
U.S. negotiators outmatched by Russians in Ukraine talks, say analysts
Ukraine (and initially the United States) talked about a ceasefire for all civilian infrastructure, while Russia said it was for energy infrastructure alone, and both sides claimed almost immediately the other had violated it. For the Black Sea, meanwhile, Russia saw it as a chance to lift sanctions on its banks, while Ukraine said it included port infrastructure.
In remarks Wednesday in the Rose Garden, President Donald Trump insisted the negotiations were going well, saying: 'We're being given good cooperation by Russia and by Ukraine. But we have to get it stopped.'
It was a conflict he said he could solve in 24 hours during his campaign, but the results since, while much trumpeted by the administration, have sapped confidence in the negotiations and the evenhandedness of the American negotiators by participants and outside observers alike.
Trump's display of temper last weekend — when he criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin for seeking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's replacement even before peace talks could take place — was the first tacit admission that the talks so far are not going as planned, with the Kremlin offering no meaningful compromises despite a number of important gestures from the U.S.
'I don't know if it shows the inexperience in handling these matters,' said Thomas Graham, senior director for Russia at the National Security Council under the George W. Bush administration and now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'I think what it shows is the Trump administration is very intent on demonstrating progress, things that they can point to as success and covering up the challenges ahead.'
Joshua Huminski, a senior vice president at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, downplayed these doubts, however, and said the Trump administration's approach to the talks was all about initial confidence-building measures.
'I think this is kind of relearning the art of negotiating, the art of the deal in the Trump era,' he said. Trump's unusual approach to negotiation was an advantage, he contended. 'I think this is a New York property developer approach to setting the diplomatic negotiating agenda and keeping negotiating partners off balance.'
Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in an interview last month called the talks between Putin and Trump 'epic' and 'transformational,' and 'enormously beneficial for the world at large.'
Many Ukrainians, however, are already losing trust in the peace talks, with 75 percent saying that under Trump, Ukrainians could expect an unfair or partly unfair peace deal, according to a poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.
These fears grew after the Trump administration surrendered some of its strongest tools of leverage at the outset — including normalizing relations with Moscow and accepting Russia's conditions that it gets to keep most of the territory it seized by force and barring Ukraine from NATO.
'I've had questions, too, about impartiality and fairness,' said Thomas Greminger, head of the Geneva Center for Security Policy and former director general of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
'We have seen President Trump and other members of the U.S. government regularly and publicly making concessions. And that's normally not what you do in a process running up to negotiations,' he said. 'That is a huge difference to what we've been hearing from the Russian side.'
Critics contend that the U.S. negotiation team is no match for the hardened ex-Soviet officials with decades of negotiating experience and knowledge of Ukraine. The Russian team includes longtime Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, former diplomat Grigory Karasin, and Sergey Beseda, former head of the FSB's Fifth Service, the counterintelligence department.
The U.S. team is not made up of experienced Russia experts, said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, while Trump's main Russia envoy, Witkoff, is a property developer and friend of the president.
'For the Russians, it is a very kind of easy team, and they're definitely running circles around their American counterparts. And for now, I think that they're quite successful,' he said. Russia's success in convincing the Trump administration to work on improving ties on a parallel track to the peace talks — not as a condition of progress on peace — was 'a big victory for Russian diplomacy.'
Although Trump last weekend did voice some anger at Putin, his administration continues to offer him important concessions. On Wednesday, Kirill Dmitriev, a close Putin ally and head of the sovereign wealth fund, became the most senior Russian official to visit Washington since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. He held talks with Witkoff despite being under U.S. sanctions, which would have had to be temporarily lifted for the trip.
'The Russians expect that Trump may be the gift that keeps on giving to Russian foreign policy goals,' said Gabuev, including 'destroying transatlantic unity, which has been [a] Russian foreign policy goal for many years, if not centuries.'
Trump's foreign policy shift and threats toward allies are seen by the Kremlin as 'a real revolution' and a 'window of opportunity,' said Russian analyst Vladimir Pastukhov of the University College London's School of Slavonic and East European Studies. 'They are trying to use some tactical benefits from the changing circumstances.'
Russia's moves have left the American side exposed multiple times throughout the process: Before meeting Witkoff last month in Moscow, for example, Putin floated an unconfirmed story that a large group of Ukrainian soldiers was surrounded as Russian forces retook territory in the Kursk region. Trump repeated the story uncritically and asked Putin to show mercy.
After last month's phone call with Trump and Putin, the Trump team announced a 30-day partial ceasefire on both energy and infrastructure — but the Kremlin statement said this applied only to energy infrastructure. The U.S. then adopted this version, without explaining the shift.
