bill done and his numerous Infrastructure Weeks became a running joke, but public works are popular with the electorate. The good news for Republicans is that the country is still so polarized along culture-war lines, the congressional maps are so GOP-friendly, and midterm elections are so historically brutal for parties in power that it might not matter by the time November 2022 rolls around.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Virginia Democrats advance efforts to protect abortion, voting rights, marriage equality

Published

 on

 

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Democrats who control both chambers of the Virginia legislature are hoping to make good on promises made on the campaign trail, including becoming the first Southern state to expand constitutional protections for abortion access.

The House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced three proposed constitutional amendments Wednesday, including a measure to protect reproductive rights. Its members also discussed measures to repeal a now-defunct state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and ways to revise Virginia’s process to restore voting rights for people who served time for felony crimes.

“This meeting was an important next step considering the moment in history we find ourselves in,” Democratic Del. Cia Price, the committee chair, said during a news conference. “We have urgent threats to our freedoms that could impact constituents in all of the districts we serve.”

The at-times raucous meeting will pave the way for the House and Senate to take up the resolutions early next year after lawmakers tabled the measures last January. Democrats previously said the move was standard practice, given that amendments are typically introduced in odd-numbered years. But Republican Minority Leader Todd Gilbert said Wednesday the committee should not have delved into the amendments before next year’s legislative session. He said the resolutions, particularly the abortion amendment, need further vetting.

“No one who is still serving remembers it being done in this way ever,” Gilbert said after the meeting. “Certainly not for something this important. This is as big and weighty an issue as it gets.”

The Democrats’ legislative lineup comes after Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, to the dismay of voting-rights advocates, rolled back a process to restore people’s civil rights after they completed sentences for felonies. Virginia is the only state that permanently bans anyone convicted of a felony from voting unless a governor restores their rights.

“This amendment creates a process that is bounded by transparent rules and criteria that will apply to everybody — it’s not left to the discretion of a single individual,” Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, the patron of the voting rights resolution, which passed along party lines, said at the news conference.

Though Democrats have sparred with the governor over their legislative agenda, constitutional amendments put forth by lawmakers do not require his signature, allowing the Democrat-led House and Senate to bypass Youngkin’s blessing.

Instead, the General Assembly must pass proposed amendments twice in at least two years, with a legislative election sandwiched between each statehouse session. After that, the public can vote by referendum on the issues. The cumbersome process will likely hinge upon the success of all three amendments on Democrats’ ability to preserve their edge in the House and Senate, where they hold razor-thin majorities.

It’s not the first time lawmakers have attempted to champion the three amendments. Republicans in a House subcommittee killed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights in 2022, a year after the measure passed in a Democrat-led House. The same subcommittee also struck down legislation supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal an amendment from 2006 banning marriage equality.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers voted 16-5 in favor of legislation protecting same-sex marriage, with four Republicans supporting the resolution.

“To say the least, voters enacted this (amendment) in 2006, and we have had 100,000 voters a year become of voting age since then,” said Del. Mark Sickles, who sponsored the amendment as one of the first openly gay men serving in the General Assembly. “Many people have changed their opinions of this as the years have passed.”

A constitutional amendment protecting abortion previously passed the Senate in 2023 but died in a Republican-led House. On Wednesday, the amendment passed on party lines.

If successful, the resolution proposed by House Majority Leader Charniele Herring would be part of a growing trend of reproductive rights-related ballot questions given to voters. Since 2022, 18 questions have gone before voters across the U.S., and they have sided with abortion rights advocates 14 times.

The voters have approved constitutional amendments ensuring the right to abortion until fetal viability in nine states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Vermont. Voters also passed a right-to-abortion measure in Nevada in 2024, but it must be passed again in 2026 to be added to the state constitution.

As lawmakers debated the measure, roughly 18 members spoke. Mercedes Perkins, at 38 weeks pregnant, described the importance of women making decisions about their own bodies. Rhea Simon, another Virginia resident, anecdotally described how reproductive health care shaped her life.

Then all at once, more than 50 people lined up to speak against the abortion amendment.

“Let’s do the compassionate thing and care for mothers and all unborn children,” resident Sheila Furey said.

The audience gave a collective “Amen,” followed by a round of applause.

___

Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

___

Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Trump chooses anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump says he will nominate anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, putting him in charge of a massive agency that oversees everything from drug, vaccine and food safety to medical research and the social safety net programs Medicare and Medicaid.

“For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social site announcing the appointment. Kennedy, he said, would “Make America Great and Healthy Again!”

Kennedy, a former Democrat who ran as an independent in this year’s presidential race, abandoned his bid after striking a deal to give Trump his endorsement with a promise to have a role in health policy in the administration.

He and Trump have since become good friends, with Kennedy frequently receiving loud applause at Trump’s rallies.

The expected appointment was first reported by Politico Thursday.

A longtime vaccine skeptic, Kennedy is an attorney who has built a loyal following over several decades of people who admire his lawsuits against major pesticide and pharmaceutical companies. He has pushed for tighter regulations around the ingredients in foods.

With the Trump campaign, he worked to shore up support among young mothers in particular, with his message of making food healthier in the U.S., promising to model regulations imposed in Europe. In a nod to Trump’s original campaign slogan, he named the effort “Make America Healthy Again.”

It remains unclear how that will square with Trump’s history of deregulation of big industries, including food. Trump pushed for fewer inspections of the meat industry, for example.

Kennedy’s stance on vaccines has also made him a controversial figure among Democrats and some Republicans, raising question about his ability to get confirmed, even in a GOP-controlled Senate. Kennedy has espoused misinformation around the safety of vaccines, including pushing a totally discredited theory that childhood vaccines cause autism.

He also has said he would recommend removing fluoride from drinking water. The addition of the material has been cited as leading to improved dental health.

HHS has more than 80,000 employees across the country. It houses the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the National Institutes of Health.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine nonprofit group, Children’s Health Defense, currently has a lawsuit pending against a number of news organizations, among them The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy took leave from the group when he announced his run for president but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

__ Seitz reported from Washington.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

In Cyprus, Ukrainians learn how to dispose of landmines that kill and maim hundreds

Published

 on

 

NICOSIA, Cyprus (AP) — In a Cypriot National Guard camp, Ukrainians are being trained on how to identify, locate and dispose of landmines and other unexploded munitions that litter huge swaths of their country, killing and maiming hundreds of people, including children.

Analysts say Ukraine is among the countries that are the most affected by landmines and discarded explosives, as a result of Russia’s ongoing war.

According to U.N. figures, some 399 people have been killed and 915 wounded from landmines and other munitions since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, equal to the number of casualties reported from 2014-2021. More than 1 in 10 of those casualties have been children.

The economic impact is costing billions to the Ukrainian economy. Landmines and other munitions are preventing the sowing of 5 million hectares, or 10%, of the country’s agricultural land.

Cyprus stepped up to offer its facilities as part of the European Union’s Military Assistance Mission to Ukraine. So far, almost 100 Ukrainian armed forces personnel have taken part in three training cycles over the last two years, said Cyprus Foreign Ministry spokesperson Theodoros Gotsis.

“We are committed to continuing this support for as long as it takes,” Gotsis told the Associated Press, adding that the Cyprus government has covered the 250,000 euro ($262,600) training cost.

Cyprus opted to offer such training owing to its own landmine issues dating back five decades when the island nation was ethnically divided when Turkey invaded following a coup that sought union with Greece. The United Nations has removed some 27,000 landmines from a buffer zone that cuts across the island, but minefields remain on either side. The Cypriot government says it has disposed of all anti-personnel mines in line with its obligations under an international treaty that bans the use of such munitions.

In Cyprus, Ukrainians undergo rigorous theoretical and practical training over a five-week Basic Demining and Clearance course that includes instruction on distinguishing and safely handling landmines and other explosive munitions, such as rockets, 155 mm artillery shells, rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells.

Theoretical training uses inert munitions identical to the actual explosives.

Most of the course is comprised of hands-on training focusing on the on-site destruction of unexploded munitions using explosives, the chief training officer told the Associated Press. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to disclose his identity for security reasons.

“They’re trained on ordnance disposal using real explosives,” the officer said. “That will be the trainees’ primary task when they return.”

Cypriot officials said the Ukrainian trainees did not want to be either interviewed or photographed.

Defusing discarded munitions or landmines in areas where explosive charges can’t be used — for instance, near a hospital — is not part of this course because that’s the task of highly trained teams of disposal experts whose training can last as long as eight months, the officer said.

Trainees, divided into groups of eight, are taught how to operate metal detectors and other tools for detecting munitions like prodders — long, thin rods which are used to gently probe beneath the ground’s surface in search of landmines and other explosive ordnance.

Another tool is a feeler, a rod that’s used to detect booby-trapped munitions. There are many ways to booby-trap such munitions, unlike landmines which require direct pressure to detonate.

“Booby-trapped munitions are a widespread phenomenon in Ukraine,” the chief training officer explained.

Training, primarily conducted by experts from other European Union countries, takes place both in forested and urban areas at different army camps and follows strict safety protocols.

The short, intense training period keeps the Ukrainians focused.

“You see the interest they show during instruction: they ask questions, they want to know what mistakes they’ve made and the correct way of doing it,” the officer said.

Humanitarian data and analysis group ACAPS said in a Jan. 2024 report that 174,000 sq. kilometers (67,182 sq. miles) or nearly 29% of Ukraine’s territory needs to be surveyed for landmines and other explosive ordnance.

More than 10 million people are said to live in areas where demining action is needed.

Since 2022, Russian forces have used at least 13 types of anti-personnel mines, which target people. Russia never signed the 1997 Ottawa Convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines, but the use of such mines is nonetheless considered a violation of its obligations under international law.

Russia also uses 13 types of anti-tank mines.

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines said in its 2023 Landmine Monitor report that Ukrainian government forces may have also used antipersonnel landmines in contravention of the Mine Ban Treaty in and around the city of Izium during 2022, when the city was under Russian control.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version