logo
Putin still holds all the cards in Ukraine, with no reason to fold

Putin still holds all the cards in Ukraine, with no reason to fold

While we anguish over Donald Trump's wars on trade, judges, migrants, aid recipients and universities, spare a thought for Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Every morning when Ukraine's president wakes up, he must ask himself whether this is the day the US will again cut off its lifeline flow of arms to his country.
This week, Zelenskiy expressed his willingness to meet Russia's Vladimir Putin in Istanbul, but the Russian declined, sending only a delegation of Kremlin stooges. Trump then canceled. (The Friday meeting was their first direct talks in more than three years.) The Ukrainian leader, and the world, are left utterly uncertain whether the US president's next move will be to toughen sanctions on obdurate Russia or to pull the plug on hapless Ukraine.
Trump has made plain his impatience with both sides in the war, and especially his lack of sympathy for Zelenskiy. He has nursed a personal grudge since, in his first term, the Ukrainian leader refused to help him skewer Hunter Biden.
The Ukrainians surely felt a surge of alarm on hearing Trump's latest pronouncement, that peace will only come when he and Putin meet face-to-face. If indeed such an encounter takes place, the US president's mountainous conceit could well mean that he will agree to anything, surrender anything, to be able to declare that he has cut a deal.
If — or, in my opinion, when — the US again cuts off supplies, Ukraine can keep fighting for maybe four months before it runs out of key munitions, especially 155mm artillery ammunition and Patriot air-defense missiles. Whatever supportive rhetoric comes out of Europe's capitals, the European Union is incapable of filling the gap. The British have emptied our arsenals and sustain only a trickle of weapons as they come out of the factories.
Meanwhile, Putin sees himself holding the cards, a view Trump has publicly endorsed. Economic sanctions, which since January the US has quietly eased on Russian financial transactions, are nowhere near tough enough to make the Kremlin quit.
Putin buys weapons and ammunition for a fraction of the prices Zelenskiy and his foreign backers pay for Western-made kit. North Korea is estimated to have provided Russia with 6 million artillery rounds, around 40% of its consumption. Mercenaries fill the yawning holes in Russian ranks made by casualties. Meanwhile the Ukrainians struggle to recruit. Many of their young people have fled abroad to escape the front lines. I spoke this week with friends involved in hosting Ukrainian refugees in Britain. Some have prospered here. A common strand, however, is that they show no enthusiasm for going home.
A writer for Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the US Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in 2022 that, even if the Russians can't conquer Ukraine, they can keep it a scary place to live and a rotten bet for investors. This seemed smart then, and remains so now.
Putin gambles that if he hangs on, this transactional US president will sooner or later walk away, because he sees nothing in Ukraine for himself. The country would thus eventually become a failed state, over which Putin can secure hegemony. He has already achieved this with neighboring Belarus, and is on his way to gaining control of Georgia and Moldova.
Putin is a man with an obsession: to rebuild the Russian empire, the old Soviet Union; to revive what he, and a dismaying number of his people, see as their national greatness.
The bigger picture is that Russia is extending its foreign influence while the US is in headlong retreat from overseas commitments.
Even as the US eviscerates the State Department and forsakes the tools of soft power, Russia is steadily expanding its reach, especially in Africa. Putin offers the leaders of such countries as Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali access to Russian thugs who guard their palaces, together with Kremlin indifference to institutionalized corruption, in return for privileged access to natural resources.
Moreover, unless I misread the domestic mood in Trump's kingdom, not many Americans care, or notice, that this is happening. While polls suggest no great love for Putin's tyranny, they show a decline in hostility — an unwillingness to treat Russians as enemies — such as we have taken for granted since 1945.
I met last week a British friend who advises the Ukrainian government. He reminded me of a rueful saying of one of the country's former foreign ministers, Dmytro Kuleba: 'You in the West want Ukraine to win, but you do not want the Russians to lose.' That remark was made before Trump became president. Today, the first bit is no longer true: The US administration seems indifferent to the threat of Ukraine's defeat.
Meanwhile, mutual trust has become fragile. Ukrainians are bitter about the consequences of their 2023 offensive against the Russians, which failed with heavy losses. This was urged upon their generals by senior Western military figures, including General Mark Milley, then chairman of the US Joint Chiefs, and his British counterpart.
Most smart soldiers, both Ukrainian and foreign, have since concluded that the best course for Zelenskiy's forces is to stick to the defensive — to make Ukraine a 'porcupine' — too prickly for the Russians indefinitely to grapple. The Ukrainians excel at asymmetric warfare, launching terror hits deep inside Russia and driving the Russian Navy out of the Black Sea.
Almost every sensible Western military chief agrees that Kyiv must abandon any hope of regaining its lost territories in the east. Moreover, these are so devastated that the Ukrainians couldn't fund their reconstruction.
But Putin remains stubbornly committed to gaining control of the entire country, ousting its government and installing puppets. He wants Ukraine demilitarized and quarantined from the West. The only prospect of changing his mind is to increase the pressure on him, both military and economic. Above all, he needs to be convinced, as today he is not, that the US won't abandon the Ukrainians.
If Trump halts military aid, Ukraine is doomed. Such a move would signal a renunciation of the values for which the US has stood guardian almost since the Founding Fathers. Yet it is unsurprising if Zelenskiy, one of the most remarkable national leaders to emerge from the 21st century, has trouble sleeping at night.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Abuse of power': Trump admin slaps sanctions on ICC judges over Netanyahu arrest warrant
'Abuse of power': Trump admin slaps sanctions on ICC judges over Netanyahu arrest warrant

