NPP’s unexpected two-thirds victory leaves battered opposition struggling to regroup

NPP’s unexpected two-thirds victory leaves battered opposition struggling to regroup

• President Dissanayake to address newly elected MPs next week; plans visits to India and China in coming weeks
• Phenomenal support for NPP in Jaffna
• SJB drops from 54 to 40 seats
• UNP faces a tough task in taking the party to the grassroots

 

By Our Political Editor (Sunday Times)

For the first time in Sri Lanka’s political history, a single party went beyond a two-thirds vote at Thursday’s parliamentary elections.

“We did not expect this much,” an overjoyed National People’s Power General Secretary, Dr Nihal Abeysinghe, told the Sunday Times. “In my remarks last week, I kept it to a reasonable margin, around 120 seats,” he said, referring to his comments in these columns. People have imposed even greater confidence in us as our sweeping victory shows, he pointed out.

NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, however, told election rallies he hoped for a two-thirds majority. Even he did not expect this overwhelming result, a colleague said. The President expressed the view to his colleagues that there should be a strong, principled government that will meet the aspirations of the people. 

He alluded to the two-thirds majority enjoyed by the Mahinda Rajapaksa government in 2010. Five years thereafter, they lost the election. Similarly, in 2020, Gotabaya Rajapaksa received two-thirds of the vote. Just two and half years later, their strength dissipated, and he had to go home. A strong power base does not mean the heads that fill Parliament. If that was so, we would have had such governments in 2010 and 2020. What is needed is a strong government that will meet the aspirations of the people. He said the new government should reciprocate the trust placed by the vast number of voters.

He won the presidential election of September 21 with 42% or 5,740,179 votes. It was from a voter turnout of 79% and thus raised criticism from the opposition of being a ‘minority president.’ At Thursday’s parliamentary elections, with a lower voter turnout of 68.93%, the NPP polled 6.8 million votes, clearly an endorsement of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s leadership. It is clear, despite the low turnout, those backing fragmented opposition parties have also voted NPP.

A comparison between the presidential and parliamentary elections revealed an interesting trend. Support for the NPP appears unprecedented historically. In marked contrast, it was just the opposite with the Samagi Jana Balawegaya led by Sajith Premadasa and the New Democratic Front (DNF) led by Ranil Wickremesinghe. The voter swings are reflected in most electoral districts. An example: in the Moneragala polling division, the NPP increased its votes by 63% from 37.9% during the presidential election. Similarly, in Ambalangoda, votes for the NPP increased from 53% in the presidential election to 70% in Thursday’s elections. The NPP won the electoral divisions of Jaffna, Point Pedro and Nallur. Another factor weighing in heavily in favour of the historic NPP victory is the lack of public interest in the elections. That led to many backing opposition parties from keeping away from polling stations. It also had the opposite effect on NPP supporters. The new Parliament will have more than 21 female MPs.

Natonal-level preferential vote record breaker Vijitha Herath casting his ballots at a Gampaha school in Thursday's general elections

Records tumble

There were also other records that tumbled. Voting in Jaffna showed a phenomenal spike in the NPP’s popularity. From a mere 7% during the presidential election, it shot up to 25%. This development is historically significant. Two NPP stalwarts were being congratulated for their efforts by the party hierarchy. The duo are one-time Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna parliamentarian Bimal Ratnayake and Ramalingam Chandrasekaran, former JVP activist from the plantation sector. The duo had taken up residence in Jaffna and carried out the NPP campaign. President Dissanayake drove to Jaffna to address meetings and did not take a helicopter offered to him saying his mission was party work. Internecine rivalries amongst traditional Tamil political parties have also helped in their efforts.

An upset in the results was the defeat of Abraham Sumanthiran, deputy leader of the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), and a front-runner in Tamil politics in recent years. In marked contrast, the SJB, the closest rival to the NPP, recorded a severe decline in its performance from 33% (during the presidential election) to a mere 5%. At the last parliamentary elections, the NPP received only 853 votes in the Jaffna polling division. One of the steps the NPP adopted this time was to set up a permanent party office. It won the district with 80,830 votes. Ratnayake, who is now being tipped for a ministerial position, held regular press briefings and reached out to local professionals and trade union activists. He was very vocal about the conduct of Tamil politicians at meetings he addressed. The youth presence at these meetings was noteworthy.