There were more discrepancies last week: The U.S. announced that both sides had agreed to a Black Sea ceasefire, but the Kremlin then released a list of conditions before this could take place, including lifting sanctions on several Russian financial institutions — major concessions that would have required a European buy-in that was not there.
'So for all practical purpose, there is not a ceasefire. There is not a Black Sea initiative that has been agreed by the Ukrainians and Russians. We have the illusion of progress with no concrete steps toward implementing the actions that the administration is talking about,' said Graham.
But the lopsided nature of the process became clearer when Witkoff unquestioningly repeated several more of Putin's false claims, including that Ukrainian regions annexed by Moscow wanted to be Russian because citizens voted for this in referendums — even though the referendums of occupied populations are not legal under international law, according to the United Nations.
'He appears to be more Putin's envoy to Trump than the other way round,' Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King's College London, wrote in an analysis. 'It is usually wise for someone who wishes to play an intermediary role to keep their cards close to their chest and avoid alienating either side.'
Witkoff also gushed in an interview about Putin telling him that he visited his local church to pray for Trump after an assassination attempt in July.
'What comes through is that he is fundamentally uninformed about the nature of the conflict and has never really dealt with Russia before, and doesn't understand the negotiating tactics and particularly how Putin might try to manipulate the situation,' said Graham.
When asked whether he was concerned that Witkoff was voicing Kremlin propaganda, Zelensky said in an interview last week with four European journalists: 'Witkoff indeed very frequently quotes the Kremlin narratives. I believe this won't bring us closer to peace.'
With the emerging doubts about the peace process, both sides are maneuvering to take advantage — or avoid a military disadvantage — should they fail. Russia's goal is to see Ukraine blamed if peace talks fail so that the U.S. halts military and intelligence support, opening a path to military victory. Ukraine seeks the opposite.
On Tuesday, Moscow reinforced its hard-line, maximalist demands when Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov complained that Russia's demand 'to solve the problems related to the root causes of the conflict' was being ignored by the U.S., and 'we cannot accept all of this as it is.'
As the U.S. overstates its progress in talks, Moscow seems concerned that Trump's negotiators do not understand how serious it is about these demands, according to Graham.
'The question is whether the administration has the patience to continue those negotiations and whether they can conduct the negotiations in ways that can extract concessions from the Russian side,' he said.
Michael Birnbaum contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom praised for new online posting style: All Caps and mimicking Trump
California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is earning plaudits for his recent trolling of President Donald Trump by mimicking his social media habits, including all-caps posts. Newsom, a frequent foil for the president's social media outbursts, took to X Tuesday night to blast 'DONALD 'TACO' Trump,' -- a reference to 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' coined by a financial columnist over the president's back-and-forth tariff policies. Trump has been pushing several red states to gerrymander their congressional maps to give Republicans an upper hand, amid growing fears that the GOP could lose the House in next year's midterms. The maps are typically redrawn every ten years following the census, and not in the middle of the decade. Newsom sent Trump a letter Monday calling on him to end the 'unprecedented, mid-decade, hyper-partisan gerrymander to rig the upcoming midterm elections.' 'If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,' he wrote. 'But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it.' Newsom subsequently posted on X that Trump had 24 hours to respond to the letter. On Tuesday, as the deadline passed, he wrote: 'DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!).' 'BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR 'MAGA,'' he added. 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!' Sports reporter Emily Bicks wrote on Threads: 'Gavin Christopher Newsom keepin the no f***s energy comin.' Liberal social media commentator, Harry Sisson, wrote: 'I absolutely love how Gavin Newsom is treating Donald Trump with the disdain and disrespect that he absolutely deserves.' Journalist Karly Kingsley added: 'I don't think we're giving Gavin Newsom enough credit for what he's doing to defend democracy and to stop a wannabe dictator from consolidating power.' Attorney and Never Trump-er George Conway joined the presidential mockery, writing in response to Newsom: 'Many people, big strong men with tears in their eyes, will soon be saying, 'Sir, you have the most Amazing State, with the Most Beautiful Maps. No one has ever seen anything like this. Your Excellency, Sir, we are in awe of your Incomparable Gubernatorialicityness'.' But not all were on board with Newsom's style change. The Chief Strategy and Public Affairs Officer at Future Caucus, an organization for young lawmakers, Reed Howard, wrote: 'Race-to-the-bottom politics is a darn shame. America deserves better than this. I want real leadership.' Reporter Alex Gault added: 'If this becomes a lasting approach to political communications, I will be committing myself to whatever mental hospital still does lobotomies.' Last month, Trump asked Texas to redraw its maps to hand Republicans another five House seats in the state. Texas Democrats left the state to deny Republicans the ability to move forward with their proposal. Democrats then said they would look to redraw maps in blue states such as Illinois, California, and New York, prompting Republicans to consider taking action in Ohio and Indiana. California has an independent commission that draws political maps, and if Newsom moves ahead with his threat, he would need passage of a special ballot in November.


