Despite Trump's shuttle diplomacy, a protracted war is likely to drag on in Ukraine
The paucity of detail and confidentiality surrounding the outcomes of the summits in Alaska and Washington DC, held on August 15 and 18, respectively, hints that something major is in the works. The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is generally perceived as a success for the latter, who not only managed to break through Western isolation to receive a red-carpet reception, but also exploited the talks to once again push his agenda on Ukraine. It is also believed that Putin outplayed Trump with regard to the specifics of conflict resolution: He escaped a new round of US sanctions, which the US president had promised in the event of no deal being reached, without making too many commitments of his own. Following their three-hour conversation, Trump suddenly shifted his position, promoting a peace agreement rather than a ceasefire as the immediate goal. This aligns with Moscow's vision but contradicts Kyiv's demands for the advancement of talks.
Currently, there is hardly any alignment on 'security guarantees' between the conflicting sides. While European leaders are mulling various options, ranging from further strengthening the Ukrainian army to boosting its military production and deploying troops on the ground, Trump repeatedly says that the US is willing to sell more weaponry to Ukraine via Europe but will probably not go beyond efforts at 'coordination'. Even if Washington rules out sending its troops, all of these steps appear unacceptable for Putin, who has not wavered in his vision of a neutral or 'demilitarised' Ukraine. In a sense, demilitarisation of Ukraine is the 'security guarantee' that Putin has been seeking, though Kyiv's acquiescence to this in the current stalemate seems unlikely.
Another key item on the agenda and a potential stumbling block is the 'land swap' issue which US special envoy Steven Witkoff described as 'the crux of the deal.' While the terms of the offer remain unclear, Witkoff outlined that Kyiv was expected to cede the territories of Donbas in exchange for Russian concessions in other regions. This is on top of Washington's apparent acceptance of Russia's control of Crimea as a fait accompli. Convinced of its military superiority, Moscow is exploiting its territorial gains as leverage in negotiations. Putin has previously warned that if Ukraine does not accept his preconditions for ending the war, the advancement of the Russian army will leave Ukraine in an even worse situation.
The territorial issue is also sensitive for political reasons. Both Ukraine and Russia enshrine the disputed territories in their constitutions, so any territorial concessions in the five regions in question (Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Crimea) would require a thorny legislative process. This puts President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a vulnerable position, as surrendering Ukrainian lands could jeopardise his political ambitions in the presidential elections that would follow the peace agreement.
Trump's shuttle diplomacy between Russia, Ukraine and Europe has paved the way for direct communication between Moscow and Kyiv. While their previous rounds of talks were moderately successful, resulting in the exchange of prisoners of war, they failed to bridge the positions of the two warring parties. The new goal is a summit between Zelenskyy and Putin which looks like a half-baked idea. The Kremlin has not rejected the possibility of a meeting, but has offered to first elevate the level of the Russian and Ukrainian delegations for new talks in Istanbul, thereby retaining an element of ambiguity.
While Trump is rushing to secure another 'peace deal' before the Nobel Prize announcements on October 10, Putin is under no time constraints or domestic pressure. The Russian president is granting concessions to Trump, recognising that the latter's presidency is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve Russia-US relations and reach an understanding on broader strategic issues. Moscow has offered Trump various sweeteners such as joint projects in the Arctic and the access to reserves of critical minerals. Just a day before the Alaska meeting, Putin signed a decree allowing the US oil major Exxon Mobil to regain its shares in the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. Essentially, US-Russia relations have transitioned from confrontation to engagement, though progress in their dialogue has been limited even on technical issues such as the restaffing of embassies and resolving visa issues.
The war in Ukraine remains hard to untangle and will require much patience and quiet diplomacy. While Russia and Ukraine are showing conciliatory signs, primarily in an attempt to win Trump over to their side, there are no good solutions to the conflict. Despite diplomatic overtures, a peace deal is still unlikely. Neither the US nor Europe has the sufficient leverage to pressure Moscow, and Russia has been unable to coerce Kyiv into making peace on its own terms. In this impasse, attempts to craft an imperfect peace will go hand in hand with a protracted war.
