Scaring Putin is the only route to a just peace
Nobody in their right mind thought Putin would come to the latest round of peace talks in Istanbul with any seriousness. And so it has proven. His demands are straight out of Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko's negotiating playbook: demand the maximum, present ultimatums and do not give one inch.
Putin's terms for a final settlement are no different from his diktats from the start, including international recognition of Moscow's occupation of the four regions he considers Russian territory, and a guarantee Ukraine never joins any international alliances. Even Putin's pathways to a temporary ceasefire require withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all of the four regions, demobilisation of the armed forces, cessation of international military aid and electing a new government.
In other words: total capitulation, with Ukraine surrendering its sovereignty, partitioned, isolated, disarmed and a Russian puppet government in Kyiv. That doesn't mean negotiations shouldn't continue in the hope of achieving less punitive terms. The Ukrainian government has already signalled it would be ready to accept the temporary occupation of territory Russia has already captured. But it is hard to see how Putin will climb down from his maximalist position without significant changes on the battlefield or to the economic situation.
President Trump tried a softball approach with Putin, extending the prospect of major economic benefits through a return to normalisation in US-Russia relations. Putin hasn't bought that even though he has ham-fistedly attempted to mollify Trump and encourage him to abandon Ukraine with his disingenuous ploy of engaging in negotiations. Trump obviously sees right through that. He said he was 'p----d off' by Putin's proposal that Ukraine should be placed under external administration with elections overseen by the UN.
The US now needs to try a different approach. Trump can say he did everything he could to end the bloodshed in the first months of his presidency but Putin's intransigence now demands different tactics.
What would those tactics be? Continue to hold out an olive branch while doubling down on US military backing to Ukraine and pressuring European allies to do the same thing. It was Biden's faltering leadership that allowed most West European countries as well as the US to do the least they could get away with. That needs to change and we've already seen how Trumpian hectoring can compel Europeans to boost their own defence spending, both in his first term and even more in his second.
Renewing US commitment to Nato would also help encourage European leaders. It would send a powerful message to Putin too, whose overriding strategic objective is dividing the West. We need to move on from providing Ukraine with just enough to defend themselves but never enough to prevail. The effort required to drive Russia back out of Ukraine is probably too much to expect, but the point would be to enable Kyiv to do even more damage to Russian forces to compel Putin to reconsider his current calculation that he can grind Ukraine down and outlast the West's support.
Among the most harmful constraints Biden imposed on Ukraine was forbidding use of US-supplied weapons to attack Russian sovereign territory. That was the consequence of his fear of Russian escalation, both against Ukraine and Nato countries. It allowed Putin to continue to shield the Russian population from the conflict, keeping it limited to a 'special military operation'. Kyiv didn't play ball though, firing home-made drones into Russia and even mounting the first invasion of its territory since the Second World War.
The latest breathtaking drone attack on Russia, which destroyed a large chunk of its strategic air force on the ground shows what can be done. Some say the US and European countries should distance themselves from that, dreading Moscow's retaliation. But irrespective of the diplomatic position they choose to take, they should do the opposite, by giving Ukraine what it needs to carry out further strikes to undermine Russian military capability, drive the war home to the population and humiliate Putin.
Trump should start to do real economic damage to Russia. Much can be achieved by more effective military action to increase weapons and equipment loss rates, potentially forcing Putin to transition the economy to a full war footing.
The half-hearted sanctions against Russia have not been good enough and European countries have paid more to Russia for hydrocarbons than they have given in aid to Ukraine. We need to turn the screws by tougher measures against the Russian energy sector, finally detaching Moscow from the international banking system and disrupting the ghost tanker fleet that has allowed oil revenues to surge. A bitter blow would also be landed by seizing the entirety of Russia's $330 billion of frozen assets in Western countries to pay for the war, or at least plan to do so subject to negotiations.
Putin showed yet again in Istanbul that he doesn't eat carrots, so Trump now needs to propel him towards a proper deal by applying a very large stick.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
29 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Billionaire GOP megadonor Ken Griffin is confused: Why is the US trying to bring back 'jobs that'll never pay much'?
