One central question about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has always been whether Vladimir Putin would be satisfied if allowed to succeed, or if he’d go further, aiming to collapse NATO from within and reestablish a sphere of influence for Moscow that just a few decades ago stretched deep into central Europe. More importantly, could he?

It was U.S. General “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf who said he judged opponents by their capabilities, not their intentions, and on Thursday night last week Russia sent a reminder that it remains capable.

For only the second time since the start of Russia’s invasion in 2022, it used one of its 12,000 km-per-hour-plus, multi-warhead Oreshnik missiles, targeting a gas-storage facility outside the West Ukrainian city of Lviv. The location, so close to the Polish border, made it clear that this was a message and that the desired audience was European. Putin was telling Europe’s leaders that he can strike anywhere on the continent, using an intermediate-range ballistic missile that would give very little notice or possibility of interdiction.

This has not been a great period for Russia’s military reputation. In recent weeks and months, Moscow has claimed victories in two Donbas cities, only to have Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy show up to parade for the cameras in one, Kupyansk, and for Kyiv’s forces to hold on in the other, Pokrovsk, after well over a year under attack.

In Venezuela, Russian air defenses failed to stop U.S. aircraft and special forces from breaching the capital to abduct President Nicolas Maduro. There were similar failures to protect allies in Iran and Syria last year. And for all the Kremlin’s success in portraying its victory in Ukraine as inevitable, actual advances have been extraordinarily slow and costly.

As former Australian Army Major General Mick Ryan writes on the Oreshnik strike, this was “the sign of a fearful, worried leader with challenges at home and abroad, and not one that is confident and anticipating victory.”

I’d add that Putin was also expressing frustration over the fact that Ukraine and its European partners seem to have persuaded President Donald Trump to back away from his initial embrace of a 28-point, made-in-Moscow plan for ending the war on its terms. The latest, non-Kremlin draft offers Kyiv security guarantees that would involve stationing French and British troops on Ukrainian territory to ensure the ceasefire held. You can argue about how effective those forces would be if tested (likely a key part of the Oreshnik’s intended message), but Putin’s demands when starting the war were that all North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces should be withdrawn from ex-Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union states. He did not fight it to see NATO deploy to Ukraine.

Trump, in an interview with The New York Times, said he had agreed for the U.S. to play a supporting role in those security guarantees because he believed Putin wouldn’t try to break the ceasefire, in any case. Like Schwarzkopf, you have to ask if that confidence is based on assumptions about the Russian leader’s intent, or his capabilities.

You can make a strong case for why Putin shouldn’t want to risk taking on NATO. It would seem a tall order after the heavy weather Russian forces have made of trying to occupy Ukraine. Western estimates of the country’s military losses run as high as 1.2 million personnel killed or wounded, not to mention thousands of tanks, hundreds of aircraft and more than two dozen warships.

Yet this is misleading. For all their problems, Russia’s mobilized, combat-ready armed forces are considerably larger and more experienced than they were four years ago. Personnel have been replaced, command and control improved and Russian troops have developed advantages in drone and electronic warfare that only Ukraine can match. Tank and artillery numbers now seem to matter less. On top of that, an operation to destabilize NATO would likely be a different kind of conflict than the territorial war of attrition in Ukraine.

A new study of improvements in the Chinese and Russian air forces by Justin Bronk, an airpower specialist at the UK’s Royal United Services Institute, makes fascinating reading. He points out that most Russian fighter jets destroyed in the war have been models that would not be of much use in a conflict with NATO. And because the vast majority were either hit while empty on the ground, or while in Russian airspace allowing safe ejection, pilot losses have been much lower. Those pilots are far more experienced and able after four years of high-intensity combat than they were in 2022.

In the meantime, Russia has shifted to a war economy, found sources for sanctioned weapons components and built more planes than it has lost old ones. While it has one or two fewer heavy bombers, its air force is bigger and better at its job. The result, says Bronk, is that the West has lost its guarantee of air superiority over China and Russia just as it had become most reliant on that advantage.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban is one of many who believe Europe and NATO have nothing to fear from Putin, because he’s “hyper-rational” and would therefore be unwilling to take on Europe, with its advanced if fractured militaries and vastly larger population and economy.