Another record was broken by Minister Vijitha Herath who polled the highest number of preferential votes of 716,715 from the Gampaha district. Whilst this is a record high, Prime Minister Harini Amerasuriya, received 659,289 preferential votes from the Colombo District. She shattered the record set in the 2020 parliamentary elections by onetime president Mahinda Rajapaksa. He polled 527,364 preference votes, breaking the record set by President Ranil Wickremesinghe who won 500,566 preference votes in the 2015 parliamentary elections. Others who won with a record number of preferences were Nalinda Indatissa (Kalutara district) 371,640, Namal Karunaratne (Kurunegala district), 356,969 and K.D. Lalkantha (Kandy district) 316,915 preference votes.

It was the ITAK and the All-Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) that gained from the losses suffered by the SJB. SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem secured his seat from the Kandy district with a marginal increase in his preferential vote but his colleague from the SJB, Abdul Haleem, lost Hakeem won marginally by 103 votes over Chamindrani Kiriella who received 30,780 votes. The SJB which had garnered 44% of the votes in the Wanni during the presidential election saw it drop to 8%. In Digamadulla (Ampara), the SJB which had won 47% of the votes dropped to 9%. In Ratnapura, the SJB gained 23 points—an increase from 39% to 62%. The number of seats held by the SJB in Parliament also dropped to 40. In the last Parliament, it had 54 MPs.

Despite the NPP’s gains, there are other noteworthy factors that had to be reckoned with. It gained 61 percent of the 17.1 million votes, some 30% have not cast their votes at Thursday’s parliamentary election. This amounts to 5.3 million of the votes. In the Colombo district, more than half a million voters did not vote whilst in the Kalutara district the number was more than 350,000. There was an evident lack of interest in the election and the opposition parties were also cash-strapped for their campaigns. Other than that, there were indications yesterday that SJB leader Sajith Premadasa may face a challenge to his leadership. This is because his leadership has gone through a presidential election and two parliamentary elections with no success. Party insiders have been speaking about a person making decisions on behalf of the party and the leader.

A major controversy with this person broke out on Friday night outside the D.S. Senananayke Maha Vidyalaya counting centre in Borella. Senior SJBers allege that one of their candidates had asked for a recount of preferential votes after it was felt that he was trailing behind by a small number of votes. This was from a candidate from his own grouping, Another from the same party had objected. The outsider is alleged to have asked the person raising objections to withdraw his claim saying they were on the instructions of the leader. This, it transpired later, was not the correct position. The outsider had promised that he would be made the main candidate at a local poll and even considered for Mayoralty. He, however, had not agreed and a group had ensured that the outsider left the area. This was after they raised loud cries.

Beyond the countrywide euphoria over the NPP’s record victory, the nation faces a very serious challenge too. The country must be run with untested amateurs and a competency deficit. Both these factors have surfaced in some areas after the presidential election. As against this, it is highly creditable that there have been minimal complaints of abuse of state property. It is also creditable that the NPP did not use ethnic or religious slogans to polarize the country, something that is a new phenomenon.

On the night of the elections, SJB leader Premadasa turned up at party headquarters in Kotte (near the turn-off to Mission Road) to give a pep talk to volunteers who had gathered to monitor the counting centres through telephones. They had been assigned to different districts. Among those who had gathered were SJB General Secretary Ranjit Madduma Bandara, onetime minister Dullas Allahapperuma and Eran Wickremeratne. When the pep talk was over, Premadasa withdrew saying he wanted to rest and return the next day. As the night grew, the group that were making phone calls were receiving reports that the goings on at the counting centres were not very encouraging. Some withdrew from the counting centres.  Premadasa did not return to the office as assured.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake speaking to an election official while casting 

his ballot at Thursday's general elections

For the first time, Premadasa lost the Colombo Central polling division to the National People’s Power. Also lost was another traditional stronghold – Colombo North. There, the NPP garnered 33,285 votes or 56.55% of the 64,890 votes cast. The SJB received only 18,883 votes. The NPP polled 39,160 or 51.47 % of the 83,617 votes polled in Colombo Central. The SJB received 27,347 votes or 35.94%. The NPP also won the Colombo district for the first time polling 788,636 votes while the SJB polled only 208,249. The margin here was 580,387. One-time Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne lost the Kalutara electoral district by a margin of just over 130 preferential votes to Rohitha Abeygunawardena (NDF).