Ken Griffin had no good answer. The billionaire founder of the $66 billion hedge fund Citadel and its sister company, market maker Citadel Securities, Griffin is a megadonor to the Republican Party and was excited for the American economy after President Donald Trump's election. Less than half a year since Trump's inauguration, Griffin said he was asked during a recent visit to China, "Why are you trying to be like China?" He said there isn't a logical reason the US would want to bring manufacturing "jobs that'll never pay much" to the country, but that seems to be the goal of the tariff policies pursued by Trump's administration. "It's one thing to make Nikes, it's another thing to make F-35 fighters," he said Thursday morning at the Forbes Iconoclast conference in Manhattan. Griffin has been critical of the administration's tariff policies in recent months, calling them a mistake that will hurt the economy and consumers. He said Thursday that they were an "anti-growth agenda," and the expected growth of the US economy has been cut in half since Trump took office. He continued his criticism of Trump, whom he voted for, focusing on the current tax bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate. Griffin said it will add "several trillions" of dollars to the deficit and lacks "tough decisions." "The United States' fiscal house is not in order," Griffin said, questioning the decision to cut taxes on small and medium-sized businesses when the deficit was rising. He said credit markets have noted the uncertainty plaguing the US thanks to the administration's policies, noting that "the risk of a US default is priced the same as Italy or Greece." "There's just no words for it," he said. If there was any optimism in his talk, it was about the resilience of American CEOs. He said hiring and capital expenditures will slow as long as there is uncertainty from Washington. Still, he was impressed with how individuals like Doug McMillon, the CEO of Walmart, explained the impact tariffs would have on the consumer. "We should not criticize CEOs for being honest," he said, adding, "shame on the administration" for scolding McMillon and other CEOs for talking about the tariffs' impact. There's still time for Trump and his team to return to pro-growth economic policies, he said, and there's no time to wait. "The United States desperately needs growth" to pay for entitlements like Social Security, he said.
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What to know about Trump's new travel ban
A full travel ban will affect citizens of the following countries: Afghanistan Chad Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Myanmar Somalia Sudan Yemen Partial restrictions will apply to citizens of other countries, meaning they cannot come to the country permanently or apply for certain visas. They are: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela What is the administration saying? Trump, who announced the ban in a proclamation, said it was intended to protect 'the national security and national interest of the United States and its people.' It is his latest effort to further restrict immigration since returning to office in January, coming after his administration blocked asylum-seekers at the southern border, barred international students from Harvard University and ordered immigration raids across the country. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Cabinet officials in April had identified a list of countries where vetting and screening information surrounding visa applicants was 'deficient' enough to warrant a full or partial suspension, the action said. Advertisement The order accused many countries of the list of exploiting the US visa system and failing to cooperate with the United States on deportations. The action said citizens of some countries had a higher risk of overstaying their visas, which added to burdens on law enforcement agencies. The announcement came days after an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa was arrested in Colorado and charged with attacking a group honoring hostages being held in the Gaza Strip. But Egypt is not subject to the ban. Advertisement What are the exceptions? The new travel ban does not apply to people with visas who are already in the United States, and it includes a few other exemptions. For example, Afghans eligible for the Special Immigrant Visa program, which is for those who helped the US government during the war in Afghanistan, are excepted from the ban. Other exceptions include green card holders, dual citizens and athletes or coaches traveling for a major sporting event held in the United States, like the World Cup or the Olympics. What are the reactions from the banned countries? The announcement provoked swift reaction from some of the affected countries. Venezuela's interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, called the US government 'fascist,' saying that 'being in the United States is a big risk for anybody, not just for Venezuelans.' The African Union released a statement Thursday expressing concern and noting 'the potential negative impact' the move could have on interpersonal relationships, commerce, education and 'diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades.' Somalia's ambassador to the United States -- whose country Trump's order labeled a 'terrorist safe haven' -- took a more conciliatory approach. The ambassador, Dahir Hassan Abdi, said in a statement that his government was 'ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised.' The State Department issued about 170,000 visas last year to people from the 12 countries on the list, most of which were nonimmigrant visitor visas for tourism, business or study. That is a small fraction of the millions of visas it issues every year. How does this compare with the last Trump travel ban? In 2017, shortly after taking office, Trump announced a ban on travelers from seven mostly Muslim-majority countries. (Five of those countries are on the list again.) The move, announced in an executive order, took effect immediately and caused chaos, with hundreds of travelers being detained at airports. After a legal battle, the Supreme Court eventually permitted a rewritten ban, and the list of countries later evolved. President Joe Biden ended the ban after taking office. Advertisement The new ban includes countries in more parts of the world and could affect more people than the bans Trump introduced during his first term. This time around, Trump's effort is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny, experts said, partly because of a longer lead-up to the announcement and the range of countries affected.