The writer is a Fellow with the Strategic Studies Programme at Observer Research Foundation
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
6 minutes ago
- Mint
Gabbard Unveils Plan to Slash Top Spy Agency by 40% This Year
(Bloomberg) -- Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced plans to shrink her agency by 40% by the end of the year in what she called an effort to make the office more efficient, even as she clashes with the national security community she leads. The overhaul would save taxpayers $700 million per year by eliminating 'redundant missions, functions and personnel' at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard said in a statement. The ODNI oversees the US's 18 intelligence agencies. Instead, the ODNI will invest in areas that 'support the President's national intelligence priorities, and focuses on rebuilding trust, exposing politicization and weaponization of intelligence, and holding bad actors accountable,' the statement said. Bloomberg previously reported that the White House was pressing ahead with plans to slash the top spy agency. Officials from both parties concede that the ODNI has become too bloated over the years and that the agency often duplicates work carried out by the independent intelligence agencies it oversees. Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas who leads the intelligence committee, welcomed the announcement as 'an important step towards returning ODNI to that original size, scope, and mission.' But the effort comes as Gabbard has been openly confrontational with the workforce she leads. The spy chief has sought to root out 'politicization' by referring intelligence officers for prosecution over alleged leaks of classified information. Earlier this week, Gabbard suspended the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials, continuing Trump's trend of revoking clearances as a means of political retribution. Two top officials from the National Intelligence Council were also reportedly fired in May after the release of a declassified memo that contradicted Trump's basis for deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members. Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that while lawmakers broadly agree ODNI is 'in need of thoughtful reform,' Gabbard has a 'track record of politicizing intelligence.' The Virginia Democrat added in a statement he has 'no confidence that she is the right person to carry out this weighty responsibility.' --With assistance from Jamie Tarabay and Nancy Cook. More stories like this are available on
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Review: Asia After Europe by Sugata Bose
In college, a professor often went on diatribes against Eurocentrism, the practice of viewing the world through the lens of the hegemonic West. While he earnestly taught us the prescribed syllabus for philosophy students, he bemoaned its overwhelming focus on Western philosophy at the expense of, say, Indian, Arab, or Chinese thought. The Asian future: Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese Premier Li Qiang at the G20 Summit in New Delhi on September 9, 2023. (HT Photo) 288pp, ₹699; Harvard University Press However, even as he exhorted us to be aware of our Western blinkers, he acknowledged the impossibility of completely discarding them within our current modes of knowledge production and dissemination. After all, he was railing in English, the link language for us students from across India. But in doing so, he left us with an appreciation of the assumptions that constitute the bedrock of our worldview, what kinds of knowledge we privilege, and the indigenous thinkers and systems we remain unaware of. While this idea has a long lineage in academic circles, it has not always filtered down to the public sphere. In some cases, it has done so in a rather perverse manner. Take the case of the Indian extremists who use the idea of 'decolonisation' to justify parochialism and subjugate minorities. Ironically, their worldview and ideals derive heavily from European fascist ideology. So, in the very act of highlighting their identity in opposition to the West, they adopt European frameworks of identity and nationalism. That is why I think my professor would have approved of Sugata Bose's Asia After Europe: Imagining a Continent in the Long Twentieth Century. Through the works of scholars and political leaders across Asia and the interactions between them, it explores their visions of Asian solidarity and universalism, and the evolution of Asian thought, politics, and art. They not only challenged European colonial precepts, but also conceptualised alternatives to dominant European narratives and debates. In the book, we encounter Okakura Tenshin, José Rizal, Jamaluddin al-Afghani, and Benoy Kumar Sarkar, among other luminaries of the 20th century and earlier. These names might not be as familiar to non-scholars as some of the more notable ones who figure in Bose's account, such as Rabindranath Tagore and Chiang Kai-shek. Yet, they are no less fascinating. Rizal was a Filipino writer and nationalist, whom the Spanish colonial government executed in 1896. He became a unifying symbol of Asian resistance against Western imperialist domination. Okakura, a Japanese art critic and champion of Asian unity, travelled to India and had close links with Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore. Al-Afghani, born in Iran, was a 'proponent of Islamic fraternity rather than Asian solidarity', though Bose emphasises that there was significant overlap between the two. Al-Afghani travelled across West and South Asia, and in the latter, stressed Hindu-Muslim unity against the British. Sarkar, an 'energetic, globe-trotting Indian intellectual', visited China and Japan, met