Latest news with #CouncilonForeignRelations
CNBC
2 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
President Trump's tariffs may not actually achieve his objectives, says CFR's Michael Froman
Michael Froman, Council on Foreign Relations president and former U.S. Trade Representative, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss news of a U.S. federal trade court blocking most of President Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs, impact on U.S. trade negotiations, and more.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump attacks Putin over Ukraine onslaught but will he impose consequences?
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said his personal relationship with Vladimir Putin would allow him get through to the Russian president and bring peace to Ukraine. But after Moscow's escalation of strikes on Kyiv over the weekend, Trump wrote Putin's gone "absolutely CRAZY!" "I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him," Trump wrote in a social media post on Sunday. By Tuesday, Trump warned Putin was "playing with fire." The comments are the clearest sign yet of Trump's mounting frustration with Putin -- but the question remains whether he will take any punitive action against Russia or if he's making idle threats. MORE: Hundreds of drones attack Russia with impacts, disruption reported in Moscow Asked on Wednesday what the consequences would be if Russia continues its intensified barrage on Ukraine, Trump deflected. "Well, I'm not going to tell you exactly. But the words speak pretty loud," he said. Trump was asked on Sunday if he would consider imposing new sanctions on Russia. The president said "absolutely." The Kremlin responded that Trump's criticism of Putin was an "emotional reaction" and that he didn't "fully understand" their military motives. "Putin's intent has been obvious. He's stated it over and over. He's acted on it. It is to be sure that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation," said William Taylor, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine currently serving as a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. "He is not a friend of the United States. And this has been clear for a long time. He has been able to play and outplay President Trump all along." "I think that President Trump is recognizing that reality," Taylor told ABC News. "That Putin is not his buddy. That Putin is attacking Ukraine in record numbers of missiles and drones right after speaking to Trump. This is not a serious negotiator. Putin is very clearly not interested in stopping this war." Trump continued to say on Wednesday he was "disappointed" and "not happy" with Russia's onslaught toward Ukraine. "Trump's comments won't necessarily affect the stance either side takes in these talks: the Ukrainians will convey maximum flexibility, while the Russians will stress the concessions they expect Kyiv to make. Where you could see a change is in the U.S. attitude toward new sanctions or new aid to Ukraine," said Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as the State Department's ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union. Trump had promised to end the war on Day 1 in office -- a pledge he later said was hyperbolic. He's come under heavy scrutiny for making public demands of Ukraine, including that it give up the goal of NATO membership and possibly conceding some territory gained by Putin's forces, while not doing the same with Russia. An hourslong phone call between Trump and Putin last week yielded no major breakthroughs. Putin said he was ready to work on a "memorandum on a possible future peace agreement" but showed no signs of making concessions. Trump had said after that call direct talks between Ukraine and Russia would start immediately and possibly be held at the Vatican. Russia later rejected the Vatican as a location. MORE: Putin 'playing games' with US peace talks, Zelenskyy says amid drone attack Retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump's Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine, told Fox News this week that new Russia-Ukraine talks could take place in Geneva -- perhaps involving Trump, Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy. On the "memorandum" mentioned by Putin, Kellogg said Ukraine has given their version of the document and "now we need to get the same from Russia." Trump on Wednesday said he would sit down with Putin and Zelenskyy "if it's necessary." Asked if he still believed Putin really wants to end the war, Trump sidestepped. "I can't tell you that," Trump said. "But I'll let you know in about two weeks. Within two weeks. We're going to find out very soon. We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not. And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently. But it will take about a week and a half, two weeks." Trump made similar comments back in April wondering if Putin was "tapping" the U.S. along, and warned they'd take another tack if so, though nothing has substantially changed since then. "Trying to read Putin's mind is a risky business, but right now he seems to think he can pretend to negotiate without limiting his military attacks and that Trump will hold off on new sanctions or new weapons," Sestanovich said. "If Trump thinks Putin's approach shows considerable disrespect for him, well, he's right." Trump's threat of additional sanctions is one he's made previously, though he's yet to implement them and did not join European countries when