This could be true, but not because Putin is hyperrational. If he were, there would be no war in Ukraine. NATO would still be honoring its 1997 deal not to station troops on the territory of the alliance’s newer East European members, as it did until Russia annexed Crimea and started a war in Eastern Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine’s constitution would still prohibit it from joining NATO, as it did until December that year. Finland and Sweden would remain neutral. The outlook for Russia’s economy would be rosy, unburdened by sanctions and lost human capital, and made rich by Europe’s once-insatiable demand for its oil and gas.

If you want a reminder of why Putin went to war, read the 7,400-word screed of historical fantasies and resentments he delivered in a televised address three days before the invasion. So yes, it would make no sense for Putin to restart his war in Ukraine, or to launch new declared or hybrid wars aimed at collapsing NATO. But invading Ukraine didn’t add up either. With the conventional, let alone nuclear, capabilities still at his disposal, it’s plain foolish to act based on assumptions about what he intends.

Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal.

Related Articles

Bill Dudley: Attacking Powell only undercuts Trump’s goals

Trudy Rubin: Trump’s imperial Venezuela policy based on lies and delusions

Commentary: America’s ‘Common Sense’ revolution

Max Hastings: How to save the U.S. from authoritarianism

Mary Ellen Klas: America needs an education moonshot

A few months ago, I searched through New York Times Cooking looking for my jalapeño cheddar cornbread. I’d made it dozens of times and wanted to send the link to a friend.

That’s when I realized that I’d never actually published the recipe.

Instead, I’d been riffing on a decade-old brown butter skillet cornbread with maple syrup and whole wheat flour.

Adaptable and forgiving, that brown butter cornbread is the kind of dish that’s easy to make your own. Most of the 500-ish comments are of the “I made this recipe but substituted X for Y” variety — and the changes generally work just fine (except for the cooks who leave out the butter entirely, but that’s on them).

To make my jalapeño cheddar cornbread, I just use the brown butter recipe as a template. Instead of half a cup of maple syrup, I stir in a quarter cup of honey, which is a less sweet and more classic pairing with the spicy chiles. And I usually nix the whole wheat flour, whose nutty flavor is a bit too delicate to come through with all the jalapeños in the batter.

Another change is adding cheddar. Rather than whisk it in, I sprinkle it on in two additions, arranging a layer of cheese in the middle and on top. This helps the cornbread keep a light, fluffy texture and allows the cheese on the surface to get a little brown and crunchy.

As for the jalapeños, I’ve made this cornbread with chopped fresh chiles and jarred, pickled chiles, and both versions have their charms. The fresh jalapeños have a grassy, almost herbal character with a forthright sting. The pickled ones are tangier and more acidic, with a gentler bite. Sometimes I even mix the two for a rounded, complex character. For a milder flavor, you can remove the seeds from the fresh ones and use the lesser amount. You don’t need a lot of jalapeño to get the point across.

By the time I sent my friend the link to my old cornbread and my notes on adapting it, I knew this jalapeño cheddar version deserved its very own recipe. But feel free to change it up — just don’t leave out the butter.

Jalapeño Cheddar Cornbread

This moist and nubby cornbread has a caramelized, rich flavor from browning the butter, a slight sweetness from a touch of honey and a fiery punch from jalapeño — either fresh or pickled. Using fresh chiles adds a bright, almost herbal note, while pickled jalapeños are tangier and more robust. Serve the cornbread warm from the pan and slathered with butter, or toasted until the edges turn golden and crisp.