It is only natural that the opposition parties will be under a microscope over their lapses and failures. A snap election, no doubt, caught them by surprise and in a state of unpreparedness. The victory was almost entirely due to the popularity of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The 2020 parliamentary elections came almost a year after Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected to office as President. Hence, the opposition parties had time to prepare,

The NPP’s remarkable victory has raised serious questions about the future of major political parties in Sri Lankan politics. More so with the United National Party (UNP), one of the oldest that had led governments over the years. For a few years now, the party’s grassroots-level organisations have been in tatters with little or no strong presence at the district level. This is a vacuum that was filled by the NPP with an extensive organizational network. For those discerning enough, this was evident for several months before the presidential election. Housewives were mustered in large numbers for political rallies. A broad network from the villages to the party’s headquarters in Pelawatte in Battaramulla was established. The question that arises is whether the UNP machinery at the grassroots level could be effectively established before another parliamentary election, possibly in the next five years.

The answer seems to be negative since a battered party, with no funds even for an election campaign, would not have the capacity to build from the village level again.

Where are the funds and how do they rope in supporters? Ironic enough, the party’s name has been revived in the new Parliament by the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC) leader, Arumugam Thondaman. He won the Nuwara Eliya district on the UNP ticket and will remain the only MP of the grand old party in the new Parliament. It is not only the UNP that has had its grassroots-level organisations wrecked, but also the SJB. For it too, building a strong party network in the countryside becomes inevitable. Thus, both for the UNP and the SJB the task is uphill, for the National People’s Power has an infrastructure which is expanding further by placing greater control through its MPs. The opinion at the mid-level on both sides—the UNP and the SJB—is an inevitable peace plan where they could merge under an entirely new leadership. However, as one senior UNP member pointed out, “It is easier for us to build bridges with the NPP than getting together with the SJB.” Another asked, “Who will bell the cat surpassing all the odds that are against?”

Battered SLPP

Another party that had a bad beating is the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), the party founded by Basil Rajapaksa and led by his brother and twice president, Mahinda Rajapaksa. During the last stages of the election campaign, its All-Island Organiser, Namal Rajapaksa, was forced to make from election platforms a pathetic plea to voters—at least give us a vote on grounds of sympathy or apita anukampa karala chandayakwath denna. The party won two seats and received a national list slot to make their representation in Parliament to three. Thus, young Rajapaksa who is first on the national list of the SLPP will be an MP in this Parliament.

Woes for the SLPP began just ahead of the presidential election when the party chose to field its own candidate. It was earlier expected that former president, Ranil Wickremesinghe would be the candidate albeit the common candidate of a cluster of opposition parties. When it did not materialise, some of the SLPP cabinet of ministers chose not to contest the parliamentary election. That included those against whom there were accusations of bribery and corruption. The other ministers who contested and lost their seats were Kanchana Wijesekera (Matara district), Ramesh Pathirana (Galle district), Nimal Siripala de Silva (Badulla district), Susil Premjayantha (Colombo district), Pavithra Wanniaratchchi (Ratnapura district), Harin Fernando (Badulla district), Manusha Nanayakkara (Galle district), Mano Ganesan (Colombo district), Hirunika Premachandra (Colombo district) and Vidura Wickremanayake (Colombo district).

 

Some SLPP, UNP and opposition party stalwarts also suffered losses. They included Nipuna Ranawaka (Matara district), Sashindra Rajapaksa (Moneragala district), Ajith Rajapaksa (Matara district), Pramitha Bandara (Matale district), Sanjeeva Edirimanne (Kaalutara district), Rohana Dissanayake (Matale district), Dilum Amunugama (Kandy district), Roshan Ranasinghe (Anuradhapura district), Sarath Weerasekera (Colombo district), Duminda Dissanayake (Anuradhapura), Ranjith Siyambalapitiya (Kegalle district), Tharaka Balasuriya (Kegalle district), Johnston Fernando (Kurunegala district), Anura Priyadarshana Yapa (Kurunegala district), Shantha Bandara (Kurunegala district), T.B. Herath (Kurunegala district), Nimal Lanza (Gampaha district), Sagala Ratnayake (Colombo district), Anurudhika Fernando (Gampaha district), Ranjan Ramanayake (Gampaha district), Ruwan Wijewardene (Gampaha district), Udaya Gammanpila (Colombo district) and Dilith Jayaweera (Gampaha district).

A former minister and leader of the Eelam People’s Democratic Front (EPDP), Douglas Devananda, lost his seat in the north. Other losers in the north were Dharmalingam Siddharthan and Selvarajah Gajendran. In the east, Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, better known by his nom-de guerre Pillayan, also lost.

