Analysis: Trump's 50-day shift on Ukraine is a big deal — but probably not for Putin
But his short time horizons and lack of specificity on what exactly he will do for Ukraine, which are hallmarks of his leadership, mean the most critical factor preventing an end to the conflict will remain unchanged. There is little reason to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin will change his own calculations on a war he sees as a historic imperative and that may be existential for him politically.
Still, some things have undeniably changed.
Worst-case scenarios for what the first six months of Trump's second term could mean for Ukraine didn't come to pass.
This assessment excludes the Ukrainian civilians killed in Russia's recent deadly escalation of drones and missile strikes, including on apartment blocks.
But Trump hasn't folded to his erstwhile friend Putin. He's not left Europe in the lurch under the shadow of an increasingly expansionist Russia amid the continent's worst land war since World War II. Trump seems more warmly disposed toward NATO than he has been for years.
Ukraine faces the possibility of losing territory to a Russian summer offensive and more horror that civilians must bear. But diplomatically, it's in a more favorable position with the Trump administration than anyone could have dared hope when President Volodymyr Zelensky got an Oval Office dressing-down in February. That means its hopes of surviving as an independent, sovereign state have improved.
Trump's hostility toward Kyiv and misgivings about pumping US aid into a World War I-style quagmire might mostly be motivated by his dismay that Putin snubbed his peace plans, which were slanted toward the Kremlin.
But he at least has now shed some misconceptions that by force of personality alone he can bend Putin to his will. And by promising Patriot missiles to Kyiv — which Trump said on Tuesday are 'already being shipped' — and being open to a new Russia sanctions push in Congress, he's added steel to American peacemaking.
Trying to coerce Putin to the table may not work either. But at least Trump isn't giving Ukraine away.
Trump's shift will allow all sides to recalibrate to new realities. Although, as CNN's Matthew Chance pointed out, Trump's 50-day deadline for Moscow to talk peace offers a seven-week window for the cynics in Moscow to lock in as many gains as possible by raining fire and death on Ukraine.
Still, Trump has given himself some time to decide where he wants to go on Ukraine. And NATO states can enhance their own utility to Trump following a successful alliance summit.
Zelensky can try to build more goodwill with Trump to shape his approach to any future peace deals — though his experience in the Oval Office is a warning not to try to push the president too far.
And while the caveats about Putin being willing to wage indefinite war still apply, there's a small chance a few more weeks will persuade Putin to contemplate a US off-ramp to a deal likely to hand him territory he's seized in the three-year war and that he could spin as a win for Russian pride and security as well as a rebuke to the West.
Trump appeared optimistic Tuesday as he defended the ultimatum's timeline. 'A lot of opinions change very rapidly — might not be 50 days, might be much sooner than 50 days,' the president said.
It would be unwise to assume Trump's estrangement with Putin is permanent.
His anger seems mostly born of disappointment that Putin has not delivered him a win with a peace deal that might yield a Nobel Prize rather than any deep sentimental or geopolitical concern for the implications of abandoning Ukraine.
And, as usual, the president has tempered previous vehement criticism of the Russian leader. After slamming Putin's 'bullsh*t' last week, Trump on Monday told the BBC: 'I'm not done with him.'
Trump is transactional, operates in short windows of time and constantly seeks to land minor wins he can highlight. So, if he turned around and said he was meeting Putin in a summit next month or got mad at a new perceived slight from Zelensky, no one would be surprised.
'My concern here is that Donald Trump has the ability to be swayed very quickly,' said Sabrina Singh, a former Pentagon deputy press secretary who is now a CNN global affairs commentator.
'I fear that it's only a matter of time until there's another call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin where Putin gives some sort of concessions and says we'll give a temporary five-day ceasefire and then turns around and says well, 'Ukraine violated this ceasefire so we're going to continue on with our war,'' Singh said on CNN News Central.
Still, Trump's change of position is significant.
By following through on his vow to send 'top of the line weapons' to Ukraine quickly, he is taking a big step. Patriot anti-missile defense systems could save many civilian lives, but Trump is embracing a political risk in ditching campaign-trail skepticism toward Ukraine shared by many MAGA supporters.