By Melissa Clark

Yield: 8 to 12 servings

Total time: 1 hour 15 minutes

INGREDIENTS

12 tablespoons/170 grams unsalted butter

1/4 cup/84 grams honey

2 1/4 cups/590 milliliters buttermilk, at room temperature

3 large eggs

1 1/2 cups/180 grams cornmeal, preferably coarse

1 cup/125 grams all-purpose flour

1 1/2 tablespoons baking powder

1 1/2 teaspoons fine sea salt

1/2 teaspoon baking soda

2 to 4 tablespoons chopped fresh or pickled jalapeño, seeded if desired for less heat

1 1/2 cups/6 ounces shredded cheddar or Monterey Jack, or a combination

DIRECTIONS

1. Heat the oven to 375 degrees.

2. In a 10- to 12-inch cast-iron skillet, melt the butter over medium heat and cook until the foam subsides and butter is golden and smells nutty, 4 to 7 minutes.

3. Transfer butter to a large heatproof bowl (do not wipe out the skillet). Into the bowl, whisk in honey, buttermilk and eggs until smooth. Then whisk in cornmeal, flour, baking powder, salt and baking soda. Stir in jalapeños.

4. Scrape about half the batter into the skillet and top with half of the cheese. Repeat with remaining batter and top it with the remaining cheese.

5. Bake until golden brown and a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean, 30 to 45 minutes (a 10-inch skillet will take longer than a 12-inch). Cool in skillet for 10 minutes, then slice and serve.

Related Articles

Gretchen’s Table: Re-create Anthony Bourdain’s beef bourguignon

Date-night dinner specials: Spoil your sweetie for less

This beef taco recipe from the cookbook ‘Plantas’ uses salsa for seasoning the meat

Some St. Paul-area restaurants closing, limiting hours over ICE presence

Nonalcoholic options are making Dry January more ‘beerable’

By Karen Garcia, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — If you’re planning to visit one of the 11 most popular national parks in the U.S., staff might ask a question that could be disquieting: Are you an American citizen?

A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior said that the question is being posed only to confirm whether the visitor will have to pay a nonresident fee — which is hefty.

The updates to visitor verification and fees was announced in November by the Trump administration, which said that beginning Jan. 1 it would implement “America-first” entry fee policies.

Related Articles

Wikipedia inks AI deals with Microsoft, Meta and Perplexity as it marks 25th birthday

Press freedom advocates worry that raid on Washington Post journalist’s home will chill reporting

Former NCAA players and fixers charged over rigged basketball games, prosecutors say

Grok blocked from undressing images in places where it’s illegal, X says

Verizon says hourslong outage that disrupted calling and data services has been resolved

“U.S. residents will continue to enjoy affordable pricing, while nonresidents will pay a higher rate to help support the care and maintenance of America’s parks,” according to the announcement.

When you present your pass, or if you purchase one at a park entrance, staff must ask for your identification and determine your citizenship status.

According to an internal National Park Service directive obtained by the Washington Post, staffers are instructed to ask visiting groups, “How many people visiting are not U.S. citizens or residents?” The document also stated that “the fee collector does not need to check the identification of every visitor.”

The Times reached out to staff at Yosemite and Sequoia & Kings Canyon national parks for comment; both parks referred questions to the National Park Service.

When is Park Service staff checking a visitor’s citizenship status?

You will only be asked your citizenship status, by way of ID verification, when buying or using an annual pass, officials say.

“National Park Service staff are not checking immigration status, citizenship, or residency beyond what is necessary to confirm eligibility for a specific entrance fee or pass,” said Elizabeth Peace, spokesperson for the office of the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Peace told The Times in an email that the Park Service had “long required staff to confirm that the name on the interagency pass or fee-based credential matches a valid photo ID.”

The agency’s updated policy is that all digital-pass holders must show a photo identification matching the name on the pass. Acceptable forms of ID include:

U.S. passport
U.S. state or territory-issued driver’s license
state ID
permanent residency card

You can only use a U.S. birth certificate to validate your identity for an Access Pass, which is for residents who have a permanent disability.

Visitors who do not have a U.S. government-issued ID will be asked to purchase a nonresident annual pass, Peace said. Those passes are much more costly.

How much do the passes cost?