they announced last week their own sanctions package against Russia. On Wednesday, Trump was asked what was stopping him from imposing new sanctions. "Only the fact that if I think I'm close to getting a deal, I don't want to screw it up by doing that. Let me tell you, I'm a lot tougher than the people you're talking about," Trump told reporters. There is growing support for economic pressure on Russia among Republicans. In the Senate, a bill from South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham that would impose sanctions on countries that buy Russian energy has more than 80 co-sponsors. "This is not the time for more 'Vladimir stop.' This is not the time for questions of concern about being pissed off. Those times are passed," said Taylor. "Now is the time, if President Trump is serious, and I think he is serious about ending this war, now's the time for him to take action." MORE: Russia is preparing new offensives, according to Ukraine intelligence: Zelenskyy Yet just last week, after speaking with Putin, Trump floated he might "back away" from talks completely -- and leave it Putin and Zelenskyy to sort things out themselves. Such a move would be a win for the Russian leader, analysts say. "That said, I don't think that President Trump and the administration will walk away because this has been the top priority since before the election and for President Trump to throw up his hands, essentially give in and give up to President Putin, would be an admission of defeat, admission of loss, would give President Putin a big win and would be a stain on President Trump," Taylor said. Trump attacks Putin over Ukraine onslaught but will he impose consequences? originally appeared on
3 days ago
- Politics
Trump attacks Putin over Ukraine onslaught but will he impose consequences?
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said his personal relationship with Vladimir Putin would allow him get through to the Russian president and bring peace to Ukraine. But after Moscow's escalation of strikes on Kyiv over the weekend, Trump wrote Putin's gone "absolutely CRAZY!" "I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him," Trump wrote in a social media post on Sunday. By Tuesday, Trump warned Putin was "playing with fire." The comments are the clearest sign yet of Trump's mounting frustration with Putin -- but the question remains whether he will take any punitive action against Russia or if he's making idle threats. Asked on Wednesday what the consequences would be if Russia continues its intensified barrage on Ukraine, Trump deflected. "Well, I'm not going to tell you exactly. But the words speak pretty loud," he said. Trump was asked on Sunday if he would consider imposing new sanctions on Russia. The president said "absolutely." The Kremlin responded that Trump's criticism of Putin was an "emotional reaction" and that he didn't "fully understand" their military motives. "Putin's intent has been obvious. He's stated it over and over. He's acted on it. It is to be sure that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation," said William Taylor, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine currently serving as a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. "He is not a friend of the United States. And this has been clear for a long time. He has been able to play and outplay President Trump all along." "I think that President Trump is recognizing that reality," Taylor told ABC News. "That Putin is not his buddy. That Putin is attacking Ukraine in record numbers of missiles and drones right after speaking to Trump. This is not a serious negotiator. Putin is very clearly not interested in stopping this war." Trump continued to say on Wednesday he was "disappointed" and "not happy" with Russia's onslaught toward Ukraine. "Trump's comments won't necessarily affect the stance either side takes in these talks: the Ukrainians will convey maximum flexibility, while the Russians will stress the concessions they expect Kyiv to make. Where you could see a change is in the U.S. attitude toward new sanctions or new aid to Ukraine," said Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as the State Department's ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union. Trump had promised to end the war on Day 1 in office -- a pledge he later said was hyperbolic. He's come under heavy scrutiny for making public demands of Ukraine, including that it give up the goal of NATO membership and possibly conceding some territory gained by Putin's forces, while not doing the same with Russia. An hourslong phone call between Trump and Putin last week yielded no major breakthroughs. Putin said he was ready to work on a "memorandum on a possible future peace agreement" but showed no signs of making concessions. Trump had said after that call direct talks between Ukraine and Russia would start immediately and possibly be held at the Vatican. Russia later rejected the Vatican as a location. Retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump's Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine, told Fox News this week that new Russia-Ukraine talks could take place in Geneva -- perhaps involving Trump, Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy. On the "memorandum" mentioned by Putin, Kellogg said Ukraine has given their version of the document and "now we need to get the same from Russia." Trump on Wednesday said he would sit down with Putin and Zelenskyy "if it's necessary." Asked if he still believed