Trump has also shown more openness to sanctions. Trade between the US and Russia is minuscule at this point, so bilateral punishments won't mean much. But if Trump does make good on a threat to impose secondary sanctions on nations that buy Russian products, especially energy exports, he could choke Moscow's economy and war machine.
Still, would he really target India and China — two leading purchasers of Russian goods, in a move that could severely disrupt US relations with those giant powers and throw the global economy into turmoil? His erratic history of imposing and then suspending tariffs as part of his global trade war suggests not. Moscow may be banking on it.
It also matters what, if any, additional weapons Trump may send to Ukraine. Its most optimistic supporters were delighted on Tuesday when the Financial Times first reported that the president had asked Zelensky in a phone call about Kyiv's capacity to target both Moscow and St. Petersburg. But Trump toned down the speculation on Tuesday, although aides told CNN that he has not ruled out shipping certain categories of offensive weapons to Ukraine that he's so far been unwilling to provide.
'No, he shouldn't target Moscow,' Trump told reporters, referring to Zelensky. 'I'm on nobody's side. You know whose side I'm on? Humanity's side.'
Though he'd likely not admit it, the president is in a similar spot to one long occupied by his predecessor President Joe Biden. He's considering how far he can push Putin while avoiding inflammatory steps that might cross his invisible red lines and widen the war.
Trump's new tolerance and even appreciation for NATO follows genuine fears that his new term might trigger the political earthquake of a US withdrawal.
Credit goes to quiet diplomacy by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, who've worked on Trump and counseled Zelensky on how to approach the US in recent months.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, meanwhile, choreographed an alliance summit in the Netherlands last month that delivered a political triumph for the president. An agreement that NATO states would spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035 allowed Trump to argue he'd forced Europe to get serious about protecting itself and alleviating the burden on the US.
Alongside Rutte in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump praised Europe's spirit for the war in Ukraine, adding, 'Ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing — it's a very good thing.'
Now, NATO has solved another political problem for the president. It's effectively being used as a front for him to send Patriot missiles to Kyiv. European nations are sending the batteries to Kyiv, after which US NATO allies will buy replacements from the US.
Rutte portrayed this diplomatic ballet as another win for Trump.
'Mr. President, dear Donald, this is really big, this is really big,' Rutte said, using characteristic praise that comes across as sycophancy to many but that Trump takes at face value. 'You called me on Thursday, that you had taken a decision, and a decision is that you want Ukraine (to have) what it needs to have to maintain — to be able to defend itself against Russia — but you do want the Europeans to pay for it, which is totally logical,' Rutte said.
The NATO conduit offers at least symbolic distance for Trump as he sends weapons to Ukraine for use in a war against Russia. It allows some level of plausible deniability if MAGA activists disapprove. And it satisfies Trump's obsession with driving a good financial deal. Expect to hear him argue he's secured new sales and even jobs for US defense workers.
The promise that other offensive weapons could also get to Ukraine using the same route is unspecific, however. It's not clear whether Ukraine will get weapons that will enable it to make battlefield advances against Russia. And it's unlikely that any US assistance will mirror the vast packages of military assistance and aid that were approved by Congress in the Biden administration.
The atmosphere on Capitol Hill is also changing. A drive to sanction Russia more severely already had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and Trump has shown he can muster majorities in the House for his priorities.
Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham and his Democratic co-sponsor Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Monday that their bill could be a 'real executive hammer' to isolate Russia. But the measure could still stir dissent in the GOP base at a time when Trump is already upsetting some supporters over the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who opposes more aid to Ukraine, said Tuesday he doesn't see an urgent need for a bill now that Trump has threatened to impose sanctions on Russia and even secondary punishments on India and China.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul blasted the initiative as 'one of the most dangerous bills ever to come before the Senate.' He predicted a total cut-off of trade with China, India and Turkey if they were to be hit by US punishments.
So the domestic politics of Trump's Ukraine shift are not yet fully settled.
And neither, really, is the geopolitical situation.
Trump has adopted a tougher policy toward Putin, but it's not definitive or guaranteed to last. The extent of future US military support for Ukraine remains unclear, even if Kyiv's government is in better standing with the president than ever before. And European NATO states can breathe a sigh of relief about Trump, but his trade war threats have caused a deep transatlantic rift.
All of this means that Putin's key calculation all along — that he can outlast the West on the war in Ukraine — seems unlikely to significantly shift.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Caisse's $3.2-billion investment in a nuclear project is the kind of deal Canada wants — too bad it's in the U.K.
The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec's $3.2-billion investment in a new nuclear energy facility this week is the kind of deal Canada is hoping the country's largest pensions and institutional investors will step up to fund — but it's happening overseas, in England, alongside the U.K. government. The Quebec's pension giant's 20 per cent stake in the Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk was part of a final funding push to greenlight the project, of which the U.K. government owns 44.9 per cent. Once completed, the country's first new nuclear plant since 1995 is expected to reduce carbon emissions and provide more than 60 years of 'clean, reliable power to the U.K. grid, helping to boost the U.K.'s economy (and) strengthen energy security.' The deal is noteworthy for a couple of reasons: first, it capitalizes on a renewed push for nuclear power as countries search for less carbon-intensive options alongside a more recent desire to rely less on imported energy amid geopolitical tensions and trade upheaval driven by United States president Donald Trump. It also comes in a country where the government's push for more institutional investment in infrastructure is being met with some success, both domestically and abroad. In May, ahead of publication of a final review that could impose investment quotas on large pension providers in the United Kingdom, 17 of them — responsible for managing about 90 per cent of defined contribution pensions — signed an accord pledging to invest 10 per cent of their portfolios in assets to boost the economy by 2030. This will include investments in infrastructure, property and private equity, and half will be 'ringfenced' for the United Kingdom, an allotment projected to inject about £25 billion into the economy. The consortium backing the nuclear project, which is the first direct investment in nuclear by the Caisse, includes French energy operator EDF, British multinational energy and services company Centrica and investment partner Amber Infrastructure. This structure is not unusual for the Caisse, a seasoned global infrastructure investor. But a key draw is undoubtedly the project's financing structure. The U.K. government will foot the majority of that bill — an important consideration for institutional investors because of the potential for cost overruns common in infrastructure projects. Officials told the Canadian Press that the Caisse would begin receiving compensation right away, and that there are agreements with the British government that protect the pension fund's return in the event of overruns or significant delays. The project financing is coming through the U.K.'s National Wealth Fund, which was created by Keir Starmer's Labour government. It replaced the U.K. Infrastructure Bank and is intended to be the government's principal investment vehicle, with the express aim of creating conditions to draw in private investors. 'It's an ambitious project in terms of size and complexity,' said Sebastien Betermier, a finance professor at McGill University, adding that the Caisse is arguably one of the world's most advanced investors when it comes to new infrastructure builds referred to as 'greenfield' projects. He credited the U.K. government's success in forging partnerships with private investors to a strong track record of designing regulatory frameworks for privately-operated businesses and 'de-risking' investments for institutional investors. 'In this particular project, I believe the U.K. government was able to reduce the level of construction risk for investors and provide a dividend yield early on,' said Betermier, who has done extensive research on pensions. 'This project shows it is possible to generate win-win opportunities for governments and pension funds in infrastructure (projects), and hopefully we can learn from it here in Canada.' Past efforts by the Canadian government to include the country's pension funds in major infrastructure projects have largely fizzled, with complaints that the government isn't offering up projects with enough size and scale. Furthermore, potential projects haven't come with sufficient policy assurances or guarantees that the private investors will be adequately compensated for the risks they're taking, particularly if they're being asked to participate in building them. An exception has been the Caisse, which has a dual mandate to support economic development in Quebec alongside meeting investment objectives to pay pension beneficiaries. For example, the Caisse was a major investor in the province's The Réseau express métropolitain (REM) mass transit project, which was beset by cost overruns. The $6.3-billion cost of the Montreal light-rail system presented in 2018 had risen by 26 per cent by 2023. It rose further last year, reaching $8.34 billion. While the project was also backed by Quebec and the federal government, the Caisse was responsible for overruns. However, the pension manager structured the deal to derive revenue from ridership, advertising and real estate development, with a forecasted annual return of eight per cent over 30 years. The Caisse is also unique among Canadian pensions when it comes to energy transition. In 2021, the Quebec pension management organization pledged to divest completely from oil producers, which could have given the Caisse an edge with the U.K. nuclear deal. Plus, in May, CEO Charles Emond told the Financial Times that the Caisse plans to deploy more than £8 billion in the U.K. 'in the coming years,' increasing its exposure in the largest investment destination outside North America by 50 per cent. In the article, Emond praised the 'clarity' of its business environment, the 'ability to execute deals' and its 'welcoming approach' to investors. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that Starmer dispatched Rachel Reeves, the U.K.'s chancellor of the exchequer, to Canada to talk up the investment destination last summer. This was followed by a cross-country tour by U.K. trade officials looking to partner with Canada's pension funds to address, among other things, Britain's decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, with the lowest levels among G7 countries. When it comes to enticing Canada's pension giants to invest more at home, Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to be trying to change the conversation: his focus is on the need to create infrastructure and energy corridors to unify and strengthen Canada's economy and reduce dependence on the United States. During his spring campaign, Carney pledged to use $150 billion of government funds to kickstart private sector investment in projects ranging from housing, defence production and transportation infrastructure to digital innovation and patents, critical minerals and energy. 'Our plan is expected to catalyze $500 billion in new investment over the next five years,' the costed platform said, a similar if slightly less ambitious target than the UK's plan to draw in £3 of private investment for every £1 of government money. But there are a few things the Canadian government has to get right with its 'Maple 8' pensions, including the Caisse, as well as other large institutional investors such as Brookfield Asset Management (which had been a rumoured front-runner to invest in the Sizewell C nuclear power station), if it hopes to replicate what the U.K. government has done. For starters, Canada's infrastructure efforts lack both coordination and a comprehensive evaluation framework, crowding out private investors rather than drawing them in, Betermier said in a research paper on infrastructure banks around the world, published by the C.D. Howe Institute in May. Government efforts since 2016 have led to sprawling commitments of more than $180 billion for infrastructure projects spread over 20 federal departments and agencies, primarily in the form of grants and subsidies, he pointed out, adding that provincial governments, too, have tried to get in the game over the past decade. 'Having multiple grants and investment agencies operating in the same market means there is a high risk of competition between the agencies,' Betermier wrote. 'Coordination between these organizations, along with regular engagement with the private sector, will be critical in order to generate maximum engagement from the private sector.' Canada could also take lessons from other governments, such as using loan guarantees to underwrite the risk of projects, as is done in the European Union's under the InvestEU model. Other infrastructure banks allow projects to move forward with the expectation that private investors will come aboard in the future, while Canada's flagship infrastructure bank needs to secure private investment partnerships for a deal to move forward. Large-scale public-private projects are also hobbled by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework for short- and long-run performance, said Betermier, whose paper compared public infrastructure banks in Australia, California, Canada, the Nordic-Baltic region, Scotland and the U.K. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, launched with much fanfare in 2017 and a goal of every government dollar being matched by private sector investment of $3 to $4 — a target later reduced to $1 to $2 — failed to live up to that promise. By 2022, a House of Commons standing committee on transportation, infrastructure and communities recommended abolishing it. A couple of weeks ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the infrastructure bank would disburse $14.9 billion in 2027-28, well short of its $35-billion target. However, the PBO noted that the $1-billion target for Indigenous investments has already been met. Among the many reasons for the struggle in Canada, Betermier said, is that most of the country's infrastructure assets – including airports, seaports, railways, and utilities – remain publicly owned by federal, provincial or municipal governments. This stands in sharp contrast to countries like Australia and the U.K., where Canadian pensions have been, and continue to be, big investors in infrastructure assets that provide diversification, hedges against liability risks, and offer opportunities for high risk-adjusted returns and direct value creation. Canada's big pensions are ready for airport privatization. Are Canadians? 'Not theirs for the taking': Can the Canadian pension model survive a new era of politicization? Another Canadian pension giant puts brakes on China investment 'The lack of infrastructure assets available for sale to (pension and other institutional investors in Canada) has become a hot topic recently because it is one of the reasons why Canadian pension funds have decreased their domestic investments over the past decade,' he wrote. 'For infrastructure banks to successfully catalyze investment in infrastructure from private banks and large institutional investors, Canadian governments must actively support and commit to a private-sector role in the infrastructure market.' • Email: bshecter@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump envoy Witkoff says US cuts short Gaza ceasefire talks as Hamas lacks 'good faith'
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff said Thursday the U.S. is cutting short Gaza ceasefire talks and bringing home its negotiating team from Qatar for consultations after the latest response from Hamas 'shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza.' 'While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith," Witkoff said in a statement. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.' It was unclear what 'alternative options" the U.S. was considering. The White House had no immediate comment, and the State Department did not immediately respond to messages. A breakthrough in talks on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas has eluded Trump's Republican administration for months as conditions worsen in Gaza. The territory recently had its deadliest day yet for aid-seekers in over 21 months of war, with at least 85 Palestinians killed while trying to reach food Sunday. The sides have held weeks of talks in Qatar, reporting small signs of progress but no major breakthroughs. Officials have said a main sticking point is the redeployment of Israeli troops after any ceasefire takes place. Witkoff said the U.S. is 'resolute' in seeking an end to the conflict in Gaza and said it was 'a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way.' Earlier Thursday, Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's office recalled his country's negotiating team back to Israel in light of Hamas' response. In a brief statement, the prime minister's office expressed its appreciation for the efforts of Witkoff and mediators Qatar and Egypt, but it gave no further details. The deal under discussion is expected to include a 60-day ceasefire in which Hamas would release 10 living hostages and the remains of 18 others in phases in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Aid supplies would be ramped up and the two sides would hold negotiations on a lasting truce. The talks have been bogged down over competing demands for ending the war. Hamas says it will only release all hostages in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal and end to the war. Israel says it will not agree to end the war until Hamas gives up power and disarms, a condition the militant group rejects. The State Department said earlier in the week that Witkoff would be traveling to the Middle East for talks, but U.S. officials later said that Witkoff would instead travel to Europe. It was unclear if he was holding meetings there Thursday. ___ Associated Press writers Josef Federaman and Julia Frankel in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
Hamilton Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump envoy Witkoff says US cutting short Gaza ceasefire talks, bringing home negotiating team
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff said Thursday the U.S. is cutting short Gaza ceasefire talks and bringing home its negotiating team from Qatar for consultations after the latest response from Hamas 'shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza.' 'While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith,' Witkoff said. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.' He said it was 'a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way' and that the U.S. is 'resolute' in seeking an end to the conflict in Gaza. A breakthrough in talks on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas has eluded the Trump administration for months as conditions worsen in Gaza . The territory recently had its deadliest day yet for aid-seekers in over 21 months of war, with at least 85 Palestinians killed while trying to reach food Sunday. The sides have held weeks of talks in Qatar, reporting small signs of progress but no major breakthroughs. Officials have said a main sticking point is the redeployment of Israeli troops after any ceasefire takes place. Earlier Thursday, Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's office recalled his country's negotiating team back to Israel in light of Hamas' response. In a brief statement, the prime minister's office expressed its appreciation for the efforts of Witkoff and mediators Qatar and Egypt, but it gave no further details. The deal under discussion is expected to include a 60-day ceasefire in which Hamas would release 10 living hostages and the remains of 18 others in phases in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Aid supplies would be ramped up and the two sides would hold negotiations on a lasting truce. The talks have been bogged down over competing demands for ending the war. Hamas says it will only release all hostages in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal and end to the war. Israel says it will not agree to end the war until Hamas gives up power and disarms, a condition the militant group rejects. The State Department said earlier in the week that Witkoff would be traveling to the Middle East for talks, but U.S. officials later said that Witkoff would instead travel to Europe. It was unclear if he was holding meetings there Thursday. ___ Associated Press writers Josef Federaman and Julia Frankel in Jerusalem contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
