Latest news with #ArtoftheDeal
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Business
- Spectator
Could the Arctic be key to ending the Ukraine war?
'It is in Alaska and in the Arctic that the economic interests of our countries converge and prospects for implementing large-scale mutually beneficial projects arise,' said Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin's long-time foreign policy adviser and former Russian ambassador to the United States, at a Friday press conference in Moscow. His words pointed to Arctic economic cooperation being firmly on the agenda when Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. For Trump, a massively important commercial deal of this kind is his typical negotiating strategy. It's the 'Art of the Deal' – offer something big, lucrative and tangible, then leverage it to unlock political concessions. It's the template Trump just used to broker a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where economic incentives were bound up with resolving a long-running security dispute. An Arctic agreement between the US and Russia could revive energy collaboration between the two countries on a breathtaking scale. A deal would be massively lucrative for both sides. The Arctic contains an estimated 13 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil, roughly 90 billion barrels, and 30 per cent of its undiscovered natural gas. Russia controls around half of that, with explorers pointing to 2,300 million metric tons of oil and condensate, and 35,700 billion cubic metres of gas. It's a bonanza tailor-made for Trump's America First. Parlay US expertise and capital into these frozen assets and the pay-off would be staggering. The shipping upside is no less compelling. The Northern Sea Route offers the promise of slashing shipping times between Asia and Europe by up to 50 per cent. As melting ice slowly opens the Arctic lanes, that cut becomes ever more real: less fuel burned, no queueing at chokepoints, and avoidance of piracy hotspots. Pair that with a fleet of US oil champions and Arctic logistics savvy, and Trump suddenly holds a commercial deal that has the feel of an irresistible boardroom trophy. The US and Russia have been here before. In 2011 ExxonMobil struck a landmark deal with Russia's Rosneft to explore and drill in the Russian Arctic, including the Kara Sea. It was a project worth tens of billions, giving Exxon access to vast untapped reserves and giving the Russians US technology and expertise. Drilling began, but the partnership was suspended in 2014 when western sanctions were imposed after Russia's annexation of Crimea. Bringing it back to life, or using it as the template for new ventures, would be straightforward in commercial terms. The infrastructure, geological data and corporate relationships already exist. A revived Arctic partnership could go beyond oil and gas to include liquefied natural gas terminals, port upgrades, and joint development of the Northern Sea Route, binding the two economies together in one of the last great frontiers for energy extraction. There is no confirmation that the Arctic and Ukraine will be explicitly linked. Yet the logic is obvious enough and the hints coming from Moscow cannot be ignored. For Putin, the Arctic could be the sweetener that secures US agreement to a settlement on his terms in Ukraine. Moscow is unlikely to shift on the fundamentals: Crimea and the Donbas are written into Russia's constitution as part of its territory. Any deal would lock in those gains, demand Ukraine's demilitarisation and secure a buffer against Nato. Trump could claim an Arctic deal as a massive commercial win for the US and the end of a war which he insists was caused by Biden. Putin could gain Washington's help in pushing Kyiv to accept the deal. Trump's leverage is blunt. Kyiv's very survival depends on American weapons and cash. By threatening to cut them off, Trump can force Zelensky to the table on terms Kyiv has long rejected. For Trump, this is straight from his negotiating playbook: create a crisis point, hold the most valuable card, and make sure everyone knows you are prepared to walk away. For Zelensky, the choice would be between accepting a peace agreement that leaves Ukraine truncated, or facing a war without US backing. Ukraine's position is fragile. Its army is drained, its economy battered, and its war effort hinges on western aid. European and UK promises mean little without US firepower and financing. If Trump decides to pivot towards an Arctic bargain with Putin, Kyiv may need to fall in line or face the battlefield more or less alone. Zelensky can draw red lines, but without American support they'll count for little. The EU and Britain would protest loudly, but they lack the leverage to block an American/Russian deal. Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin have all made clear that no settlement should be struck over Ukraine's head, yet moral objections are no substitute for raw power. British, French and German support for Ukraine may not make much of a difference to the Russian advance if the war were to drag on without full US support. Kyiv would be furious about a deal on the Arctic linked to Ukraine. Zelensky has built his presidency on reclaiming occupied land and has vowed never to cede Crimea or the Donbas. A deal that locks in those losses would be denounced as a betrayal. London would echo the outrage, while Brussels would convene summits and issue condemnations. Yet despite the rhetoric, the Europeans would be powerless to change the outcome. The settlement would already be signed and control of US financing of the war firmly in Trump's hands. Beyond the western alliance, the reaction would be far warmer. Much of the global south sees the war in Ukraine less as a clash over borders, and more as a drag on global trade and growth. For China, India and Brazil, an end to the war, even entirely on Russia's terms, would be hailed as pragmatic diplomacy. Trump could present the Arctic bargain as proof that US-Russia cooperation can solve global problems, and this would help blunt criticism from Europe and the UK. The incentives for both Trump and Putin line up neatly. For Trump, it would be another Trump 'deal' in which commercial muscle underwrites a political settlement. Putin would keep his territorial gains and reopen the Arctic to US investment, and Ukraine would be left to make the best of a settlement it didn't shape. Britain and the EU would be reduced to a role of bystanders.
Atlantic
a day ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Making of a Trump-Putin Summit
Vladimir Putin is coming to America. Despite the international warrant for the Russian president's arrest, despite his years of hostile threats against NATO, and despite him showing no remorse for his invasion of a sovereign nation. None of that matters to President Donald Trump, who announced Friday night that he would meet the globally shunned leader this Friday in Alaska. What does matter to Trump is that he may be able to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine, the worst European conflict since World War II, fulfilling one of his biggest campaign promises. Many of Washington's European allies, Ukraine included, now worry that the Art of the Deal president could propose a solution to this conflict that makes concessions to the aggressor, including and especially a redrawing of Ukraine's borders, when he sits with Putin. Putin has made no commitments to cede territory or scale back Russia's aggressive military campaign, and he has long claimed that Ukraine does not exist. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in a video message yesterday, angrily condemned the notion that Trump and Putin alone could decide Ukraine's future. 'Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace,' he said. Trump, who has grown frustrated in recent weeks with Putin's lack of enthusiasm for compromise, had set a deadline for Russia to come to the negotiating table or risk increased tariffs and other punitive measures. He even threatened to move nuclear-armed submarines closer to Russia, and vowed to punish India—one of the largest buyers of Russian oil—for helping bankroll Moscow's energy sector. Trump had promised to end the conflict before even stepping foot inside the White House. As months passed with no deal, Trump finally came to believe that Putin was to blame. But signs that an end to hostilities between Ukraine and Russia was remotely plausible came the day after Trump's envoy to the Middle East (and beyond), Steve Witkoff, returned early this month from Israel. Through back-channel discussions with a close Putin ally, Witkoff—the real-estate executive who, like Trump, is more dealmaker than diplomat—received word of the Russian leader's new willingness to discuss ways to end the fighting. Witkoff had reason to believe that talks were in the making, but he did not want to discuss the details over the phone, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions weren't public. After giving his pilot a night off in Miami, Witkoff shuttled back to Washington to brief Trump, Vice President J. D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles on what he learned, before heading to Moscow last week to get a face-to-face guarantee from Putin that he would attend an in-person meeting in good faith. 'We are not going to send Donald Trump there if it's not perfect,' a top Trump adviser told us. By Wednesday, Trump and Witkoff looped in European allies, including Zelensky, on Witkoff's meeting and their plans to get Trump and Putin in a room together. Trump is open to including Zelensky in the Alaska talks this week, a White House official told us. But for now, at Putin's request, the Ukrainian leader has not received an invite. 