The cost of an annual pass, which covers entrance to thousands of recreation areas but not other amenities including camping and parking is:

$80 for U.S. residents
$250 for nonresidents

If a non-U.S. resident is looking to purchase a day-of entrance, it will cost an additional $100 on top of the regular admittance fee, which is $20 to $35.

The increased fees have sparked controversy. The National Parks Conservation Assn. said it backs efforts to increase funding that will support parks but doesn’t want fees to become a barrier “that keeps people from experiencing America’s most iconic places.”

“Charging international visitors more is not uncommon globally,” said Theresa Pierno, president of the association, in a letter to the Department of the Interior, “but any such policy must be designed thoughtfully to ensure it doesn’t cause barriers or even longer lines at entrances.”

In its report, the Post noted that the fees had resulted in longer lines at parks.

Another concern Pierno voiced was how the verification process would affect an already understaffed workforce.

The National Park Service staff has been reduced by 24% since January of last year, which means fewer fee collectors and IT specialists who she said are needed as the new fees are implemented.

Which parks are affected?

The 11 parks that are subject to additional fees for those who are non-U.S. citizens include:

Acadia
Bryce Canyon
Everglades
Glacier
Grand Canyon
Grand Teton
Rocky Mountain
Sequoia & Kings Canyon
Yellowstone
Yosemite
Zion

©2026 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By STEVEN SLOAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The president was barely a year into his administration when a health care debate began to consume Washington.

On Capitol Hill, partisan divides formed as many Democrats pressed for guaranteed insurance coverage for a broader swath of Americans while Republicans, buttressed by medical industry lobbying, warned about cost and a slide into communism.

The year was 1945, and the new Democratic president, Harry Truman, tried and failed to persuade Congress to enact a comprehensive national health care program, a defeat Truman described as the disappointment of his presidency that “troubled me the most.” Since then, 13 presidents have struggled with the same basic questions about the government’s role in health care, where spending now makes up nearly 18% of the U.S. economy.

The fraught politics of health care are on display again this month as millions of people face a steep rise in costs after the Republican-controlled Congress let Affordable Care Act subsidies expire.

While the subsidies are a narrow, if costly, slice of the issue, they’ve reopened long-festering grievances in Washington over the way health care is managed and the legacy of the ACA, the signature legislative achievement of President Barack Obama that was passed in 2010 without a single Republican vote.

“That’s the key thing that I’ve got to convince my colleagues to understand who hate Obamacare,” said Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, who’s leading a bipartisan group of lawmakers discussing ways to extend some of the subsidies. “Let’s take two years to actually deliver for the American people truly affordable health care.”

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, center, talks with reporters as he walks through the Ohio Clock Corridor at the Capitol, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)

Democrats have heard that refrain before and argue Republicans have had 15 years to offer an alternative. They believe the options being discussed now, which largely focus on allowing Americans to funnel money to health savings accounts, do little to address the cost of health care.

“They’ve had a lot of time,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who was House majority leader during the ACA debate.

And with that, welcome back to the health care debate that never seems to end.

The challenge of reaching consensus

The often-tortured dynamics surrounding health care have remained remarkably consistent. Obamacare dramatically expanded coverage but remains — even in the minds of those who crafted the law — imperfect and more expensive than many would prefer.

And Washington seems more entrenched in stalemate rather than marching toward a solution.

FILE – U.S. Ambassador to Japan nominee Rahm Emanuel arrives for a hearing to examine his nomination before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Oct. 20, 2021. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

“People hate the status quo, but they’re not too thrilled with change,” Rahm Emanuel said as he reflected on the arc of the health care debate that he has watched as a top aide to President Bill Clinton, chief of staff to Obama and Chicago mayor. “That’s the riddle to the politics of health care.”

Major reforms inevitably run into a health industry — a broad group of interests ranging from pharmaceutical and health services companies to hospitals and nursing homes — that spent more than $653 million on lobbying last year, according to OpenSecrets, which tracks political spending.

“Any time you try to figure out how to bring costs down, somebody thinks, ‘Uh oh, I’m about to get less,’” said Hoyer, who announced last week he won’t seek reelection after serving since 1981.

