Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia must get a kick out of spreading disinformation to Americans for its own sake. Otherwise it is hard to see why he would bother. As has episodically been the case for eight years, Washington is abuzz over allegations of Russian manipulation. The special counsel investigating President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, has charged an FBI informant with telling lies about the president that have been central to Republican efforts to impeach him; the indictment links the informant to Russian intelligence.
You might expect such a dramatic development to derail the impeachment. That would betray a touching faith that the truth mattered in the first place. Republicans who once trumpeted the informant’s claims are shrugging them away and insisting that impeachment will move ahead based on other suspicions and suppositions, though the Republicans’ two-seat majority in the House of Representatives is all but certain to doom any vote, given the misgivings of some members.
This is not to minimise Russian efforts to undermine democracy. Robert Mueller, the special counsel who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, found it “sweeping and systematic”. But politicians of both parties have shown that when it comes to spinning conspiracies and spreading dysfunction they can manage on their own. Republican members of the House are the best at this. The most shocking facts are not emerging from the shadows thanks to congressional investigations but are being paraded in the open thanks to congressional inanity, from the refusal of House Republicans even to vote on the Senate’s bipartisan agreement to tighten border security and help Ukraine and Israel, to their inability to agree among themselves on budget priorities with a government shutdown looming, tiresomely, yet again.
The story of the informant, or misinformant, has the familiar, miasmic qualities of other scandals in the Trump era. No one is said to have peed on anyone, but the tale does involve vivid characters, duplicitous dealings in European capitals, affectionate texts with FBI agents, investigations of investigations, ties to Ukraine and, in the end, benefits to Russia.
Before he was arrested in mid-February Alexander Smirnov, a dual citizen of America and Israel, had been slipping the FBI information for 13 years. The agency trusted him enough to authorise him to commit crimes as part of investigations, though it warned him not to lie, at least not to the FBI, according to the indictment. Mr Smirnov, now 43, was in contact with his handler almost daily; he called the agent “bro”.
In 2013 Mr Smirnov was struggling with credit-card debt of $125,000, according to the Los Angeles Times, but prosecutors say he now has access to $6m, though he does not own a house or have a job, at least in America. He does have nine guns at home, prosecutors say. He has pleaded not guilty.
Here comes the complicated bit. You recall Burisma, the Ukrainian gas firm of which Mr Biden’s son, Hunter, became a member of the board while his father was vice-president? In 2017 Mr Smirnov mentioned to his handler that Hunter Biden was on the board, as was known. Then, in 2020, as Mr Biden was running against Donald Trump for president, Mr Smirnov sent his handler texts “expressing bias” against Mr Biden, according to the indictment. When he promised information incriminating the Bidens, the handler replied, “that would be a game changer.”
Meanwhile, in early 2020, the attorney-general under Mr Trump had directed Scott Brady, a US attorney, to investigate the suspicions of Biden family corruption about which Mr Trump had previously demanded that Ukraine launch an investigation, triggering Mr Trump’s first impeachment. After Mr Brady tasked the FBI with searching its files for “Burisma”, the mention from 2017 popped up, and the handler contacted Mr Smirnov. This time Mr Smirnov said Burisma’s chief executive told him as far back as 2015 that the company paid bribes of $5m apiece to the Biden men. The FBI recorded the new accusations on a “Form 1023”.
In 2023 Republican congressmen got wind of the form and demanded it, extracting it and publicising it after threatening the FBI director with contempt. Although the information was uncorroborated, Nancy Mace, a South Carolina congresswoman, declared at the first impeachment hearing in September that “we already know the president took bribes from Burisma.” Jim Jordan of Ohio called the FBI document “the most corroborating evidence we have”, while Elise Stefanik of New York saw “the biggest political corruption scandal” of “the past 100 years”.
An imperfect spy
Mr Smirnov’s claims did not withstand the slightest scrutiny, according to the indictment. He did not meet any Burisma executives before 2017, and meetings and calls that he described never took place, the indictment says. When agents met with him in September, according to the indictment, Mr Smirnov changed his story and told new lies. He said that when Hunter Biden stayed in Kyiv’s Premier Palace hotel his calls may have been recorded by Russian intelligence. Yet Mr Biden has never even been to Ukraine. Mr Smirnov, prosecutors warned, “is actively peddling new lies that could impact US elections after meeting with Russian intelligence officials in November”. They have successfully argued that he is a flight risk who should be detained pending trial.