Thirteen political parties now have representation in Parliament after Thursday’s elections. They are the National People’s Power (141 seats with 18 national list slots) 159 seats, Samagi Jana Balavegaya  SJB- (35 seats with 5 national list slots) 40 seats, Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi  ITAK (7 seats with one national list slot) 8 seats, New Democratic Front (NDF) (3 seats with 2 national list slots) 5 seats, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) (2 seats with one national list slot) 3 seats, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) (2 seats with 1 national list slot) 3 seats, Sarvajana Balaya (SB) 1 seat, United National Party (UNP) 1 seat, Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA) 1 seat, All Ceylon Tamil Congress 1 seat, All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) 1 seat, Jaffna-Independent Group 17 (Ind 17-10) 1 seat and Sri Lanka Labour Party (SLLP) 1 seat.

The exit of many seasoned parliamentarians and the induction of mostly new faces make clear that opposition to the NPP government will be one outside Parliament. However, in the light of their being fragmented, such a collective is not likely in the immediate future. It may perhaps hinge on the emergence of a political issue to unite them.

President to address new MPs

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has his work cut out for the coming week. He is due to swear in a cabinet of ministers, address a meeting of the government parliamentary group and set in motion the priorities for his government. The new parliamentarians have been asked to come to Colombo and he is due to address them. Retired Major General Aruna Jayasekra is to be sworn in as the Minister of State for Defence. A one-time officer of the Gemunu Watch, he was the convenor of the NPP-backed retired military officer’s collective. Harshana Nanayakkara, a lawyer, is likely to be the new Speaker of Parliament.

Now that his party has won a two-thirds majority, the choice before President Dissanayake is whether to work towards a new Constitution or introduce amendments or first enforce amendments. The latter is to initially enforce an NPP pledge to withdraw all privileges enjoyed by former presidents. This will not only entail amendments to the constitution but also the rescinding of relevant legislation. Either way, the setting up of a Constituent Assembly or a similar body for drafting a constitution is under consideration. A pledge for a new constitution is to be reiterated by President Dissanayake when he makes his government’s first policy statement on Thursday.

Though he repeatedly gave indications of possible arrests of suspects in the stalled cases, now under investigation again, it did not materialise. Police teams including those from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) are expected to make such arrests in the coming weeks in respect of some controversial cases which were allegedly shelved by previous administrations.

On the external front, President Dissanayake has told his confidants that one of his priorities would be a visit to India. It is expected to take place either in the first or the second week of December. An invitation from Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, to visit India was handed over to him. This was when India’s External Affairs Minister, Subramaniam Jaishanker, visited Colombo shortly after the presidential election. Thereafter, he has said, that he planned to visit China for which he has also received an invitation from President Xi Jinping. This was handed over by the Chinese Ambassador, Qi Zhenhong.

With a historic number of seats for his party, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake now has the mandate to fulfil the pledges he made to the public on key issues. They now wait for him to carry out the task. For the opposition parties, it is time to look at their debacles or failures during both the presidential and parliamentary elections.⍐

India – An Unlikely Peace Broker Between Russia and Ukraine

 

OPINION: India – An Unlikely Peace Broker Between Russia and Ukraine

Why India is not a fence sitter and has plainly chosen to side with Russia for pragmatic reasons.

By Anita Inder Singh November 17, 2024

Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrive for a family photo during the
BRICS summit in Kazan on Oct. 23, 2024. MAXIM SHIPENKOV / POOL / AFP

While US President Elect Donald Trump claims that his administration will end the Russia-Ukraine war in short order, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s hope that India can influence Russia and reduce its capacity to wage war against Ukraine by stopping its huge purchases of cheap Russian oil is either a case of wishful thinking or diplomatic rhetoric.

Zelensky has qualified that hope by voicing displeasure and disappointment with India’s abstention from UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, asserting that India cannot be neutral between aggressor and victim. Apparently, he realizes that his hope is at odds with India’s national interest because India intends to continue buying large quantities of Russian oil which he says have helped Russia to shore up its war economy.

Since Russia mounted its illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022, India has established itself as one of Russia’s two largest oil buyers and has much to gain from keeping on good terms with Russia.

India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar explained on Aug. 17, 2022 that in a country with a GDP of $2,000 per capita (the latest World Bank figure is $2,485) people could not afford higher energy prices. “It is my obligation… my moral duty to ensure that I get them the best deal I can,” he said. 

The significant reality is that India has not bought Russian crude on the cheap. India paid $80 per barrel, about 30 percent more than the G7’s price cap, in 2023. It has paid Russia for oil in US dollars, UAE dirham and, reluctantly, even in yuan, the currency of China, its Asian archrival and territorial challenger. Last July, India overtook China as  Russia’s largest oil customer.