FILE -Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., speaks at a news conference about the Protect Our Probationary Employees Act on Capitol Hill, March 11, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)

When Obamacare was passed, opinion on the law was mixed, although views tended to be more positive than negative, according to KFF polling. But the law has steadily grown in popularity. A KFF poll conducted in September 2025 found about two-thirds of Americans have a favorable view of the ACA.

That’s put Trump and Republicans in a bind.

Trump’s ‘concepts of a plan’

Since the ACA’s passage, Republicans largely dedicated themselves to the law’s destruction. Trump issued social media posts calling for a repeal as early as 2011 and spoke in generalities during each of his presidential campaigns about delivering better coverage at lower cost. During his 2024 debate against Democratic rival Kamala Harris, he referred to “concepts of a plan.”

Under pressure to offer more specifics, Trump on Thursday outlined a proposal he dubbed “The Great Healthcare Plan.” The plan doesn’t repeal the ACA. But it would focus on lowering drug prices and providing options for Americans to send money directly to health savings accounts to bypass the federal government and handle insurance on their own. Democrats have rejected that as an insufficient way to cover high health care costs.

Throughout his second term, Trump has criticized Obamacare as unfairly subsidizing insurers, a point that could’ve been addressed had the legislation created a public option that would’ve competed alongside the private sector. Republicans — and a sizable number of Democrats — objected to that approach, arguing it would give the government an outsize role in health care.

But in a reminder that the past is never really over, a small group of Democrats is aiming to revive the debate over the public option, even if the prospects in a Republican-controlled Congress are dim. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois last week introduced legislation that would create a public health insurance option on the ACA exchanges.

Related Articles

Control of the House is at the center of midterms. These charts help explain the fight

Lawmakers propose $2.5B agency to boost production of rare earths and other critical minerals

Alaska woman appeals voter fraud charges in case that puts spotlight on status of American Samoans

Trump announces outlines of health care plan he wants Congress to consider

Judge hands offshore wind industry another victory against Trump in clearing way for NY project

Last year, a record 24 million people were enrolled in the ACA, though fewer appear to be signing up this year as the expired subsidies make coverage more expensive. The Supreme Court has upheld the law, and Republicans have failed to repeal, replace or alter it dozens of times. In the most famous example, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, cast the deciding vote in 2018 to keep the legislation in place, underscoring the lack of an alternative by noting there was “no replacement to actually reform our health care system and deliver affordable, quality health care to our citizens.”

Democrats successfully turned the repeal efforts into a rallying cry in the 2018 midterms and see an opportunity to do so again this year with the expired subsidies. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who isn’t seeking reelection, has warned this moment could be even more perilous for Republicans because, unlike the subsidies, voters didn’t lose anything during the 2018 debate.

“Us failing to put something else in place did not create this cliff,” Tillis said. “That’s the fundamental difference in an election year.”

ACA veterans acknowledge challenges

Even those who crafted the ACA concede the health care system created in its wake has problems. Former Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who was among the bill’s architects as chair of the finance committee, acknowledged “nothing is perfect,” pointing to high health care costs.

FILE – Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., enters the Speaker’s office for a meeting about tax cuts on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 1, 2010.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

“Bending the cost curve, that has not bent as much as we’d like,” he said.

That’s in part why some Republicans have expressed openness to a deal on subsidies. They see it less as an endorsement of the ACA than a bridge that would give lawmakers time to address more complex issues.

“We need to get to a long-term solution,” said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb.

Veterans of past health care negotiations, however, are skeptical that lawmakers can produce anything meaningful without the type of in-depth negotiations that led up to the ACA.

“It takes a long time to figure all this out,” Baucus said.

Asked whether he’s studied that history as he dives into the next chapter of health care talks, Moreno noted that he’s only been in Congress for a year.

“I don’t know s—-,” he said. “What that means is I don’t have scars.”

Associated Press writers Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux in Washington and Ali Swenson in New York contributed.