San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Federal agents will be out 24/7 on patrol in Washington, the White House says
WASHINGTON (AP) — As a wary Washington waited, the White House promised a ramp-up of National Guard troops and federal officers on the streets of the nation's capital around the clock starting Wednesday, days after President Donald Trump's unprecedented announcement that his administration would take over the city's police department for at least a month. The city's Democratic mayor and police chief framed the influx as a plus for public safety, though they said there are few hard measures for what a successful end to the operation might look like. The Republican president has said crime in the city was at emergency levels that only such federal intervention could fix even as District of Columbia leaders pointed to statistics showing violent crime at a 30-year low after a sharp rise two years ago. For two days, small groups of federal officers have been visible in scattered areas of the city. That is about to change, the administration says. A 'significantly higher' presence of guard members was expected Wednesday night, and federal agents will be out 24/7 rather than largely at night, according to the White House. Hundreds of federal law enforcement and city police officers who patrolled the streets Tuesday night made 43 arrests, compared with about two dozen the night before. In one neighborhood, officers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the FBI could be seen along with the U.S. Park Police searching the car of a motorist parked just outside a legal parking area to eat takeout and drop off a friend. Two blocks away, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers gathered in a parking lot before driving off on patrol. In other parts of the city, including those with popular nightlife hot spots, federal patrols were harder to find. At the National Mall, there was little law enforcement activity aside from Park Police cruisers pulling over a taxi driver near the Washington Monument. Unlike in other U.S. states and cities, the law gives Trump the power to take over Washington's police for up to 30 days. Extending his power over the city for longer would require approval from Congress, and that could be tough in the face of Democratic resistance. A variety of infractions are targeted The arrests made by 1,450 federal and local officers across the city included those for suspicion of driving under the influence, unlawful entry, as well as a warrant for assault with a deadly weapon, according to the White House. Seven illegal firearms were seized. Unlike in other U.S. states and cities, the law gives Trump the power to take over Washington's police for up to a month. Extending Trump's power over the city for longer would require approval from Congress, and that could be tough in the face of Democratic resistance. The president has full command of the National Guard, but as of Tuesday evening, guard members had yet to be assigned a specific mission, according to an official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. As many as 800 troops were expected to be mobilized in a support role to law enforcement, though exactly what form remains to be determined. The push also includes clearing out encampments for people who are homeless, Trump has said. U.S. Park Police have removed dozens of tents since March, and plan to take out two more this week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said. People are offered the chance to go to shelters and get addiction treatment, if needed, but those who refuse could be fined or jailed, she said. City officials said they are making more shelter space available and increasing their outreach. Violent crime has dropped in the district The federal effort comes even after a drop in violent crime in the nation's capital, a trend that experts have seen in cities across the U.S. since an increase during the coronavirus pandemic. On average, the level of violence Washington remains mostly higher than averages in three dozen cities analyzed by the nonprofit Council on Criminal Justice, said the group's president and CEO, Adam Gelb. Police Chief Pamela Smith said during an interview with the local Fox affiliate that the city's Metro Police Department has been down nearly 800 officers. She said the increased number of federal agents on the streets would help fill that gap, at least for now. Mayor Muriel Bowser said city officials did not get any specific goals for the surge during a meeting with Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, and other top federal law enforcement officials Tuesday. But, she said, "I think they regard it as a success to have more presence and take more guns off the street, and we do too.' She had previously called Trump's moves 'unsettling and unprecedented' while pointing out he was within a president's legal rights regarding the district, which is the seat of American government but is not a state. 'I've seen them right here at the subway ... they had my street where I live at blocked off yesterday, actually,' Washington native Sheina Taylor said. 'It's more fearful now because even though you're a law-abiding citizen, here in D.C., you don't know, especially because I'm African American."


Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California providers see ‘chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld
If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded 'public benefit' programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court. The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state's emergency healthcare system, the officials said. Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said. In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate 'chilling effect' on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader 'ripple effects' — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as 'a critical safety net' for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers. 'Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,' Jaime-Milehan said. Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote. Tony Thurmond, California's superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the 'chilling effect' from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to 'seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.' Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations. The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants. The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.' Trump's order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.' California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,' California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said. In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out. Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens. 'Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,' she wrote. Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county's 'safety-net' care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities. 'But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,' Chawla wrote. 'This will exacerbate their health conditions.' Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county's residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county's children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country. The administration's changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote. 'The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara's emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,' Hansen wrote. The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court. In response to the states' motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it. They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies 'merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,' and 'restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.' The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.