Juul for The Hill: The US should get out of the way and let Ukraine hit back

The Biden administration’s steadfast support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression has been laudable. But an inordinate and unwarranted fear of “escalation management” has hamstrung American policy.

Administration officials agonize over whether supplying certain weapons to Ukraine will be seen by the Kremlin as somehow escalatory. As a result, the provision of crucial military hardware like tanks, long-range rockets and fighter jets has been held back — only to eventually be provided without much more than grumbling from Moscow.

Even then, however, the administration persists in setting too many constraints on when and where Kyiv can use U.S. weapons for fear of antagonizing Vladimir Putin.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Winning Working Britain: Work and the Economy

Introduction

On 4th July 2024, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party achieved a landslide victory at the UK General Election, winning 411 out of 650 parliamentary seats in towns, cities, suburbs across England, Scotland and Wales.

Labour reversed its historic decline amongst working-class voters, as a result of a specific strategy to reconnect the party with voters that had formed a critical part of their founding electoral coalition. This matters not just for its symbolism, but because there is simply no route to a parliamentary majority in British politics without winning significant numbers of working-class voters. It also matters because it shows to center-left parties around the world that it is possible to win over lost working-class voters, a crucial part of the winning electoral coalition.

However a sizable portion of working-class voters in particular opted for new party Reform UK, and underneath Labour’s considerable achievement is a recognition that many voters feel sceptical that any party can really deliver for them. As Labour moves from campaigning to governing, they will need to be just as focussed on winning over working-class voters as they were in opposition.

Using data collected in the run up to the UK General Election, this new PPI report outlines the priorities of Britain’s working-class voters on the area that matters most to them: work and the economy. It builds on the foundational report on the global center-left, PPI’s ‘Roadmap to Hope’ published in October 2023. The reports are the UK companion to PPI’s Campaign for Working Americans, which aims to refocus the Democrats on regaining the allegiance of working Americans by championing their economic aspirations and moral outlook.

Our aim is to help catalyse a dynamic, modern center-left that can win the support of workingclass voters by providing better answers than the political right to the challenges they face. We are willing UK Labour to succeed in government, and the Democrats to succeed in their campaign to retain the Presidency. The opportunity facing the centre-left is to be the dynamic force that brings back hope to working class voters, so that they face the future with optimism about the prospects for themselves and the next generation.

In ‘Roadmap to Hope’, PPI research found that working-class voters felt the deal whereby if you worked hard you can get on in life had broken down. We argue that the centre-left cannot win and sustain power purely by being the beneficiaries of disenchantment with the political right, but by building a programme that addresses people’s security and prospects for the future.

PPI outlined a set of practical ideas to re-make the deal for working people with the following goals:

1. Relentless focus on raising wages for those on low to middle incomes
2. Stabilise supply and costs of essential goods and services
3. Open up housing investment to the next generation
4. Reform school education to become the driver of progress
5. Replace ‘one rule for them’ with ‘same rules apply’, including on immigration.

This report focusses on the experience and wants of working-class voters on work, costs and the economy, and the political and policy solutions to form the winning centre-left agenda.

Read the full report.

Jacoby for NYP: AI is reshaping drone warfare in Ukraine

By Tamar Jacoby

It looked like an ordinary, modest house on the outskirts of Sloviansk, a small city just behind the front line in eastern Ukraine. But the parlor’s heavy furniture had been replaced by folding tables and six big flat-screen TVs. Five men in fatigues monitored the images flashing across the screens: direct feeds from some three dozen first-person-view (FPV) drones hovering above the front line just 15 miles away.

There were no fighters in the images and no weapons or military vehicles. Both Russians and Ukrainians have learned to keep all that hidden from the drones constantly swarming overhead. But the invaders could still advance at any moment, and the soldiers in the command center — members of a new unit called “Heavenly Punishment” — scoured the video feeds, zooming in and out on tree lines and scattered rocks that might disguise foxholes.

A sixth screen integrated the information from the feeds: a giant animated map showing both sides’ positions and assets — a Russian tank here, a Russian surveillance drone loitering there. No one spoke as the men watched and probed, waiting for the opportunity to order a strike, either by an attack drone or one of the unit’s few remaining artillery cannons.

Keep reading in New York Post.

Jacoby for Bulwark: Ukraine Isn’t Ready for Pro-Putin GOP

By Tamar Jacoby

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a couple of unforced errors in the last few weeks. They were all small things, the kind of missteps we all make occasionally, and even on the world stage, they might have gone unnoticed. But the Ukrainian leader had no idea what he was up against—a Republican party determined to turn him and the global conflict in Ukraine into this cycle’s political football.

Zelensky and his team had been working for months to cultivate Donald Trump and his entourage. It wasn’t just, as Zelensky said in the letter he sent to Trump on Thursday, that he had always tried to show “respect” for the former president. Like other governments across Europe, the Ukrainians were well aware that Trump had at least an even chance of retaking the White House, and they were determined to establish a relationship. Some even hoped that Trump could be a friend—that unlike Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who have given Kyiv just enough help to hold off the Russian army but not enough to win, Trump might be more decisive, forcing a definitive outcome that might benefit Ukraine.

Kyiv worked tirelessly to forge ties to anyone who might have Trump’s ear—former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Sen. Lindsey Graham, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and others. Zelensky held his tongue no matter what Trump said about Ukraine or what foolish boasts he made about ending the war in 24 hours. The Ukrainian leader even called Trump after the first assassination attempt, and the two had what Trump reported was a “very good” conversation.

Keep reading in The Bulwark.

Ainsley in The Times: Kamala Harris told to woo ‘hero voters’ by Starmer’s strategist

There is a very strong sense among these voters that the American middle class is in decline, she added. “They feel that the deal of middle-class aspiration is over, and almost a sense of betrayal by the political classes.”

Mattinson carried out her research alongside Starmer’s former director of policy, Claire Ainsley, who now works for the US-based Progressive Policy Institute.

Ainsley, who went with Mattinson to Wilmington, added: “Hero voters told us they want stability. They don’t want the chaos of Trump particularly, but they do want to know what is the change that [Harris] is going to bring about for them.

“The research also confirmed the centre-left can’t duck immigration,” she added. “This is also a really big priority for people. So a signature policy on immigration that she could speak to, perhaps around border control, would be important.”

Mattinson and Ainsley’s work is the latest example of ever closer co-operation between the Labour Party and the Democrats. Other key party figures have also flown over recently to share knowledge with Harris aides, such as Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s head of political strategy in No 10, and the former shadow cabinet minister Jonathan Ashworth.

Read more in The Times.

Ainsley in The Washington Post: U.K. Labour strategists advise Harris on winning from the center left

“British pollster Deborah Mattinson, a former top adviser to Starmer, and Claire Ainsley, Starmer’s former director of policy, jointly briefed Harris campaign staffers this past week on a target demographic they call “hero voters.

In Britain, Ainsley told The Washington Post, these tended to be voters who had traditionally backed Labour but who had supported the 2016 Brexit referendum and the “Get Brexit Done” election campaign of Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party in 2019.

They were struggling with daily living costs and wanted change. “They felt like hope for a better life was getting out of reach,” said Ainsley, who now works with the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) think tank in Washington.”

Keep reading in The Washington Post.

Marshall for The Hill: Protesters, media must stop normalizing terrorism

By Will Marshall

The U.S. Justice Department disclosed last week that it had charged six Hamas leaders with terrorism in February for organizing the Oct. 7 massacre of approximately 1,200 people in Israel — including more than 40 U.S. citizens.

Although none of those charged are likely to ever appear in a U.S. courtroom — three have since been killed and Israeli forces are hunting down the rest — the unsealed indictments are a crucial expression of American solidarity with terrorism victims everywhere.

Attorney General Merrick Garland drove home the horror of the Oct. 7 bloodbath in a statement justifying the charges: “During the attack, Hamas terrorists murdered civilians who tried to flee, and those who sought refuge in bomb shelters,” he said. “They murdered entire families. They murdered the elderly, and they murdered young children. They weaponized sexual violence against women.”

Hamas also seized about 240 hostages and recently killed six more of them to pressure Israel to stop the fighting and leave Gaza.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Ainsley in Politico Magazine: What Keir Starmer’s Advisers Told Democrats in Washington

When the British political strategist Deborah Mattinson heard Vice President Kamala Harris boast in the presidential debate about prosecuting transnational gangs, she thought the message was spot on — and that Harris needed to deliver it many, many, many more times.

The former head of strategy for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who won a landslide election in July, Mattinson was in Washington the week of the debate to meet with Democrats, including advisers to the Harris campaign, and share lessons from the Labor Party’s smashing summer victory. She and Claire Ainsley, Starmer’s former head of policy, urged Democrats to focus intently on winning back working-class voters who had drifted to the right in recent years — toward right-wing populists who seemed more in touch with their economic frustrations and cultural grievances.

“For voters, cost of living and immigration are the two biggest issues,” Ainsley said. “And that’s where they need to focus their attention.”

POLITICO spoke with Mattinson and Ainsley as they were wrapping up their visit to Washington. Harris, they said, was on the right track. But with only weeks left until the election, there was still plenty of work for her to do to defeat former President Donald Trump.

Their advice was not just based on intuition or interpretation of the recent U.K. election. Ainsley is a leader of the Progressive Policy Institute, where she directs a transnational effort to revitalize center-left parties. As part of that effort, the think tank shuttled Labour politicians to Washington earlier this year and the Democratic convention in August, and conducted polling and focus groups in American swing states over the summer.

Read more of their interview in Politico Magazine.

Jacoby for WM: With a Ukrainian Army Chaplain

By Tamar Jacoby

Andrii Ryzhov, an assistant chaplain in the Ukrainian army, peers into the back of his battered Volkswagen van on a leafy side street in Kramatorsk, just 15 miles from the front line. These are the tools of his trade: dog-eared cardboard boxes containing packaged food, canned goods, and pocket prayer books, nestled among rolls of camouflage netting and combat gear, including bullet-proof vests.

Ryzhov had telephoned one of his commanders that morning and discovered that the officer was in the hospital—so now he is visiting, unbidden. The chaplain packs a box to take into the clinic across the street: two packages of cookies, a handful of hard candy, dried fruit, and nuts, as well as a copy of the New Testament. “We do whatever we can to support the men, believers, and nonbelievers,” Ryzhov’s fellow chaplain, Serhii Tsoma, explains to me. “And it’s often very simple—cook food, fix cars, tell jokes, whatever makes them feel better.”

I first met Ryzhov in early 2022, not long after Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. His hometown, Irpin, a bedroom community outside of Kyiv, had fought off the first wave of Russian invaders, a show of resistance that stunned Moscow at a time when the Ukrainian capital was expected to fall in days. Most able-bodied residents left Irpin during the monthlong battle. But Ryzhov remained, driving into the shelling day after day to evacuate the elderly and provide humanitarian assistance for those who refused to go.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

Ainsley in The New York Times: Britain’s Anti-Immigrant Riots Pose Critical Test for Starmer

Those close to Mr. Starmer say he is getting a grip on the disorder, drawing on his experience as a chief prosecutor in 2011, when riots took place in London and he pushed to get those responsible tried, sentenced and jailed swiftly to deter others.

“He has a detailed knowledge of how to do this, and he understands how you prosecute and convict quickly, and you do so visibly in a way that sends a message to anybody who is thinking about participating in one of these riots,” said Claire Ainsley, a former policy director for Mr. Starmer.

But ensuring that such violence does not recur is harder, she said.

“We have had the far right with us in good economic times and in bad economic times,” said Ms. Ainsley, who now works in Britain for the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington-based research institute.

“But it is much harder for them to have any kind of influence when you are in better economic times,” she added. “That means people’s living standards rising and people starting to feel they are better off and that they are part of a system that is working — and that isn’t a description of Britain today.”

Ms. Ainsley pointed to the role of social media in spreading misinformation and stoking tensions, and cautioned against making a direct link between the riots and immigration. She noted that, alongside extremists, some of the rioters may be looters and other opportunists.

It is, she added, “wrong to assume that all of the people participating in these riots are politically motivated by immigration.”

Read more in The New York Times.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Ukrainian Public Opinion Remains Determined Against Russian Aggression

By Tamar Jacoby

I’ve suspected for months that something was changing in Ukraine. Virtually everyone I had asked since the beginning of the war had maintained that Kyiv could win, with the only acceptable outcome being Russian withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and the Donbas region controlled by Moscow since 2015. But last winter, you could sense a growing uncertainty, and a few of my friends began to whisper about alternative scenarios.

Two recent polls shed a bright light on these unusually unspoken concerns. One sounding, conducted in May by the Rating Group, found 27 percent of respondents uncertain that Ukraine would succeed in liberating all its lost territory, while 26 percent were willing to negotiate a compromise. Also in May, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) found 32 percent—more than triple the number who agreed a year before—willing to give up “some” territory to “achieve peace and preserve [Ukrainian] independence.”

This doesn’t mean Ukrainians are ready to surrender. KIIS project manager Anton Grushetsky cautions against exaggerating his team’s findings. Given the situation on the ground, he argues, Ukrainians remain remarkably resilient. The fighting on the frontline is all but stalemated; Russian missiles bombard Kyiv and other cities every day. More than three-quarters of the country has lost a close friend or relative, and no one is confident of continued Western support. Still, only 32 percent are considering compromise, while more than half—55 percent—are standing firm, insisting that “no circumstances” could justify conceding territory.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

Paying for Progress: A Blueprint to Cut Costs, Boost Growth, and Expand American Opportunity

The next administration must confront the consequences that the American people are finally facing from more than two decades of fiscal mismanagement in Washington. Annual deficits in excess of $2 trillion during a time when the unemployment rate hovers near a historically low 4% have put upward pressure on prices and strained family budgets. Annual interest payments on the national debt, now the highest they’ve ever been in history, are crowding out public investments into our collective future, which have fallen near historic lows. Working families face a future with lower incomes and diminished opportunities if we continue on our current path.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) believes that the best way to promote opportunity for all Americans and tackle the nation’s many problems is to reorient our public budgets away from subsidizing short-term consumption and towards investments that lay the foundation for long-term economic abundance. Rather than eviscerating government in the name of fiscal probity, as many on the right seek to do, our “Paying for Progress” Blueprint offers a visionary framework for a fairer and more prosperous society.

Our blueprint would raise enough revenue to fund our government through a tax code that is simpler, more progressive, and more pro-growth than current policy. We offer innovative ideas to modernize our nation’s health-care and retirement programs so they better reflect the needs of our aging population. We would invest in the engines of American innovation and expand access to affordable housing, education, and child care to cut the cost of living for working families. And we propose changes to rationalize federal programs and institutions so that our government spends smarter rather than merely spending more.

Many of these transformative policies are politically popular — the kind of bold, aspirational ideas a presidential candidate could build a campaign around — while others are more controversial because they would require some sacrifice from politically influential constituencies. But the reality is that both kinds of policies must be on the table, because public programs can only work if the vast majority of Americans that benefit from them are willing to contribute to them. Unlike many on the left, we recognize that progressive policies must be fiscally sound and grounded in economic pragmatism to make government work for working Americans now and in the future.

If fully enacted during the first year of the next president’s administration, the recommendations in this report would put the federal budget on a path to balance within 20 years. But we do not see actually balancing the budget as a necessary end. Rather, PPI seeks to put the budget on a healthy trajectory so that future policymakers have the fiscal freedom to address emergencies and other unforeseen needs. Moreover, because PPI’s blueprint meets such an ambitious fiscal target, we ensure that adopting even half of our recommended savings would be enough to stabilize the debt as a percent of GDP. Thus, our proposals to cut costs, boost growth, and expand American opportunity will remain a strong menu of options for policymakers to draw upon for years to come, even if they are unlikely to be enacted in their entirety any time soon.

The roughly six dozen federal policy recommendations in this report are organized into 12 overarching priorities:

I. Replace Taxes on Work with Taxes on Consumption and Unearned Income
II. Make the Individual Income Tax Code Simpler and More Progressive
III. Reform the Business Tax Code to Promote Growth and International Competitiveness
IV. Secure America’s Global Leadership
V. Strengthen Social Security’s Intergenerational Compact
VI. Modernize Medicare
VII. Cut Health-Care Costs and Improve Outcomes
VIII. Support Working Families and Economic Opportunity
IX. Make Housing Affordable for All
X. Rationalize Safety-Net Programs
XI. Improve Public Administration
XII. Manage Public Debt Responsibly

Read the full Blueprint. 