'The President hopes to meet with Putin and Zelensky in the future to finally bring this conflict to an end,' White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told us in a statement. Zelensky's resistance risks provoking the ire of Trump, who often hails himself as a peacemaker in a world that, in his telling, had plunged into warfare and chaos during Joe Biden's presidency. There is real worry in Kyiv and Europe about the deal Trump may strike, especially as public opinion about U.S. assistance to Ukraine continues to sour, particularly among Republicans. At most, European and U.S. officials believe that Trump may walk away with some flimsy guarantees to freeze the conflict—meaning that Ukrainian territory captured by Russia since February 2022 will stay in Russian hands. That, according to Zelensky, is a nonstarter. Trump has disliked Zelensky dating back to their 'perfect call' in 2019 that ultimately led to his first impeachment, and he views Ukraine as undeserving of U.S. support. Trump also remains skeptical of the traditional transatlantic alliances prized by his predecessors, and he routinely calls out Europe for failing to share more of the burden regarding NATO's collective-defense agreement. Trump's skepticism of Ukraine was shaped even before he became president, when, in the thick of the 2016 election, the country's anti-corruption agency released information alleging payments to his campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort. In White House meetings and talks with foreign leaders during his first term, Trump repeatedly described Ukraine as 'totally corrupt' and full of 'terrible people.' Trump has even repeated Kremlin talking points that Ukraine is to blame for the war. Trump has long believed that he and Putin share a special rapport. Allies say he felt that the two survived the 'Russia, Russia, Russia hoax ' together, and that Putin would respect his historic political comeback. Trump has been deferential to his Russian counterpart, fueling speculation about the true nature of their relationship in global capitals since his first term in office. At their introductory meeting in Germany, in 2017, Putin urged Trump to recognize Russia's claim of sovereignty over part of Ukraine, citing links dating to an 11th-century political federation located in modern-day Ukraine, Belarus, and part of Russia. Former officials with direct knowledge of the meeting said Trump listened intently to Putin's soft-spoken argument against Ukrainian sovereignty. But Putin, a shrewd former Russian-intelligence officer, has never quite returned the affection. He openly admitted, when asked during the leaders' 2018 Helsinki summit, that he had hoped Trump would win the election two years prior, although he never owned up to interfering in the contest on the Republican candidate's behalf. He has been at times cool to Trump in recent months, including being slow to congratulate him on his election. Administration officials like to note the state of play when Trump took office the second time, emphasizing how much the U.S.-Russia relationship has deteriorated since February 2022, with Putin isolated from much of the Western world, particularly after the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest in connection with the war in Ukraine (the U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC). Witkoff, officials say, has largely been responsible for restoring those direct lines—something you want intact when dealing with two of the world's biggest nuclear powers. Witkoff 'speaks directly for the president,' one person said. 'Trump is a chameleon, but when it comes to Witkoff, the two are in lockstep.' Trump has many people he calls friends, but few like Witkoff; the men have the same background in New York real estate and made a point of not abandoning the president during his months of political exile after he left office, in 2021. A person familiar with the White House discussions said the members of the small senior national-security team supporting Trump all bring different perspectives to the peace talks. Vance has long been a skeptic of U.S. involvement in Ukraine. Rubio has taken a more hawkish approach to Russia. Witkoff and Trump consider themselves dealmakers, often speaking with each other in front of the others in a language the others don't speak, the person said. Still, Trump came into office believing that he could quickly deliver a cease-fire. For months, he generally sided with Moscow in its war against Ukraine, absolving Russia for having started the conflict and threatening to abandon Kyiv as it mounted a desperate defense. He upbraided Zelensky in the Oval Office, in February, and briefly stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine. He believed that he could, in addition to working with his Russian counterpart to end the war, reset relations and forge new economic ties between the two countries. He even envisioned a grand summit to announce a peace deal. But Putin rejected repeated American calls to stop his attacks. And Trump, in recent months, began to take that personally, complaining privately to advisers—and then eventually in public—that Putin would tell him one thing in their phone calls (that he was committed to peace) and then act entirely differently afterward (by bombing Ukraine). Putin only ratcheted up his attacks as the weather warmed and Russia began a renewed summer