Time of India

time30 minutes ago

  • Time of India

'Abuse of power': Trump admin slaps sanctions on ICC judges over Netanyahu arrest warrant

In a major move, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on four International Criminal Court judges involved in cases tied to Israel and the United States. The judges, Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza (Peru), Reine Alapini Gansou (Benin), and Beti Hohler (Slovenia), will face US entry bans and asset freezes under new measures announced by the State Department. Marco Rubio defended the move, calling the ICC actions 'illegitimate' and warning of overreach in prosecuting US and Israeli officials for alleged war crimes. Show more Show less

Mediation between two unequals not possible: Tharoor on Trump's claims
Mediation between two unequals not possible: Tharoor on Trump's claims

Business Standard

time31 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

Mediation between two unequals not possible: Tharoor on Trump's claims

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has said that to suggest one can mediate between two unequals is not possible because there is no equivalence between terrorists and their victims, amid repeated claims by US President Donald Trump that he "helped settle" the tensions between India and Pakistan. Tharoor, currently in the US leading a multi-party delegation on Operation Sindoor, made the comments in response to a question during a conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations here Thursday. "Mediation is not a term that we are particularly willing to entertain. I'll tell you why not. The fact is that this implies, even when you say things like broker or whatever, you're implying an equivalence which simply doesn't exist," Tharoor said. He said there is no equivalence between terrorists and their victims. "There is no equivalence between a country that provides safe haven to terrorism, and a country that's a flourishing multi-party democracy that's trying to get on with its business," he said. "There is no equivalence between a state that is a status quo power that just wants to be left alone by its neighbours, where the neighbours don't agree with us, and a revisionist power that wants to upset the geopolitical arrangements that have existed for the last three-quarters of a century. There is no equivalence possible in these cases, and in these circumstances, to suggest that you can mediate between two unequals is not possible, Tharoor added. Since May 10, when Trump announced on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire after a long night of talks mediated by Washington, he has repeated his claim over a dozen times that he helped settle the tensions between India and Pakistan. He has also claimed that he told the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours that America would do a lot of trade with them if they stopped the conflict. On being asked how he would characterize the American role in the conflict, Tharoor said he is "guessing to some degree that the American role would have been first of all to keep themselves informed, conversations on both sides, and certainly my government received a number of calls at high levels from the US government, and we appreciated their concern and their interest. He said that at the same time, the US must have been making similar calls at the highest levels to the Pakistan side, and our assumption is that's where, because that's the side that needed persuading to stop this process, that may well have been where their messages really had the greatest effect. But that's guesswork on my part. I don't know what they said to the Pakistanis. Trump repeated the claim as recently as Thursday when during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, the US President said that he is very proud" that he was able to stop the conflict between nuclear powers India and Pakistan. I spoke to some very talented people on both sides, very good people on both sides and said that Washington will not do any trade deals with either if you are going to go shooting each other and whipping out nuclear weapons that may be even affect us. Because you know that nuclear dust blows across oceans very quickly, it affects us," Trump said. You know what, I got that war am I going to get credit? I'm not going to get credit for anything. They don't give me credit for anything. But nobody else could have done it. I stopped it. I was very proud of that, Trump added. About two weeks after the horrific April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir in which 26 civilians were killed, India launched Operation Sindoor targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7. India and Pakistan reached an understanding on May 10 to end the conflict after four days of intense cross-border drone and missile strikes. India has been maintaining that the understanding on cessation of hostilities with Pakistan was reached following direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Trump's campus crackdown an opportunity for India to create its own Ivy League but it has a rival
Trump's campus crackdown an opportunity for India to create its own Ivy League but it has a rival