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
Texas hospital that discharged woman with doomed pregnancy violated the law, a federal inquiry finds
Maternal health Women's health Abortion rightsFacebookTweetLink Follow A Texas hospital that repeatedly sent a woman who was bleeding and in pain home without ending her nonviable, life-threatening pregnancy violated the law, according to a newly released federal investigation. The government's findings, which have not been previously reported, were a small victory for 36-year-old Kyleigh Thurman, who ultimately lost part of her reproductive system after being discharged without any help from her hometown emergency room for her dangerous ectopic pregnancy. But a new policy the Trump administration announced on Tuesday has thrown into doubt the federal government's oversight of hospitals that deny women emergency abortions, even when they are at risk for serious infection, organ loss or severe hemorrhaging. Thurman had hoped the federal government's investigation, which issued a report in April after concluding its inquiry last year, would send a clear message that ectopic pregnancies must be treated by hospitals in Texas, which has one of the nation's strictest abortion bans. 'I didn't want anyone else to have to go through this,' Thurman said in an interview with the Associated Press from her Texas home this week. 'I put a lot of the responsibility on the state of Texas and policy makers and the legislators that set this chain of events off.' Women around the country have been denied emergency abortions for their life-threatening pregnancies after states swiftly enacted abortion restrictions in response to a 2022 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three appointees of President Donald Trump. The guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 was an effort to preserve access to emergency abortions for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies. It directed hospitals — even ones in states with severe restrictions — to provide abortions in those emergency cases. If hospitals did not comply, they would be in violation of a federal law and risk losing some federal funds. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law and inspecting hospitals, announced on Tuesday it would revoke the Biden-era guidance around emergency abortions. CMS administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a social media post on Wednesday that the revocation of the policy would not prevent pregnant women from getting treatment in medical emergencies. 'The Biden Administration created confusion, but EMTALA is clear and the law has not changed: women will receive care for miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and medical emergencies in all fifty states—this has not and will never change in the Trump Administration,' Oz wrote, using the acronyms for the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The law, which remains intact and requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment, was one of the few ways that Thurman was able to hold the emergency room accountable after she didn't receive any help from staff at Ascension Seton Williamson in Round Rock, Texas in February of 2023, a few months after Texas enacted its strict abortion ban. Emergency room staff observed that Thurman's hormone levels had dropped, a pregnancy was not visible in her uterus and a structure was blocking her fallopian tube — all telltale signs of an ectopic pregnancy, when a fetus implants outside of the uterus and has no room to grow. If left untreated, ectopic pregnancies can rupture, causing organ damage, hemorrhage or even death. Thurman, however, was sent home and given a pamphlet on miscarriage for her first pregnancy. She returned three days later, still bleeding, and was given an injected drug intended to end the pregnancy, but it was too late. Days later, she showed up again at the emergency room, bleeding out because the fertilized egg growing on Thurman's fallopian tube ruptured it. She underwent an emergency surgery that removed part of her reproductive system. CMS launched its investigation of how Ascension Seton Williamson handled Thurman's case late last year, shortly after she filed a complaint. Investigators concluded the hospital failed to give her a proper medical screening exam, including an evaluation with an OB-GYN. The hospital violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients. Thurman was 'at risk for deterioration of her health and wellbeing as a result of an untreated medical condition,' the investigation said in its report, which was publicly released last month. Ascension, a vast hospital system that has facilities across multiple states, did not respond to questions about Thurman's case, saying only that it is 'is committed to providing high-quality care to all who seek our services.' Doctors and legal experts have warned abortion restrictions like the one Texas enacted have discouraged emergency room staff from aborting dangerous and nonviable pregnancies, even when a woman's life is imperiled. The stakes are especially high in Texas, where doctors face up to 99 years in prison if convicted of performing an illegal abortion. Lawmakers in the state are weighing a law that would remove criminal penalties for doctors who provide abortions in certain medical emergencies. 'We see patients with miscarriages being denied care, bleeding out in parking lots. We see patients with nonviable pregnancies being told to continue those to term,' said Molly Duane, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights that represented Thurman. 'This is not, maybe, what some people thought abortion bans would look like, but this is the reality.' The Biden administration routinely warned hospitals that they need to provide abortions when a woman's health was in jeopardy, even suing Idaho over its state law that initially prohibited nearly all abortions, unless a woman's life was on the line. But CMS' announcement on Tuesday raises questions about whether such investigations will continue if hospitals do not provide abortions for women in medical emergencies. The agency said it will still enforce the law, 'including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' While states like Texas have clarified that ectopic pregnancies can legally be treated with abortions, the laws do not provide for every complication that might arise during a pregnancy. Several women in Texas have sued the state for its law, which has prevented women from terminating pregnancies in cases where their fetuses had deadly fetal anomalies or they went into labor too early for the fetus to survive. Thurman worries pregnant patients with serious complications still won't be able to get the help they may need in Texas emergency rooms. 'You cannot predict the ways a pregnancy can go,' Thurman said. 'It can happen to anyone, still. There's still so many ways in which pregnancies that aren't ectopic can be deadly.'
