Connect with us

Published

on

The war in Ukraine is set to become one of the starkest dividing lines in the GOP presidential primary.

Republicans who are largely united on a host of other issues — crime, immigration, the economy and the battle against “wokeness” — have deep tensions over a conflict that has now raged for more than 15 months and consumed many billions of dollars in U.S. aid.

Former President Trump is the front-line contender most skeptical about continuing the vigorous support for Ukraine at its current pitch. 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is not far behind — though he has displayed some shaky footing on the topic.

Striking a much sharper contrast, former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley insists it is vital for the U.S. that Ukraine should prevail. Former Vice President Mike Pence, who is expected to enter the race in the coming weeks, basically shares that view.

The division sets up a fascinating clash as the candidates seek to appeal to a Republican electorate that is itself disunited.

The traditional GOP position that the U.S. needs to assert itself overseas for its own protection still has many adherents. But lots of voters have grown skeptical of foreign entanglements in the roughly two decades since the U.S. launched its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Voter concerns over government spending — and the sense that taxpayer dollars would be better spent at home — also feed into the debate.

The U.S. has provided almost $40 billion in military aid to Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022. It has given tens of billions more in financial and humanitarian assistance.

During his CNN town hall event earlier this month, Trump was asked by moderator Kaitlan Collins whether he wanted Ukraine to win the war. 

“I don’t think in terms of winning and losing. I think in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing all these people,” Trump responded.

Trump also insisted that, were he to be reelected, he would have the war “settled in one day.”

The former president was vague as to how this cessation of hostilities might be accomplished. But in a March radio interview with Sean Hannity, Trump appeared to envision a deal where Russian would take over some amount of Ukrainian territory.

“I could’ve made a deal to take over something. There are certain areas that are Russian-speaking areas, frankly,” he told Hannity.

Haley espouses a far different view.

“The issue with Russia and Ukraine is so much bigger than Ukraine,” she said at a recent campaign event in Ankeny, Iowa. “It’s not a fight for Ukraine. It’s a fight for freedom. And it’s one that we have to win.”

While Haley made clear she did not support putting U.S. troops on the ground, she underlined what she sees as the high stakes in the conflict.

“A win for Russia is a win for China,” she contended.

DeSantis, who launched his campaign last Wednesday, plainly is closer to Trump’s view.

But the situation in his case is muddled; he was widely perceived to have erred in March, when he described the war as a mere “territorial dispute” in which no U.S. “vital national interests” were at stake.

Amid a backlash, DeSantis complained that his earlier statement had been “mischaracterized.” That comment came in an interview with Piers Morgan during which DeSantis also tagged Putin as a “war criminal” who had to be “held accountable.”

Electorally, it’s not obvious which is the winning position in the Republican primary.

GOP voters are markedly more skeptical of aid to Ukraine than Democrats. 

In an Economist/YouGov poll last week, 47 percent of Democrats wanted the U.S. to increase its military aid to Ukraine, whereas only 25 percent of Republicans agreed. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans wanted to decrease aid, in contrast to only 14 percent of Democrats.

Still, the Economist poll also included an option to maintain aid at its current levels — a position supported by 22 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of Democrats.

One key question is whether the erosion of GOP voters’ support for Ukraine picks up pace.

A Pew Research Center poll in January found 40 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believed the U.S. was providing “too much” support for Ukraine. Ten months previously, shortly after the Russia invasion, only 9 percent held that view.

Fred Fleitz, who was chief of staff of the National Security Council during the Trump presidency, told this column that, while the American people were sympathetic to Ukraine’s plight, “Ukraine is not a strategic U.S. interest, and therefore America’s support to Ukraine has to be limited and can’t be open-ended.” 

Fleitz, who is now the vice chair for national security at the America First Policy Institute, added: “We have to make some difficult decisions and find a way to do the right thing for our country first. … My immediate concern is that we are not getting to a solution. We are supporting what will become a long-term war of attrition that is going to end badly for the Ukrainians.”

But Kurt Volker, who was the U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations from 2017-19, took a very different view.