The reason? The Russia-India tie is mutually advantageous. Russia has been India’s largest arms retailer for more than half a century. But China is Russia’s top strategic and economic priority.

During his official trip to Russia last July, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed Russia as India’s “all weather friend” and “trusted ally.” The unanswered question is when and how Russia became such a close partner, especially when New Delhi often evokes its strategic autonomy and subscribes to the rules-based order, which is an American construct.

Add to that Moscow’s recent threats of nuclear strikes on any country helping Ukraine – and many in India and the West might wonder why ‘strategically autonomous’ New Delhi praised a warmongering Russia as an ally, which entails binding commitments. The biggest surprise was that India joined Russia in referring to the conflict “around Ukraine” – rather than in Ukraine – in the statement issued after the Modi-Putin meeting.

Like China, India has continually abstained from condemning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, while insisting that it is not neutral but on the side of peace (a phrase also used often by China). During his official visit to Kyiv in August, Modi told Zelensky that India supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity. But in June, India rejected the plan presented by Zelensky at his Swiss peace summit, which called for the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Zelensky asked several countries, including India, to host a second peace summit, with a caveat: Ukraine would not hold a peace summit in a country that had not signed its Swiss communique. And he is clear that neutrality means “that you’re with Russia.” That implies that despite his respect for a large country like India and its prime minister, Zelensky doesn’t entertain high expectations for Indian peacemaking between Russia and Ukraine.

Zelensky’s skepticism is realistic. As president of the G20 in 2023, India staged a diplomatic coup by preventing the group from condemning Russia in its final declaration. The US and its European allies accepted India’s stance and signed the declaration. India’s position was a contrast to that of Indonesia as president of the G20 in 2022, when its statement in Jakarta lambasted, ‘in strongest terms’, Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. 

Moreover, while claiming to be a global peace facilitator, India has yet to present a peace plan to end the war in Ukraine. New Delhi insists that Russia and Ukraine “will have to negotiate” but cannot prevail upon them to do that.

Meanwhile, India, like China, is giving Russia critical dual technology, which can be used for civilian and military purposes. Recently, the Financial Times and Bloomberg reported that the components sent by India to Russia include parts for telecommunications and other electronic goods, making them subject to Western export controls.

Dual technology exports by India to Russia have angered the US, EU and Japan. Last November, the Bengaluru-based Si2 Microsystems came under the sanctions scanner for its alleged role in supplying dual-use technology to Moscow. Innovio Ventures also features in reports as the supplier of at least $4.9 million worth of electronic goods, including drones, to Russia. The US has imposed sanctions on more than 19 Indian companies for sustaining Russia’s war in Ukraine. New Delhi has responded that the Indian entities did not violate domestic laws but that it would “sensitize Indian companies to applicable export control provisions.”

At the very least, Putin will only agree to negotiate if Ukraine makes significant territorial concessions to Russia. That makes India’s talk of supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the UN Charter meaningless, especially since post-Soviet Russia itself recognized Ukraine’s statehood in 1991, but is now intent on making a land grab. Dependent on Russia for military and oil supplies, New Delhi lacks real clout over Moscow. Given Russia’s longstanding plan to extinguish Ukraine, any Indian help in peacemaking remains on an infinite horizon. 

Anita Inder Singh is a Founding Professor of the Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution in New Delhi and has been a Fellow at the International Forum for Democratic Studies in Washington, DC. She has taught international relations at the graduate level at Oxford and the London School of Economics and is currently writing a book on the US and Asia. She has also published widely (in nine countries) on nationalism and the International Relations of Europe and Asia. More of her work may be viewed at www.anitaindersingh.com

The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.⍐

Biden approves Ukraine’s use of long-range U.S. weapons inside Russia,reversing policy

Biden approves Ukraine’s use of long-range 

U.S. weapons inside Russia,reversing policy

The Biden administration will allow Kyiv limited use of ATACMS to strike enemy positions in Russia, according to senior

U.S. soldiers conduct live-fire testing of early versions of the Army Tactical Missile
System in December 2021 at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
(John Hamilton/U.S. Army/AP)

By Ellen Nakashima

, 

Michael Birnbaum

, 

John Hudson

 and 

Alex Horton

November 17, 2024 at 1:12 p.m. EST

President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use a powerful American long-range weapon for limited strikes inside Russia in response to North Korea’s deployment of thousands of troops to aid Moscow’s war effort, according to two senior U.S. officials.

The easing of restrictions on allowing Kyiv to use the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, to hit targets inside Russia is a significant reversal in U.S. policy and comes as some 10,000 elite North Korean troops have been sent to Kursk, a region of Russia along Ukraine’s northern border, to help Moscow’s forces retake territory gained by Ukraine.

The Biden administration fears that more North Korean special forces units could follow in support of this effort.

The move precedes by two months the return to the White House of President-elect Donald Trump, who has signaled he intends to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, though without offering details of how he will do so.

One U.S. official said the move is in part aimed at deterring Pyongyang from sending more troops. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un must understand that the initial deployment has been a “costly” mistake, said the official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

🌎

The White House wants to put Ukraine in the best possible place ahead of peace talks that the new U.S. president is expected to spearhead early in his term, U.S. officials said.

The initial Ukrainian effort is expected to focus on and around the Kursk region, though it could expand, according to the official and another person familiar with the matter.

The White House and Pentagon declined to comment. Ukraine’s presidential office declined to comment.

Until recently, the Biden administration was steadfastly opposed to Ukraine firing ATACMS into Russian territory, warning that the measure could lead to escalation by the Kremlin that was out of proportion to its battlefield benefits.

ATACMS — pronounced “attack-ems” — is a supersonic guided missile system that can be fitted with either cluster munitions or conventional warheads, with a maximum range of about 190 miles. Ukraine for months has sought permission to use the powerful missiles against Russian territory, arguing that the weapons would enable its strapped forces to strike deep in the country and hit targets that would degrade the Kremlin’s war machine.

The arrival of the North Koreans in the Kursk region in October, where Ukraine launched a surprise offensive in August, was seen as a major escalation by the West and spurred an intense effort inside the Biden administration and with allies on how to respond.

The White House wants to put Ukraine in the best possible place ahead of peace talks that the new U.S. president is expected to spearhead early in his term, U.S. officials said. Even before the election, Biden had committed to surging aid to Ukraine in an effort to cement his legacy on his way out of office.

“President Biden has committed to making sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20th,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday, where he was meeting with European counterparts to discuss how to support Ukraine in the wake of the Trump win.

A second U.S. official said that Biden’s approval of ATACMS “is going to have a very specific and limited effect” on the battlefield, designed to limit concerns about escalation.

“If news of the policy shift is true,” said Michael Kofman, a Russian and Ukrainian military expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “then it could be of operational benefit to Ukraine, enabling them to better defend and hold on to the territory they currently occupy in Kursk and help offset the benefit that Russia enjoys from employing North Korean forces in this specific part of the front.”

Previous steps framed as limited have cracked the door to wider forms of military assistance over the course of the nearly three-year war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is “testing the West, NATO, and even South Korea, observing their response to North Korean forces joining his campaign,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr  Zelensky said on X late last month. “If the response is weak, we should expect the numbers of foreign soldiers on our soil to increase.”

Russia’s capture of eastern Ukrainian territory has accelerated, buoying spirits inside the Kremlin, whose leaders now feel they have the advantage in a war that is no longer a stalemate.

The authorization follows months of resistance by the Biden administration about allowing Ukraine to use the ATACMS to hit targets within Russia. Senior U.S. officials have repeatedly expressed private concern that Russia could retaliate by escalating inside Ukraine and around the world. In denying Kyiv’s pleas to be able to fire ATACMS inside Russia, administration officials have publicly said that the use of the weapon would have marginal utility on the battlefield.

Pentagon officials, who were by far the most skeptical voice inside the administration, have argued that the benefits of allowing strikes in Russia would be limited because the Kremlin, anticipating a potential easing of the restraint, earlier this year pulled most of its warplanes and other assets deeper into Russia and out of range.

As of September, 90 percent of the Russian aircraft launching glide bombs into Ukraine were flying from airfields outside ATACMS range, Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said at the time.

The policy move comes at a time of heightened political sensitivity as Biden seeks to alter Ukraine’s fortunes before Trump takes office, and as North Korean troops have bolstered Russia’s advantage on the battlefield.

Ukraine’s control of Russian territory has taken on intense significance as both sides scramble for advantage ahead of potential talks. 

People close to the Kremlin say that Putin is unwilling to start any negotiations while Ukrainians are on Russian soil. The Biden administration is focused on helping Kyiv preserve its bargaining leverage there as long as possible.

U.S. and Ukrainian officials believe that the presence of North Korean troops will free Russian forces to focus on gaining ground elsewhere as well as push the front lines forward in Kursk, where Ukraine captured territory in August, providing a morale boost to Ukrainians, who have been sapped by nearly three years of war. Pyongyang’s involvement has rattled Washington and its allies, who are wary of the assistance Putin might offer Kim in return.