Putin really wants to end the war, Trump sidestepped. "I can't tell you that," Trump said. "But I'll let you know in about two weeks. Within two weeks. We're going to find out very soon. We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not. And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently. But it will take about a week and a half, two weeks." Trump made similar comments back in April wondering if Putin was "tapping" the U.S. along, and warned they'd take another tack if so, though nothing has substantially changed since then. "Trying to read Putin's mind is a risky business, but right now he seems to think he can pretend to negotiate without limiting his military attacks and that Trump will hold off on new sanctions or new weapons," Sestanovich said. "If Trump thinks Putin's approach shows considerable disrespect for him, well, he's right." Trump's threat of additional sanctions is one he's made previously, though he's yet to implement them and did not join European countries when they announced last week their own sanctions package against Russia. On Wednesday, Trump was asked what was stopping him from imposing new sanctions. "Only the fact that if I think I'm close to getting a deal, I don't want to screw it up by doing that. Let me tell you, I'm a lot tougher than the people you're talking about," Trump told reporters. There is growing support for economic pressure on Russia among Republicans. In the Senate, a bill from South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham that would impose sanctions on countries that buy Russian energy has more than 80 co-sponsors. "This is not the time for more 'Vladimir stop.' This is not the time for questions of concern about being pissed off. Those times are passed," said Taylor. "Now is the time, if President Trump is serious, and I think he is serious about ending this war, now's the time for him to take action." Yet just last week, after speaking with Putin, Trump floated he might "back away" from talks completely -- and leave it Putin and Zelenskyy to sort things out themselves. Such a move would be a win for the Russian leader, analysts say. "That said, I don't think that President Trump and the administration will walk away because this has been the top priority since before the election and for President Trump to throw up his hands, essentially give in and give up to President Putin, would be an admission of defeat, admission of loss, would give President Putin a big win and would be a stain on President Trump," Taylor said.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Debunking Putin's ‘root causes' claims
As Russia continues to bombard cities and towns across Ukraine, Russian officials have hardened their position against a ceasefire, continuing to repeat the obscure demand that the war's "root causes" be addressed before agreeing to any truce. For months, the phrase "root causes" has become a go-to talking point repeated by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his deputies, including Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, to justify their continued aggression. "In (Russia's) telling, they ascribe these root causes to an aggressive West," said Robert Person, an expert on Russian foreign policy and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "The most concrete thing that you'll hear, when they're talking about the root causes that they refer to, is the enlargement of NATO." Russia has named the alleged threat from NATO in its attempts to justify its invasion of Ukraine, among other reasons, and has demanded that a peace agreement include a ban on Ukraine ever joining the alliance. But Russia's framing is a red herring, Person and other experts argue. "What Putin is after in Ukraine and beyond is not just a rollback of the prospect of NATO membership. It's not about securing Ukraine's neutrality," he said. "It's really about turning Ukraine into a subservient vassal state with a puppet government that does his bidding." The false narratives serve a useful purpose for Russia's government, however, said Mercedes Sapuppo, assistant director in the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center. "When Putin discusses the 'root causes' of his war, he is calling up a framework that he claims justifies Russia's aggression in Ukraine by falsely placing blame on Ukraine," said Sapuppo. "Putin and the Kremlin are using these narratives to frame Ukraine as the instigator of the Kremlin's war." Even U.S. President Donald Trump has bought into the idea, saying as recently as last month, "I think what caused the war to start was when (Ukraine) started talking about joining NATO." Alongside NATO expansion, Russia has at times named additional reasons for its invasion — including propaganda claims of Nazi extremism, and protecting the status of Russian language speakers or the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church — but it has placed outsized emphasis on NATO. In 2018, Ukraine enshrined its goal of NATO membership in its constitution and has since argued that membership in the security alliance is needed in the future to deter further Russian aggression. Yet the idea that NATO is the root cause of this conflict is "nonsensical," said Stephen Hall, assistant professor in Russian and post-Soviet politics at the University of Bath. "It's a narrative that's pushed by the Kremlin to try and get so-called 'useful idiots' to play it up in the media and elsewhere." One sign that Putin's concerns go beyond NATO, notes