No Republican who hyped Mr Smirnov’s accusations has expressed regret, and the leader of the committee pursuing impeachment, James Comer, insists his inquiry, which has yet to produce evidence of a crime by the president, “is not reliant” on them. It would be reassuring to discover that, at bottom, Mr Putin is responsible for all this nonsense. What seems more probable is that he offered an assist to politicians already more than capable of wasting their chance to do some good while in office. ■
THE FIRST shot against America’s senior military leaders was fired within hours of Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20th: General Mark Milley’s portrait was removed from the wall on the E-ring, where it had hung with paintings of other former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff. A day later the commandant of the coast guard, Admiral Linda Fagan, was thrown overboard. On February 21st it was the most senior serving officer, General Charles “CQ” Brown, a former F-16 pilot, who was ejected from the Pentagon. At least he was spared a Trumpian farewell insult. “He is a fine gentleman and an outstanding leader,” Mr Trump declared.
The struggling German economy has been a major talking point among critics of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ government during the latest election campaign — but analysts warn a new leadership might not turn these tides.
As voters prepare to head to the polls, it is now all but certain that Germany will soon have a new chancellor. The Christian Democratic Union’s Friedrich Merz is the firm favorite.
Merz has not shied away from blasting Scholz’s economic policies and from linking them to the lackluster state of Europe’s largest economy. He argues that a government under his leadership would give the economy the boost it needs.
Experts speaking to CNBC were less sure.
“There is a high risk that Germany will get a refurbished economic model after the elections, but not a brand new model that makes the competition jealous,” Carsten Brzeski, global head of macro at ING, told CNBC.
The CDU/CSU economic agenda
The CDU, which on a federal level ties up with regional sister party the Christian Social Union, is running on a “typical economic conservative program,” Brzeski said.
It includes income and corporate tax cuts, fewer subsidies and less bureaucracy, changes to social benefits, deregulation, support for innovation, start-ups and artificial intelligence and boosting investment among other policies, according to CDU/CSU campaigners.
“The weak parts of the positions are that the CDU/CSU is not very precise on how it wants to increase investments in infrastructure, digitalization and education. The intention is there, but the details are not,” Brzeski said, noting that the union appears to be aiming to revive Germany’s economic model without fully overhauling it.
“It is still a reform program which pretends that change can happen without pain,” he said.
Geraldine Dany-Knedlik, head of forecasting at research institute DIW Berlin, noted that the CDU is also looking to reach gross domestic product growth of around 2% again through its fiscal and economic program called “Agenda 2030.”
But reaching such levels of economic expansion in Germany “seems unrealistic,” not just temporarily, but also in the long run, she told CNBC.
Germany’s GDP declined in both 2023 and 2024. Recent quarterly growth readings have also been teetering on the verge of a technical recession, which has so far been narrowly avoided. The German economy shrank by 0.2% in the fourth quarter, compared with the previous three-month stretch, according to the latest reading.
Europe’s largest economy faces pressure in key industries like the auto sector, issues with infrastructure like the country’s rail network and a housebuilding crisis.
Dany-Knedlik also flagged the so-called debt brake, a long-standing fiscal rule that is enshrined in Germany’s constitution, which limits the size of the structural budget deficit and how much debt the government can take on.
Whether or not the clause should be overhauled has been a big part of the fiscal debate ahead of the election. While the CDU ideally does not want to change the debt brake, Merz has said that he may be open to some reform.
“To increase growth prospects substantially without increasing debt also seems rather unlikely,” DIW’s Dany-Knedlik said, adding that, if public investments were to rise within the limits of the debt brake, significant tax increases would be unavoidable.
“Taking into account that a 2 Percent growth target is to be reached within a 4 year legislation period, the Agenda 2030 in combination with conservatives attitude towards the debt break to me reads more of a wish list than a straight forward economic growth program,” she said.
Franziska Palmas, senior Europe economist at Capital Economics, sees some benefits to the plans of the CDU-CSU union, saying they would likely “be positive” for the economy, but warning that the resulting boost would be small.
“Tax cuts would support consumer spending and private investment, but weak sentiment means consumers may save a significant share of their additional after-tax income and firms may be reluctant to invest,” she told CNBC.
Palmas nevertheless pointed out that not everyone would come away a winner from the new policies. Income tax cuts would benefit middle- and higher-income households more than those with a lower income, who would also be affected by potential reductions of social benefits.
Coalition talks ahead
Following the Sunday election, the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be left to find a coalition partner to form a majority government, with the Social Democratic Party or the Green party emerging as the likeliest candidates.
The parties will need to broker a coalition agreement outlining their joint goals, including on the economy — which could prove to be a difficult undertaking, Capital Economics’ Palmas said.
“The CDU and the SPD and Greens have significantly different economic policy positions,” she said, pointing to discrepancies over taxes and regulation. While the CDU/CSU want to reduce both items, the SPD and Greens seek to raise taxes and oppose deregulation in at least some areas, Palmas explained.
The group is nevertheless likely to hold the power in any potential negotiations as it will likely have their choice between partnering with the SPD or Greens.
“Accordingly, we suspect that the coalition agreement will include most of the CDU’s main economic proposals,” she said.