He contended that “traditional foreign policy, national-security Republicans” such as Haley, Pence and Capitol Hill leaders including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), held the correct view both substantively and politically.

“Trump will perhaps describe them as chumps who just want the U.S. to do everything,” Volker said. “But the reality is that most Republicans want to see a strong United States, want to see us have good relationships with our allies and want us to be shaping, as [Condoleezza Rice] used to say, ‘a stronger and safer world.’” Business groups endorse debt limit deal as McCarthy scrambles for votes  Companies and individuals without AI expertise will be left behind: tech CEO

Any political calculations are further jumbled because no one knows where the war — or American public opinion about it — will stand early next year, when the first GOP primary voters cast their ballots.

But Ukraine is one topic where those voters will at least have a clear choice before them.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Continue Reading

Sports

Wisconsin sues Miami for tampering with transfer

Published

on

By

Wisconsin sues Miami for tampering with transfer

The University of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit Friday claiming Miami’s football team broke the law by tampering with a Badgers player, a first-of-its-kind legal attempt to enforce the terms of a financial contract between a football player and his school.

The lawsuit refers to the athlete in question as “Student Athlete A,” but details from the complaint line up with the offseason transfer of freshman defensive back Xavier Lucas. Lucas left Wisconsin and enrolled at Miami in January after saying the Badgers staff refused to enter his name in the transfer portal last December.

In the complaint filed Friday, Wisconsin claims that a Miami staff member and a prominent alumnus met with Lucas and his family at a relative’s home in Florida and offered him money to transfer shortly after Lucas signed a two-year contract last December. The lawsuit states that Miami committed tortious interference by knowingly compelling a player to break the terms of his deal with the Badgers.

“While we reluctantly bring this case, we stand by our position that respecting and enforcing contractual obligations is essential to maintaining a level playing field,” the school said in a statement provided to ESPN on Friday.

According to the complaint, Wisconsin decided to file suit in hopes that “during this watershed time for college athletics, this case will advance the overall integrity of the game by holding programs legally accountable when they wrongfully interfere with contractual commitments.”

Representatives from the University of Miami did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The pending case promises to be an interesting test of whether schools can use name, image and likeness (NIL) deals to keep athletes from transferring even though the players aren’t technically employees. Starting July 1, schools will begin paying their athletes directly via NIL deals.

The contracts between Wisconsin and their athletes give the school the nonexclusive rights to use a player’s NIL in promotions. Part of the deal, according to the lawsuit, prohibits an athlete from making any commitments to enroll or play sports at other schools. The lawsuit says Wisconsin had a reasonable expectation that Lucas would “continue to participate as a member of its football program” until the deal ended.

However, according to several contracts between Big Ten schools and their players that ESPN has previously reviewed, these deals explicitly state that athletes are not being paid to play football for the university. Since the school is technically paying only to use the player’s NIL rights, it’s not clear if a judge will consider it fair to enforce a part of the contract that dictates where the player attends school.

The Big Ten said in a statement Friday that it supports Wisconsin’s decision to file the lawsuit and that Miami’s alleged actions “are irreconcilable with a sustainable college sports framework.”

Darren Heitner, a Florida-based attorney who represents Xavier Lucas, told ESPN that Wisconsin did not file any legal claims against Lucas and declined to comment further.

Continue Reading

Sports

Four-star QB Bentley commits to Oklahoma

Published

on

By

Four-star QB Bentley commits to Oklahoma

Four-star quarterback Bowe Bentley, No. 261 in the 2026 ESPN 300, announced his commitment to Oklahoma over LSU on Friday, landing with the Sooners less than 24 hours after longtime quarterback pledge Jaden O’Neal pulled his commitment from the program Thursday night.

Bentley, a 6-foot-1, 205-pound prospect from Celina, Texas, is ESPN’s No. 6 dual-threat passer in 2026. His recruitment skyrocketed earlier this year after Bentley broke out for 4,263 all-purpose yards and 63 total touchdowns last fall while leading Celina High School to a Class 4A Texas state title in his junior season. Bentley, who took official visits to Oklahoma and LSU earlier this month, told ESPN this week that the offensive vision of first-year Sooners offensive coordinator Ben Arbuckle was among his primary draws to the program.