Hall, is the limited resistance that Russia put up when Poland joined NATO in 1999 and when Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia followed in 2004 — four countries that share a border with Russia. "Then fast forward to when the state with the longest border (in NATO) with Russia, Finland, joins in 2023. There's barely a peep from Moscow," he added. While NATO is relevant, it is only in highlighting to Putin that Ukraine is slipping away from Russian influence, Hall said. Additionally, if Ukraine were to make independent decisions based on the will of its people, it could send a signal to Russian citizens that democracy is a viable option for them, as well. "That, obviously, is a problem for Putin's autocracy, or any autocracy for that matter," Hall said. "It's very clear that the root cause for him, really, is just Ukraine's existence." Before Russia's 2014 invasion, the idea of NATO membership was deeply unpopular with Ukrainian citizens, with only around 15 to 20% of Ukrainians supporting it at the time. Since Russia's invasion, however, support has skyrocketed. According to a poll last year by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 84% of Ukrainians would like to see their country join NATO. Evidence that NATO is a smokescreen for Putin's motivations is seen not just in how Putin treats other NATO members, but also how it has treated Ukraine for decades, Person of CFR said. "For over twenty years, Putin has very aggressively been targeting Ukrainian sovereignty and Ukrainian democracy," Person said, citing Putin's interference in Ukraine during the 2004 Orange Revolution as an example. In the lead-up to the Orange Revolution, Putin heavily promoted pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych ahead of the 2004 presidential election, including visiting Ukraine to push his preferred candidate. His attempts to interfere with Ukraine's politics prompted a backlash, helping to spark protests over a rigged election that resulted in Yanukovych's defeat. "Then in 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea, when they invaded the Donbas, membership in NATO was nowhere on the immediate agenda — for NATO or Ukraine. There was a constitutional provision at the time that prohibited it, and required neutrality," Person noted. "How does that somehow spark or cause the Russian invasion of 2014?" Sapuppo, of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, says understanding Putin's motivation for the war is necessary for informing the West's strategies for negotiations with the Russian leader. "It's very clear that the root cause for (Putin), really, is just Ukraine's existence. This should make it clear to Western leaders that any agreements to end the war need to be very forward-looking when it comes to security guarantees," she said. If Western leaders were to fall into the trap of focusing on NATO limitations, this would not only fail to address the true reasons for the invasion, but would also allow Russia to establish a revisionist history, she said. But recognizing the underlying motives for Russia's invasion also means recognizing that they are far more difficult to solve than a question of neutrality, Person added. "You could draw lines on a map all day long. No line, unless it incorporates, at least all of Ukraine up to and including Kyiv and its government, is going to satisfy Putin's demands," he said. "At the end of the day, what Putin cannot tolerate is a sovereign Ukraine that chooses its own foreign policies and partnerships, its own economic relationships." Hi, this is Andrea. Thank you for reading this article. The Kyiv Independent doesn't have a wealthy owner or a paywall. Instead, we rely on readers like you to keep our journalism funded. We're now aiming to grow our community to 20,000 members — if you liked this article, consider joining our community today. Read also: What happens to all the guns in Ukraine post-war? We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Lie about Dead 'White Farmers' Just Got Even More Grotesque
Because President Trump deeply values accuracy and integrity in public conduct, he will be mortified to learn that a photo he brandished during his recent Oval Office meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa perpetrated a massive deception. The photo was supposed to display dead white South African farmers—a Trump obsession—but instead, it showed body bags from the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which is producing humanitarian horrors. This abomination came as Trump ambushed Ramaphosa by displaying numerous printouts of web pages to illustrate a 'genocide' against whites underway in his country. But Reuters now reports that one of the printouts displayed imagery taken from a Reuters video shot in the DRC of humanitarian workers moving dead victims from the war with Rwanda-backed rebels. Most obviously, this is another sign of Trump's inability to produce evidence of his new pet conspiracy theory about huge masses of 'white farmers' being killed in racial pogroms. But there's another ugly irony here that shouldn't pass unnoticed: The Trump administration has suspended foreign aid to DRC and the resettlement of refugees from that nation, thus abandoning countless victims of the very same real-life humanitarian catastrophe that he's cherry-picking imagery from to portray an atrocity against whites that isn't actually happening. Plainly, a hapless Trump aide was tasked with finding web postings about murdered South African white farmers for Trump to wave in Ramaphosa's face as part of some sort of humiliation ritual—probably dreamed up by Stephen Miller—designed to thrill white nationalists everywhere. As it happens, the video he showed Ramaphosa of crosses designed to depict a killing field full of white corpses also turned out to be a wild distortion. Trump's broader claim of a white genocide has similarly been debunked. Yet Trump has sought to feed this gutter conspiracy theory by resettling several dozen white Afrikaners in the United States, even as he's suspended the resettlement of refugees from everywhere else in the world. But there's something particularly ghoulish about this new Reuters revelation. Trump held aloft what appeared to be a printout of a conservative blog post, which was broadly about Africa (and partly about South Africa as well) and featured a photo image lifted from a Reuters video about the DRC conflict. (Perhaps the aide Googled 'white farmers' and 'South Africa,' found the blog post with the picture of DRC victims, and printed it for Trump to cite as imagery of dead white Afrikaners?) The Reuters video, which you can watch right here, depicts atrocities in the war between DRC and Rwanda. The Council on Foreign Relations describes this as 'one of the largest and deadliest humanitarian crises in the world,' having left millions in need of basic food and medicine or seeking refuge abroad. Indeed, just before Trump took over, a State Department report declared that it was prioritizing the resettlement of large numbers of refugees from that conflict, describing it as a 'complex emergency' that has 'intensified.' But now that Trump has suspended refugee resettlement across the board—with the exception of white Afrikaners—an untold number of those DRC refugees are barred from the United States. What's more, according to the United Nations, Trump's cuts have 'severely impacted' humanitarian efforts in DRC. Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International, argues that these are taking a toll on victims of the conflict there: The cuts, he says, 'affected services for people displaced by the fighting, including emergency food aid, clean water, shelter, and emergency malnutrition support.' In fairness, under Trump this conflict recently saw a partial diplomatic breakthrough, though this continued a process initiated by his predecessor. As The Washington Post's David Ignatius reports, this achievement could ultimately make a real difference. But this doesn't justify stalling resettlement of refugees from the war or dramatically curtailing foreign aid to the region. 'Trump has slashed programs supporting the victims,' Konyndyk said. 'He has cut off refugee resettlement, leaving no escape valve for people displaced by that conflict. Then he uses an image of that conflict to promote his false narrative about South Africa. It's absolutely grotesque.' As an aside, if there were really mass atrocities targeting white people—crime statistics show general high crime in South Africa, but no evidence that whites are being singled out—then you'd think far more of them would want to be coming here. Yet Democratic aides on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tell me they've asked the State Department for details on the number of Afrikaners who have applied to come to the United States, and have not received an answer. Is there really an ongoing groundswell of white Afrikaners clamoring to come here, or did the administration have to work hard to find white victims willing to be resettled? We'll soon find out. As I argued recently, Trump's 'white genocide' imagery draws heavily on a kind of internationalized 'great replacement theory' that's popular among white nationalists. In this storytelling, embattled white populations around the world must come to each other's rescue to avoid elimination. The 'farmers' trope gives all this a producerist feel: The white populations are the salt-of-the-earth in their homelands, under siege from shiftless, rootless, swarthy masses being manipulated against them by dark international forces or even by the globalists themselves. Trump, Miller and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt don't use this precise language. But they constantly describe white South Africans as a 'persecuted minority'—even as they taunt us with their refusal to settle genuine victims of mass persecution from the rest of Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East. The flaunting of this contrast is itself the intended message. The depravity of it all was perfectly captured by Reuters video journalist Djaffar Al Katanty, who shot the image Trump used. 'In view of all the world,' Al Katanty said, Trump manipulated his work to broadcast the story that 'white people are being killed by Black people.' The not-so-coded message is that the only victims of mass historical crimes who exist or merit our attention are white victims of nonwhites. All the rest will be summarily erased as matters of concern to us. The unabashed declaration of the power to replace actual historical crimes with mythological ones—ones featuring whites as world historical victims—is the main event here. You couldn't ask for a clearer illustration of this than the transformation of victims in a genuine humanitarian horror in central Africa—ones we are slamming the door on—into phony evidence of an imaginary genocide against white South Africans—ones who are getting welcomed into our country by Trump with open arms.