At a summit of Asia Pacific leaders in Peru on Friday, Biden met with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol. In a statement, the three leaders said they “strongly condemn” North Korea’s troop deployment to Russia to “dangerously expand Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.”

The trio also noted the deepening military cooperation between the two countries, calling the supply of munitions and ballistic missiles “particularly egregious” given Russia’s status as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

U.S. officials have said that their concerns about Russian escalation in response to Western military aid have diminished over time as one weapons system after another has been provided to Ukraine without significant retaliation in response. Ukraine is already using U.S. equipment inside Kursk to attack Russia.

But Putin has been explicit that he considers the use of ATACMS a red line. In September, he declared that a strike by the missiles into Russian territory, which would probably involve U.S. targeting assistance, “changes the very essence, the nature of the conflict,” warning that his country would retaliate.

Later that month, he revised Russia’s nuclear doctrine in what was interpreted as a veiled threat against the use of U.S.-provided long-range weapons on Russian soil.

Administration officials who have previously been skeptical of allowing Ukraine to use U.S. long-range weapons for strikes in Russia have said that given the limited number of the advanced missiles, the blowback may not be worth the potential battlefield advantage. But with North Korea’s increasing involvement in the conflict, the U.S. calculus appears to have shifted.

Officials characterized the decision as a limited evolution rather than a new chapter in the war.

The authorization for the use of ATACMS on targets within Russian territory follows repeated requests by Ukraine. Early this year, Kyiv asked Washington to provide long-range ATACMS and in August requested that its forces be allowed to use them in Kursk.

“We have adapted and adjusted to the needs of Ukraine as the battlefield changes, as what Russia is doing changes, as new elements are introduced, for example, the North Korean forces,” Blinken said during the visit to Brussels on Wednesday.

“I can tell you that we will continue to adapt and adjust again, to make sure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position to deal with this aggression,” Blinken said. He declined to comment on specifics about the steps the Biden administration was taking to respond to the North Korean troops.

If North Korean soldiers “do deploy to fight against Ukraine, they’re fair game. They’re fair targets,” White House spokesman John Kirby said last month, warning that anyone fighting Ukrainian forces would face retaliation from Kyiv. “The Ukrainian military will defend themselves against North Korean soldiers the same way they’re defending themselves against Russian soldiers.”

Trump is expected to be far more skeptical of U.S. aid for Ukraine than Biden has been, and he has expressed eagerness to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv. Putin and Trump spoke in a call after the election, according to five people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive diplomatic exchange. In that call, several people said, Trump warned the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine and said he wanted to discuss the resolution of the war soon.

The Kremlin denied that the call took place.

Biden, though he has authorized tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, has been reluctant to grant Kyiv advanced U.S. weapons. He hesitated about sending the Patriot air defense system, then relented. A similar policy evolution saw the U.S. initially refuse to give Ukraine U.S.-made Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets.

The White House in May reversed a broad ban on Ukraine using U.S. military assistance to strike within Russia, after the Kremlin took advantage of the restriction by concentrating its forces in border regions and attacking across the frontier with relative impunity.

When Biden finally authorized the longer-range ATACMS earlier this year, he limited their use to within Ukraine’s own territory, enabling them to strike Russian forces on the Crimean Peninsula but not to hit within Russia itself.

The White House had maintained its ban on ATACMS strikes in Russia in part because of concerns that Russia would respond with force against U.S. and allies’ interests elsewhere. That could include the use of even more devastating weapons inside Ukraine, an increase in sabotage attacks in Europe and the United States, or intensified support for Iran and for the Houthi rebels in Yemen who have snarled global shipping, two other senior administration officials said in September.

Though this policy reversal gives Kyiv a significant new tool, Biden administration officials note that Ukraine has very limited stocks of ATACMS. Russia has shown that it has a significant shoot-down capability, and the Pentagon, whose own missile supply is dwindling, says it does not have many more to give without affecting U.S. readiness.

Defenders of Biden’s approach say he has been managing risks of escalation amid periods in which U.S. intelligence assessments have offered real warnings about the possibility of Putin using a nuclear weapon against Ukraine.

But the halting provision of advanced weapons and other cautious policies have caused frustration in Kyiv, Ukrainian officials have said. When troops finally receive the weapons or are freed to use them, the military returns are often diminished because conditions on the battlefield have changed, leading to preventable casualties and setbacks, according to soldiers and commanders on the ground.⍐

Siobhán O’Grady in Kyiv; Matt Viser in Lima, Peru; and Michelle Ye Hee Lee in Seoul contributed to this report.

Global Times Cartoon

 

India welcomes Sri Lanka president mandate, reiterates invitation

 

JVP now has a chance to rewrite history, says Tilvin Silva

Tilvin Silva, general secretary of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP or People’s Liberation Front) of Sri Lanka, is seen at the party’s headquarters in Colombo on November 15, 2024,
after the party-led alliance secured a landslide win in the island nation’s parliamentary elections.   | Photo Credit: Meera Srinivasan

JVP now has a chance to rewrite history, says Tilvin Silva

Even those who were sceptical of us earlier began seeing that we were very committed to rebuilding the country, its political culture and economy, says party general secretary; the new government will work on the basis of development, democracy, and social change.

The Hindu (Kozhikode)16 Nov 2024 Meera Srinivasan

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna [JVP or People’s Liberation Front], which leads Sri Lanka’s ruling National People’s Power [NPP], could not have risen to power without widening its appeal and building a mass support base over the last few years, and the current political moment affords the party a chance to rewrite its history, general secretary Tilvin Silva said.

“When you want to obtain power, you need a mass support base,” he said on Friday, just as the NPP’s resounding win in the November 14 general elections became evident. Speaking to The Hindu at the party’s headquarters in Battaramulla near Colombo, Mr. Silva called the election win “a huge achievement”. “In particular, the victory in Jaffna and in the upcountry area, where we were able to defeat deeply entrenched traditional parties and political families. This gives us a real chance to build a united country,” he said, referring to the JVP’s historic win in the Tamil majority northern district.

The party that once vehemently opposed Tamils’ political rights won three seats in Jaffna, outdoing traditional Tamil parties that were the community’s main voice in national politics. In Nuwara Eliya district, in the central hill country that is home to Sri Lanka’s famed tea estates and Malaiyaha Tamils who toil in them, the NPP won five seats and nearly 42% of the vote share.

Barely two months after Anura Kumara Dissanayake was elected President, the NPP fought Thursday’s election knowing it would win. “Even those who were sceptical of us earlier began seeing that we were very committed to rebuilding the country, its political culture and economy,” Mr. Silva said.

“It was not [our] action, but a reaction from our end. If the [state’s] repression was armed, so was [our] response.”

Broadening the base

“We began appealing to more people just in the last one and a half months.” However, the NPP did not project a two third majority, which is hard to obtain in Sri Lanka’s proportional representation system. On election day, Mr. Dissanayake said. 

He expected “strong representation” in parliament, and that two thirds would not be necessary.

Mr. Silva told local media on Friday: “We did not ask for a two thirds majority. The public believed in us and gave us this power. Our responsibility is to carefully use this power and to trust.”

Set up in 2019, the NPP is a broad social coalition rather than a conventional electoral alliance of different parties. It identifies as a “political movement”, comprising 21 diverse groups, including political parties, youth and women. Safeguard their men’s organisations, trade unions and civil society networks. The JVP remains its chief constituent, making up its political core. All the same, party general secretary Mr. Silva did not run in the elections, deciding to keep the party and government separate.

“The main problem in our country was the political culture. The foundation of the grave economic crisis we suffered was this very political culture,” he said, referring to political parties and groups “fighting bitterly” in the past for state resources, vehicles, “to enrich their own families”.

“If we want to defeat that culture, we felt it was important to keep that distinction between the party and the government.” On the relationship among the party’s politburo, the NPP, and the government, he said: “It’s not as if we’re different political groups taking different decisions. We work as one unit [on policy matters].”

Past vs. present

The JVP has seen considerable shifts in the last five decades. The party with Marxist Leninist origins led two armed insurrections — in 1971 and in 1987-89. Its ideological emphasis changed from Marxism and redistributive justice in the 1970s to Sinhala chauvinism in the 1980s, when it resisted power sharing with the Tamils.

However, Mr. Silva contended that the party’s history needed to be retold with context. “There is a wrong perception because our history was written by those who defeated us, the victors. Our path was not willingly chosen, it was forced upon us.” Alluding to the allegations of brutal violence facing the JVP, he added: “It was not [our] action, but a reaction from our end. If the [state’s] repression was armed, so was [our] response.”

In his view, the current political moment in Sri Lanka has opened up space to rewrite the story of not just the party, but also of the country, “without characterising some as terrorists who took up arms for no reason”. “But we want to tell this story not with words, but with our action. The present context gives a chance to do that.”⍐