Read the Summary of Recommendations.

Read the PPI press release.

See how PPI’s Blueprint compares to six alternatives. 

Media Mentions:

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: A Hello to Arms

By Tamar Jacoby

I’m not sure what made me do it. Living in a war zone, you get used to the emotional ups and downs. But there’s growing uncertainty here in Ukraine, and finally, something prompted me to act.

I woke up one morning a few weeks ago with a new sense of dread and urgency. What if things really were going sideways? What if the Russians managed to break through in Chasiv Yar, a pivotal battle on the eastern front that could unleash a cascade of additional Russian wins further to the west? And what, if anything, could I do to make a difference? What was the point of writing another op-ed piece?

So I started calling around. Did friends have any ideas? A few hours later, I decided to buy a drone for a unit fighting in Chasiv Yar.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

Jacoby in NBC News: The shadow of Trump looms over the NATO summit

As for Ukraine’s future security arrangements, U.S. and European officials say they hope to hammer out a statement at the summit promising an “irreversible” path to NATO membership for Kyiv.

But that language may not be enough to secure Ukraine’s place in the NATO alliance if Trump is elected, said Tamar Jacoby, the Kyiv-based director of the New Ukraine Project at the Progressive Policy Institute think tank.

“If you want to be in the West, you have to be tied to the West, and indeed, you have to be ultimately protected by the West. And so, in a way, NATO membership is the most important thing that Ukrainians are fighting for,” Jacoby said.

Jacoby for Foreign Policy: How Ukraine’s Drone Industry Took Flight

By Tamar Jacoby

Vladyslav Ripko’s day job is working for the Ukrainian government as a financial analyst. But in the evenings and on weekends, he and his friends make drones for the army. He calls their group an “enthusiast collective.” All 12 members volunteer their time. They raise money for drone components on a crowdfunding platform. One volunteer with a 3D printer makes small parts they cannot buy. The team assembles the components in a Kyiv workshop and sends the finished product to the front using a commercial package service.

Unlike many larger Ukrainian drone producers, Ripko’s amateur collective receives no direct help from the government. Still, he said, he benefits from the government’s campaign to support private businesses building unmanned autonomous vehicles, or UAVs, for the armed forces.

Some half-dozen government agencies, including the Defense Ministry and the Ministry of Digital Transformation, have provided tax breaks, start-up grants, and technical support, rolling back the red tape and regulation that hem in much of the rest of the Ukrainian economy. The result is that more than 200 registered companies—some industry insiders count more than 500 producers if you include smaller firms and volunteers in garages—now supply troops with hundreds of thousands of drones a month.

Keep reading in Foreign Policy.

Jacoby for The Bulwark: The Trumpists’ Dangerous ‘Peace’ Plan for Ukraine

By Tamar Jacoby

NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE imagines that a re-elected President Donald Trump would be much of a friend to Kyiv. But the so-called “peace” proposal leaked last week by two former national security staffers from the Trump administration, now at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, is even more toxic than many expected.

Predictably enough, the plan stipulates an immediate ceasefire, obligatory negotiations with Russia and a temporary—in truth, likely to be permanent—abandonment of Ukrainian claims to the 20 percent of Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Moscow. The poison pill was less predictable: Under the plan, the United States would strong-arm Kyiv to defer membership in NATO “for an extended period”—again, in the real world, most likely forever.

Trump hasn’t yet endorsed the plan, but his comments on a podcast last month suggest he is open to a NATO ban. “If Ukraine goes into NATO, it’s a real problem for Russia,” the former president told a trio of sympathetic Silicon Valley investors. Echoing a claim that Moscow and its proxies have been peddling for years, Trump argued that it was President Joe Biden’s support for Ukrainian membership in the alliance that provoked Vladimir Putin to invade in February 2022.

Keep reading in The Bulwark.