First Post

time39 minutes ago

  • First Post

Trump's campus crackdown an opportunity for India to create its own Ivy League but it has a rival

With Trump's stricter US immigration policies, experts see India as a potential global education hub. Top universities are improving but face challenges like low funding and limited academic freedom read more As US President Donald Trump intensifies his tough stance on international students, experts say India has a unique opportunity to position itself as a global education hub—though it faces stiff competition from China. According to The Economist, India is home to nearly half of the world's college-age population. Its top universities are improving and gaining recognition, even as the country struggles with low public spending on education and limited academic freedom. Trump's immigration and education policies have made the US a less welcoming destination for foreign students. This shift has opened the door for countries like India to attract global talent—students and researchers who may now be reconsidering their academic futures in the United States. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's top colleges have a lot working in their favour. In fact, admission rates at the country's most prestigious institutions can dip as low as 0.2%, compared to Ivy League acceptance rates of 3–9%. English language proficiency, a deeply ingrained culture of academic ambition, and a vast youth population give India a competitive edge. Half of the world's university-age population resides in India. Parents instill a strong sense of ambition in their children, and India has an advantage due to its broad English language competence. However, India is currently not listed in the top 100 worldwide league rankings. China, on the other hand, now holds the top spot in numerous polls despite only making it into the worldwide top 100 in the 2010s. China is already actively working to recruit global talent as part of a years-long strategy. To entice Chinese scholars back from the West, China has lavished money on one-time incentives and large research grants during the last decade. When the Trump administration said it would work to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students in 'critical fields', Chinese institutions have moved quickly to capitalise. Universities in Hong Kong and Xi'an have announced that they will simplify admissions for Harvard transfer students. An ad from a body affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences welcomed 'talents who have been dismissed by the U.S. NIH,' or National Institutes of Health. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India, by contrast, has the demographic advantage and a growing higher education sector. If it can address key issues in its education system, it has the potential to build its own Ivy League and compete globally in higher education. Money has a significant role in the issue. India has allocated 4.1% to 4.6% of its GDP on education over the last decade. China's spending as a percentage of GDP may be comparable, but its GDP per person is five times that of India. China's intellectual charm offensive is outmatched by India's shortage of rupees. In recent years, more scientists have returned to China, driven in part by government recruiting schemes that promise millions of dollars in financing, as well as housing subsidies and other benefits. China's spending on R&D is currently second only to the United States. Chinese schools such as Tsinghua and Zhejiang University are now consistently ranked among the top in the world for science and technology. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Another concern is intellectual freedom. Indian academics teach from a government-mandated syllabus and are overseen by the University Grants Commission. When planning a conference with overseas colleagues, researchers must obtain authorisation from central ministries, as well as government permission to travel abroad for work. Hiring at public colleges is subject to the whims of the ruling party, as the government monitors top-level selections. India's best shot at building a globally competitive higher education system may lie in the rise of private universities. Two decades ago, fewer than 20 private universities existed; today, there are more than 400, accounting for around a quarter of total enrolment. Many of these are backed by major industrial houses, boast world-class campuses, and are increasingly attracting international faculty. Experts believe these private institutions are poised to outperform their public counterparts, largely due to their greater autonomy. Freed from extensive affirmative action mandates and political interference in faculty appointments, private universities can hire top talent more freely and respond faster to global academic trends. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If the Indian government can find a way to support private universities without overstepping, India may finally be able to create its own Ivy League, and emerge as a serious player in global higher education.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store