offensive. Some aides close to Trump came to believe that Putin would signal a willingness to negotiate—including agreeing to some low-level meetings with the Ukrainians in Turkey this spring—in order to buy time to continue his offensive. Trump's recent sanctions threat played a role in pushing Putin back toward negotiations, aides believe. The president imposed some steep secondary sanctions on India but held off on punishing other nations that do business with Moscow—namely, China—and he did not sanction Russia directly by Friday's deadline, giving Putin more time to negotiate. Still, the president had remained intrigued by the thought of a summit's made-for-TV spectacle. When the idea resurfaced last week, Trump first said that he wanted an initial meeting with Putin, followed by a second one that included Zelensky. But the Kremlin balked at the subsequent summit, not wanting to legitimize Zelensky by putting him opposite Putin (Trump later said that Zelenky's eventual inclusion would not be a dealbreaker). White House aides are leery of dispatching Trump to meet with Putin without any guarantee of a deliverable goal—namely, a cease-fire or, at minimum, a real step toward the cessation of hostilities. U.S. and European officials were still gauging whether Russia was serious about curtailing the fighting or simply buying time for more attacks to strengthen its position for future negotiations. And though Trump believes his own personal negotiating skills could sway Putin, it is not clear that Russia would offer an agreement acceptable to Zelensky. Trump has long argued that it is always better to talk, regardless of who it is with, and he has especially emphasized that dialogue between nuclear-armed states, such as the U.S. and Russia, is imperative. He's been known to walk away from splashy summits when talks go awry, as he did in 2019, when he abruptly ended his Vietnam meeting with North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un. He canceled a highly controversial Camp David meeting with the Taliban before it ever took place. But five days is also a long time in Trump's America, and these fragile efforts to get Trump and Putin in the same Alaskan meeting room could easily hit barriers before the delegations board their flights.
Politico
6 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
Trump-Schumer standoff heads for fall rematch
'Sooner or later, Donald Trump — Mr. 'Art of the Deal,' or so he claims — is going to have to learn that he has to work with Democrats if he wants to get deals, good deals, that help the American people,' Schumer said late Saturday night as the Senate prepared to leave town for the summer. 'Going at it alone will be a failed strategy.' Trump's decision to temporarily abandon his confirmations push rather than give in to what he called 'political extortion' from Schumer allowed the embattled Democratic leader to do a pre-recess victory lap after taking heat from the party base for months. Schumer came under fierce criticism in March for helping to advance a shutdown-avoiding spending bill written solely by Republicans. He warned at the time that a shutdown would only empower Trump and that the dynamic would be different come September as, he predicted, Trump became more unpopular. Nine other members of his caucus joined him. Trump initially urged Republicans to stay in Washington until all of the roughly 150 pending nominees were confirmed — a demand that could have essentially erased the Senate's planned four-week recess. But Schumer and Democrats demanded that Trump unfreeze congressionally approved spending in return for consenting to the swift approval of some nominees. Trump would not pay the price. In a post where he blasted 'Senator Cryin' Chuck Schumer,' Trump instructed senators to go home. Republicans flirted with adjourning the Senate to let Trump make recess appointments, but that would have required recalling the House — and reviving the Trump-centered drama over the Jeffrey Epstein files. Instead, they are vowing to pursue a rules change later this year to quickly push Trump's nominees through the Senate. Schumer relished the Truth Social post, putting a poster-sized version on display next to him as he spoke to reporters Saturday night and comparing it to a 'fit of rage.' He kept the heat on Monday, joining with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to demand a so-called 'four corners' meeting with Thune and Johnson to discuss a government funding strategy lest a government shutdown hit Oct. 1. (Republicans, who accuse Schumer of 'breaking' the funding process, haven't responded.) Though Schumer and Thune have had informal talks about September, they haven't delved beyond the broad strokes. The South Dakota Republican, asked about Trump and Schumer, predicted the two will have an 'evolving relationship.' 'At some point, obviously, there are certain things they are just going to have to figure out, because on some of these things where we need 60 [votes] there are going to have to be conversations,' Thune said in a brief interview.
Miami Herald
7 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Trump's Demand to Trading Partners: Pledge Money or Get Higher Tariffs
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's tariff threats have turned into a play for cold, hard cash as he tries to leverage U.S. economic power to cajole other nations to make multibillion-dollar investments in order to maintain access to America's market. The president's second-term trade agenda has clear echoes of his 'Art of the Deal' approach, essentially demanding that trading partners show him the money in the form of investment pledges or else face astronomically high tariffs. The financial promises give Trump the opportunity to flex his negotiating prowess in relatable terms and show off the splashy sums he is pulling into America, adding to the reality show intrigue of his trade agenda. As the Trump administration races to reach trade deals with dozens of countries ahead of a Thursday deadline, he has embraced a strategy that goes beyond opening international markets and reducing the U.S. trade deficit. The tactic was on display last week as Trump and his team rolled out a blitz of new trade agreements before a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline. 'South Korea is right now at a 25% Tariff, but they have an offer to buy down those Tariffs,' Trump wrote on social media Wednesday. 'I will be interested in hearing what that offer is.' The next day, Trump agreed to impose a tariff of 15% on imports from South Korea. The lower rate came after South Korea agreed to make $350 billion in investments in the United States and purchase $100 billion of liquefied natural gas. South Korea is not the only country to make such pledges. Japan said it would establish a $550 billion fund for investments in the United States. The European Union indicated that its companies were poised to invest at least $600 billion. To trade experts, the commitments raise the question of whether Trump is negotiating with trading partners or trade hostages. 'This is no doubt a global shakedown of sorts,' said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the right-leaning Cato Institute. 'The fact is that Trump is using U.S. tariff policy to effectively force these terms upon less-than-willing participants.' But the vague nature of these informal commitments suggests that other nations might also be looking for creative ways to escape Trump's tariffs. Although tariffs are relatively straightforward to enforce, investment and purchase commitments are not as easily policed. The European Union, for instance, does not have the authority to dictate the type of investments that it has promised, and much of Japan's pledged investments are coming in the form of loans. The investment announcements have also spurred confusion and lacked the usual detail that would accompany such pacts to avoid future disputes. A large majority of the $350 billion South Korean investment would take the form of loans and loan guarantees. South Korean officials expressed confusion over what U.S. officials meant when they said 90% of the profits from the investments would go to the American people. A fact sheet announcing the European Union's plans allowed for some wiggle room when it said that 'E.U. companies have expressed interest in investing at least $600 billion' in 'various sectors in the U.S.' 'I think there remain a lot of questions, including by the countries who have announced commitments, as to what those commitments actually really mean,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who served as the top trade negotiator in the Obama administration. 'Is it enforceable? If they don't deliver a certain amount of investment over a particular period of time, do tariffs go back into place?' During Trump's first term, the trade deal he struck with China included extensive commitments for Chinese purchases of American farm products that were never met. The agreement did have an enforcement mechanism, but it proved toothless. Some of the initial investment pledges appear to be too big to be true. New data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed that in 2024, foreign spending to acquire, start or expand U.S. businesses totaled $151 billion -- a small fraction of the new commitments being announced. The $600 billion EU investment commitment matches the total value of the goods that the United States imported from Europe last year. Although the United States has long been a magnet for foreign investment, the longer-term effects of making countries invest under duress are not clear. 'This is the kind of deal you'd more expect to see from an emerging market that can't attract capital on its merits,' said Aaron Bartnick, who worked in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Biden administration. 'And we may find over time that if the United States insists on acting like an emerging market, our trade partners may start treating us accordingly, with more onerous terms and less favorable rates that American companies and consumers are not accustomed to dealing with.' Regardless of the economic implications, Trump's tactics show no signs of abating, as he regularly claims more than $10 trillion -- and climbing -- in investments from foreign companies and countries. Daniel Ames, a professor at Columbia Business School who teaches negotiation strategy, said that Trump's approach to trade deals appears to be drawn directly from his days as a developer and businessperson. Trump became notorious for destabilizing his negotiating counterparts with severely low bids, dazzling sales pitches and an ability to capitalize on weakness to gain leverage. Ames noted, however, that the European Union and countries like Japan and South Korea might also be playing into Trump's sense of vanity when they unveil whopping investment promises that might ultimately be hollow. 'Donald Trump is a gifted storyteller, and I think when his counterparts recognize this, they can play to it,' Ames said. 'If you're negotiating with a narcissist, you look for ways to make them feel like they've won.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
CNBC
01-08-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Another late-night Trump trade twist — just hours before the world hit go
Another day, another deadline and another trade curveball from U.S. President Donald Trump just before the buzzer. The tariff deadline was set for August 1. Markets were watching. Countries were calculating. And then, right before midnight, came another announcement: 40% tariffs on transshipped goods, new rates for dozens of nations, and yet another reshuffling of Trump's trade playbook. All set to begin next week. If this feels familiar, it's because it is. We've seen this before. In April, Trump stunned global markets with a blanket 10% tariff hike, followed by a pause, and then a partial reinstatement. The July 9 restart was delayed at the last minute and pushed to August 1. Each time, businesses scrambled. Leaders called Washington. Trade lawyers worked overtime. But the element of surprise remained. This isn't just erratic policymaking. It's a signature Trump move. His leadership style mixes showmanship, brinkmanship, and a firm belief in the power of unpredictability. Announcements often come via social media. Deadlines shift. Pressure builds. And when the world thinks the playbook is set, Trump throws in one more twist. It's the Art of the Deal, reimagined for geopolitics. And while the tactics may appear chaotic, they've produced results — at least by Trump's standards. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is a prime example. Trump repeatedly threatened to scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) unless Canada and Mexico agreed to stricter terms. After months of tense, down-to-the-wire talks and even a few midnight calls, the deal was signed. It came with tougher rules on automotive content, labor, and digital trade. Just days before implementing sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs, Trump announced a headline-grabbing agreement with the U.K., calling it a "very big and exciting day." The message was clear: act fast or face tariffs. Stephen Olson, Senior Visiting Fellow at ISEAS – Yuosf Ishak Institute and former U.S. trade negotiator, told CNBC this week that Trump has "fundamentally rewritten the rules of global trade." Olson further added that with the U.S. stepping away from the very free trade system it once built and led, it's unclear whether that system can still hold together. "Don't assume this is the end of the story. Trump regards this as an ongoing reality show. More 'deals' or further tariff increases are almost certain to follow. While we haven't returned entirely to a 'law of the jungle' system, we have taken several huge strides back in that direction." This week's moves feels like it's cut from the same cloth. Countries like Thailand and Malaysia saw their rates adjusted at the last moment, while others, such as Canada, were hit harder. Even neutral Switzerland wasn't spared, slapped with a steep 39% tariff despite no major bilateral tension. The timing of the 40% penalty on transshipped goods is notable, given that the U.S. and China are currently negotiating a trade deal. But diplomacy-by-disruption carries costs. Global markets are jittery. CEOs across industries — from autos to semiconductors — are now building uncertainty into their forecasts. Investors dislike surprises and supply chains don't pivot that fast. There's a broader question here: Can a global economy function if one of its most influential players changes the rules at night? For companies and countries alike, Trump's late-night decisions have become a variable of their own. It's not just what he says. It's also when he says it. "The high rates on some countries which have not reached a deal with Trump yet are indeed mostly part of Trump's scare tactics. I expect many of them to be reduced after negotiations. Trump's deadlines are very flexible, after all," Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg, told CNBC on Friday. So, here we are again. Another Trump tariff deadline, another late-night curveball. Companies, countries, and investors are left to adjust on the fly, with little time and even less clarity. It's not the first time and it may not be the last.