intellectuals and politicians there, and extensively documented his journeys and geopolitical insights. The book succinctly captures attempts to forge an Asian identity and consciousness, visions of Asian solidarity, and the schisms caused by intra-Asian wars and conflicts. It provides a refreshing account of Asian histories in relation to each other, often without the Western lens that most works on the continent adopt. Asia has now bypassed other regions as the largest producer, exporter, importer, and consumer of goods. With many heralding the 21st century as the Asian century, Bose's book highlights what potential connections and collaborations between Asian nations could look like. He also explores what it would take for the continent to chart a future that 'expands and not destroys the aspirations of humanity'. In the preface, the author says that he has written the book 'in an accessible literary style for a broad readership'. Indeed, interesting anecdotes, such as about Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru rushing to help Chinese First Lady Madame Chiang put on her shoes during a visit to Shantiniketan, make Bose's historical exploration and arguments engaging. While the book largely eschews jargon and does not require an intimate knowledge of 20th-century history, it would have been good if it had provided more context for the non-scholar. Take, for example, the idea of Asia vis-a-vis Europe. While European nations' collective participation in the European Union and free movements across borders in the Schengen zone have lately reinforced the notion of the continent as a unified entity, it is an idea with a long history. Of course, plenty of myth-making and propaganda over centuries have helped shape it. For example, Europeans assert their antecedence in Greek and Roman empires, while conveniently glossing over how Arab scholars mediated their engagement with these civilisations. They claim the continent is built on Enlightenment ideals (natural law, liberty, rationalism, tolerance, etc.) despite their history of colonisation and perpetuating atrocities on the rest of the world. So, while the notion of Europe might be perverted and self-serving, there is some narrative underpinning it, no matter how flawed. What would an analogous conception of Asia look like? Can one find — or invent — common features among its disparate nations? Are there any unifying links between countries thousands of miles apart, say, Japan and Jordan? There are no clear answers, more so given that the idea of Asia as a singular landmass is also an arbitrary European construct. Historian Sugata Bose (Samir Jana/HT Photo) Nevertheless, the author explores several responses to these questions, such as Sarkar's 'three-fold basis of Asiatic Unity' and pan-Asian art and cultural initiatives, among others. While these are quite illuminating, I wish he had further investigated the meta-critiques regarding what constitutes Asia, especially the continent's conceptions that do not merely rely on Europe as a frame of reference. Besides, the book predominantly focuses on Japan, India, and China, with only fleeting references to the other countries that make up the continent. Would an idea of Asia defined largely by these three regional powers be representative of the entire region? Or would it replicate the hegemonic influence of wealthy western European nations over the idea of Europe? A deeper exploration of these debates would have helped better contextualise Bose's cogent and insightful account. Syed Saad Ahmed is a journalist and communications professional. In 2024, he was selected as a Boston Congress of Public Health Thought Leadership Fellow. He speaks five languages and has taught English in France.
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Japan's SoftBank to take $2 billion stake in computer chip maker Intel
Japanese technology giant SoftBank Group plans to take a $2 billion stake in computer chip maker Intel as it deepens its involvement in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and other advanced technology in the United States, the companies said Monday. Shares in both companies fell Tuesday after the announcement, which coincided with unconfirmed reports that President Donald Trump is considering having the U.S. government buy a stake in the chip maker. SoftBank invests in an array of companies that it sees as holding long-term potential. It has been stepping up investments in the United States since Trump returned to the White House. In February, its chairman Masayoshi Son joined Trump, Sam Altman of OpenAI and Larry Ellison of Oracle in announcing a major investment of up to $500 billion in a project to develop artificial intelligence called Stargate. SoftBank plans to buy $2 billion of Intel's common stock, paying $23 per share. "Semiconductors are the foundation of every industry, Son said in a statement. "This strategic investment reflects our belief that advanced semiconductor manufacturing and supply will further expand in the United States, with Intel playing a critical role." Intel helped launch Silicon Valley but has fallen behind rivals like Nvidia Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and is shedding thousands of workers and slashing costs under its new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan. Intel plans to end the year with 75,000 "core" workers excluding subsidiaries, through layoffs and attrition, down from 99,500 core employees at the end of 2024. The company previously announced a 15% workforce reduction. Trump recently said Tan, who was made CEO in March, should resign but after meeting with him last week said he had an "amazing story." SoftBank's shares were down 2.2% Tuesday in Tokyo, while Intel's dropped 3.7% on Monday in New York.