“Going into depth on the offense with Arbuckle was huge,” Bentley said. “It’s not just what he’s done this spring, but what Coach Arbuckle has done at Washington State and Western Kentucky. I got a strong understanding of where he got this offense from and how he approaches calling it.”

For Oklahoma, Bentley’s commitment marks the close of a drawn out recruiting process that began after the Sooners shifted their 2026 quarterback plan after Arbuckle arrived from Washington State in December in the wake of the Sooners’ disastrous SEC debut last fall.

O’Neal, ESPN’s No. 7 pocket passer, had spent nearly 12 months as the top prospect in the program’s incoming class prior to his decommitment. A frequent visitor on campus over the past year, he relocated from Southern California to Oklahoma’s Mustang High School this spring, where O’Neal will play his senior season roughly 30 miles north of the Sooners’ team facility.

But multiple sources tell ESPN that the relationship between O’Neal and Oklahoma became strained in the early months of 2025 after the Sooners shifted their focus to landing a 2026 quarterback with a similar skill set to John Mateer, the dual-threat transfer who followed Arbuckle to Oklahoma after exploding for 44 touchdowns last fall.

Bentley — who threw for 3,330 yards and rushed for another 933 yards in 2024 — fits that mold, and the Sooners made the fast-rising prospect a top priority this spring before ultimately landing his pledge Friday.

Bentley joins four-star wide receiver Daniel Odom (No. 242 overall) as one of two ESPN 300 prospects in the 2026 class. Behind Mateer, who will be eligible for the NFL draft after the 2025 season, Oklahoma’s current quarterback depth includes second-year passer Michael Hawkins Jr. and three-star 2025 signee Jett Niu.

Continue Reading

Environment

Batteries are so cheap now, solar power doesn’t sleep

Published

on

By

Batteries are so cheap now, solar power doesn’t sleep

A new report from global energy think tank Ember says batteries have officially hit the price point that lets solar power deliver affordable electricity almost every hour of the year in the sunniest parts of the world.

The study looked at hourly solar data from 12 cities and found that in sun-soaked places like Las Vegas, you could pair 6 gigawatts (GW) of solar panels with 17 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of batteries and get a steady 1 GW of power nearly 24/7. The cost? Just $104 per megawatt-hour (MWh) based on average global prices for solar and batteries in 2024. That’s a 22% drop in a year and cheaper than new coal ($118/MWh) and nuclear ($182/MWh) in many regions.

Ember calls it “24/365 solar generation,” and it’s not just a theoretical model. Cities like Muscat, Oman, and Las Vegas can hit that steady power mark for up to 99% of the hours in a year. Hyderabad, Madrid, and Buenos Aires can reach 80–95% of the way there using that same solar-plus-storage setup with some cloud cover. And even cloudier cities like Birmingham in the UK can cover about 62% of hours annually.

“This is a turning point in the clean energy transition,” said Kostantsa Rangelova, global electricity analyst at Ember. “Around-the-clock solar is no longer a distant dream; it’s an economic reality of the world. It unlocks game-changing opportunities for energy-hungry industries like data centres and manufacturing.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

This is an enormous opportunity for sunny regions in Africa and Latin America. Manufacturers and data centers could also tap into solar-plus-storage and skip long waits (and big bills) for new grid connections.

It’s not a silver bullet for grid-wide reliability, but it lets solar carry much more of the load, especially where sunshine is abundant. Batteries also help avoid costly grid expansions by allowing up to five times more solar to plug into existing connections.

In 2024 alone, global battery prices dropped 40%, which helped drive down solar-plus-storage costs by 22%. Record-low tenders from countries like Saudi Arabia point to even cheaper options coming soon.

Real-world projects are already online: The UAE built the world’s first gigawatt-scale 24-hour solar facility. Arizona is already home to solar-powered data centers. And as battery tech keeps improving, round-the-clock solar could become the backbone of clean energy systems in the world’s sunniest places.

Read more: This solar canopy cools wastewater and powers a city utility


To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending