Latest news with #LongTelegram
New Statesman
23-04-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Launching Britain into the new space age
The British astronaut Tim Peake during a spacewalk outside the International Space Station, 15 January 2016. Photo by Nasa Photo / Alamy Stock Photo Taking our young grandsons to Disneyworld, much as we took their mother 30 years before, I was struck by how cleverly everything is geared towards children, prams (or 'strollers', in the local parlance) and families. It was a joy to watch their encounters with characters, from early shy glances to full-on cuddles, and their first taste of roller coasters. On my first visit all those years ago, I couldn't believe there was a place where feeding children, changing nappies ('diapers') and welcoming families were all part of the experience. I was disappointed when the Thatcher government failed to offer Disney incentives to build its European theme park in the UK, so I am delighted to see Universal is now coming to Bedford. For many families, a trip to Paris, or more so to Florida, is out of the question, but a day in Bedford might be possible if pricing, especially for kids, can be kept affordable. I'm hoping it will feature Harry Potter and James Bond attractions, and, with luck, some Minions as well. From Disneyworld to Trumpworld While I was enjoying myself in Florida, the news came that the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, where I am a fellow, had been almost entirely shut down by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Congressionally chartered in honour of the only US president to have a PhD, the think tank's expertise and experience in foreign and security policy had been at the service of Congress for 60 years. A bipartisan body, it offers training and advice to members of Congress and their staff, and has won accolades for its work internationally. It houses the Kennan Institute, including the personal library of George Kennan, the author of the 'Long Telegram', and the Kissinger Institute on China, together with the Polar Institute, which focuses on Arctic issues. Programmes on Europe, the Middle East and much more will be lost unless new homes can be found – and quickly. The future is also uncertain for the foreign scholars from countries such as Afghanistan and Belarus who faced threats to their lives and careers in their home countries but received residential fellowships at Wilson to carry on their work. A few staff remain to shutter the place before the building is turned over for use by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or 'Ice'. Four polite young men in their twenties, I understand, came to tell the 130 employees to leave, and to fire the CEO (he resigned before they arrived). A couple of them, who had only arrived in DC a few days before, took a few moments to ask the staff for recommendations on what to do and where to eat while in the city. Out of this world I am delighted to be welcoming the astronaut Tim Peake to the inquiry being conducted in the Lords on Britain's engagement with space. I am very fortunate to be chairing a committee with such an enthusiastic, knowledgeable group of peers. All bar one remember the moon landing (well, this is the House of Lords) although one or two were tiny tots when it happened. We have already heard from some serious entrepreneurs doing incredible work in space, from health pioneers able to grow skin in space (it is easier without gravity) to robots that repair satellites in space, rather than having to return everything to the ground each time something needs to be fixed. Professor Brian Cox and the Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, who commanded the International Space Station, have already given us the benefit of their knowledge. Arguably, the space economy is just an extension of our Earth-based search for economic growth, and the opportunities for the UK are real. Not only do we have brilliant innovators in space technology but also in financial and legal services, as well as experience in dealing with space debris and future regulation. But our entrepreneurs are being offered greater opportunities elsewhere, with fewer risks as part of bigger enterprises, and there is unquestionably a need for more investment. With a return rate of 10:1 seemingly, since the days of the Apollo moon landings, it is a good moment to consider how public and private investment can leverage a uniquely British contribution to the new space race. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Magnum opus I had a strange moment in the House of Lords recently as a Conservative peer of long-standing familiarity with both houses of parliament crossed my path, clutching a bottle of Champagne. He was celebrating his birthday, and noted that the Pugin Room in the Commons sells Champagne more cheaply than the next-door Peers' Guest Room to which he was returning with his booty. MPs' bars get bigger subsidies he noted, with the air of someone who had beaten the system. [See also: Taking on the manosphere death cult] Related
Asia Times
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
Putin already outfoxing Trump at the negotiating table
Since returning to the White House in 2025, US President Donald Trump has dramatically reshaped US policy toward Russia, adopting a markedly softer stance on Vladimir Putin and the ongoing war in Ukraine. This approach has included cutting military aid to Ukraine and pressuring Kyiv to accept unfavora ble terms to end the fighting. Trump is also weakening America's negotiating position by repeatedly and prematurely signaling the concessions the US is willing to make. Historically, Russia has responded to strength, not appeasement. As US diplomat and historian George Kennan famously stated in his 1946 Long Telegram, the Soviet Union understood only the language of power. He was proven right – throughout and since the Cold War, Western concessions have often invigorated rather than calmed Russian aggression. Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy is reinforcing this established pattern, emboldening Moscow, and diminishing any prospect of a just resolution to the Russo-Ukrainian war. Since February, President Trump has taken several actions that align with Russian strategic interests. These have included: Cutting military aid to Ukraine, despite bipartisan warnings that reducing support could shift battlefield momentum in Russia's favor Blocking NATO membership and refusing security guarantees for Ukraine, signalling that territorial expansion can be rewarded rather than deterred Blaming Kyiv for the war while downplaying Russia's responsibility and ignoring the indisputable reality that Russia invaded Ukraine, a stance that echoes Kremlin propaganda narratives Criticising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for postponing elections under martial law, despite Ukraine's constitutional justification Siding with Russia, North Korea and Belarus to vote against a UN resolution condemning Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity. This approach mirrors historical examples of Western appeasement, from Neville Chamberlain's 1938 Munich Agreement to the weak enforcement of President Obama's 'red line' in Syria in 2013. By preemptively offering concessions, Trump has weakened US leverage, removing any incentive for Putin to negotiate in good faith. Unlike Western democracies, Putin's Russia operates on power dynamics rather than diplomatic courtesies. Trump's early giveaways – such as suggesting the recognition of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories – will therefore be seen in Moscow as a show of weakness, not goodwill. This weakens the US' leverage in negotiations and, by extension, that of its allies too. 20th-century history confirms that Russia only responds to forceful deterrence. The Reagan administration's Cold War military buildup undeniably contributed to the Soviet Union's economic collapse, and NATO expansion in the 1990s and early 2000s deterred Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe. More recently, the weak US response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea paved the way for Russia to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump's diplomatic overtures, unaccompanied by credible enforcement mechanisms, project weakness rather than pragmatism. This only encourages Moscow to escalate rather than compromise. While Trump attempts to broker a deal with Putin, European allies are growing increasingly wary of US commitment to transatlantic security. His administration downplayed Russia's threat at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, shocking European leaders. US disengagement has now pushed the continent toward urgently building an independent defence strategy, potentially weakening Nato cohesion. The aforementioned voting alongside Russia at the UN on a Ukraine-related resolution will have further fractured America's alliances. Trump's policies risk creating a strategic vacuum, forcing Europe to act alone while simultaneously emboldening Russia and China to expand their geopolitical ambitions. Recent peace talks in Saudi Arabia illustrate Russia's strategic approach to negotiations. Moscow actively blocked the participation of US special envoy Keith Kellogg, showcasing its attempt to manipulate the diplomatic process. This follows a classic Russian negotiating tactic of prolonging talks while making unrealistic demands. In Saudi Arabia, these included keeping occupied Ukrainian territories, limiting Ukraine's military capabilities, and forbidding foreign peacekeepers. As analysts have pointed out, Putin does not intend to stop the war, only to reshape the battlefield on his terms. Trump's miscalculations therefore leave Russia free to continue its offensive in the knowledge that US pressure on Ukraine will weaken any resistance. A fragile ceasefire, as is currently under negotiation, will allow Russia to regroup and launch new attacks, and could be broken at any time. China will also be watching closely. If Trump hands Putin a win, Beijing may feel emboldened to escalate its military efforts in Taiwan and the South China Sea. A recent poll found that over half of Americans believe Trump is too close to Russia. His willingness to publicly signal diplomatic compromises, such as preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, reveals a weak negotiating style that undermines US credibility on the global stage. Trump's approach echoes his past diplomatic missteps, which some have described as 'cowboy diplomacy' – a strategy that prioritizes personal deal-making over structured policy, ultimately leading to strategic blunders. Far from strengthening US leverage, his premature openness about concessions gives Putin room to dictate the terms of engagement. Trump's misreading of Putin's playbook is leading to a weaker US position, a more vulnerable Ukraine, and a divided NATO. History clearly shows that Russia only respects power, not appeasement, yet Trump's diplomacy appears to offer unilateral concessions with little strategic gain. Unless the US reverses course and reasserts its leadership in defending Ukraine and deterring Russia, Trump's policies will not end the war but ensure that it drags on, only with Moscow instead of Europe or the US dictating its terms. Chris Kostov is associate professor of history and international relations at IE University and at Schiller International University, Madrid, Spain. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Independent
18-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
History tells us Trump's current stance on Russia won't end the war. Here's why
Since returning to the White House in 2025, US President Donald Trump has dramatically reshaped US policy toward Russia, adopting a markedly softer stance on Vladimir Putin and the ongoing war in Ukraine. This approach has included cutting military aid to Ukraine, and pressuring Kyiv to accept unfavourable terms to end the fighting. Trump is also weakening America's negotiating position by repeatedly and prematurely signalling the concessions the US is willing to make. Historically, Russia has responded to strength, not appeasement. As US diplomat and historian George Kennan famously stated in his 1946 Long Telegram, the Soviet Union understood only the language of power. He was proven right – throughout and since the Cold War, Western concessions have often invigorated rather than calmed Russian aggression. Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy is reinforcing this established pattern, emboldening Moscow, and diminishing any prospect of a just resolution to the Russo-Ukrainian war. Undermining US leverage Since February, President Trump has taken several actions that align with Russian strategic interests. These have included: Cutting military aid to Ukraine, despite bipartisan warnings that reducing support could shift battlefield momentum in Russia's favor Blocking Nato membership and refusing security guarantees for Ukraine, signalling that territorial expansion can be rewarded rather than deterred Blaming Kyiv for the war while downplaying Russia's responsibility and ignoring the indisputable reality that Russia invaded Ukraine, a stance that echoes Kremlin propaganda narratives Criticising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for postponing elections under martial law, despite Ukraine's constitutional justification Siding with Russia, North Korea and Belarus to vote against a UN resolution condemning Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity. This approach mirrors historical examples of Western appeasement, from Neville Chamberlain's 1938 Munich Agreement to the weak enforcement of President Obama's 'red line' in Syria in 2013. By preemptively offering concessions, Trump has weakened US leverage, removing any incentive for Putin to negotiate in good faith. Unlike Western democracies, Putin's Russia operates on power dynamics rather than diplomatic courtesies. Trump's early giveaways – such as suggesting the recognition of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories – will therefore be seen in Moscow as a show of weakness, not goodwill. This weakens the US' leverage in negotiations, and by extension that of its allies too. 20th century history confirms that Russia only responds to forceful deterrence. The Reagan administration's Cold War military buildup undeniably contributed to the Soviet Union's economic collapse, and Nato expansion in the 1990s and early 2000s deterred Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe. More recently, the weak US response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea paved the way for Russia to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump's diplomatic overtures, unaccompanied by credible enforcement mechanisms, project weakness rather than pragmatism. This only encourages Moscow to escalate rather than compromise. Alienating America's allies While Trump attempts to broker a deal with Putin, European allies are growing increasingly wary of US commitment to transatlantic security. His administration downplayed Russia's threat at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, shocking European leaders. US disengagement has now pushed the continent toward urgently building an independent defence strategy, potentially weakening Nato cohesion. The aforementioned voting alongside Russia at the UN on a Ukraine-related resolution will have further fractured America's alliances. Trump's policies risk creating a strategic vacuum, forcing Europe to act alone while simultaneously emboldening Russia and China to expand their geopolitical ambitions. Putin will not compromise Recent peace talks in Saudi Arabia illustrate Russia's strategic approach to negotiations. Moscow actively blocked the participation of US special envoy Keith Kellogg, showcasing its attempt to manipulate the diplomatic process. This follows a classic Russian negotiating tactic of prolonging talks while making unrealistic demands. In Saudi Arabia, these included keeping occupied Ukrainian territories, limiting Ukraine's military capabilities, and forbidding foreign peacekeepers. As analysts have pointed out, Putin does not intend to stop the war, only to reshape the battlefield on his terms. Trump's miscalculations therefore leave Russia free to continue its offensive in the knowledge that US pressure on Ukraine will weaken any resistance. A fragile ceasefire, as is currently under negotiation, will allow Russia to regroup and launch new attacks, and could be broken at any time. China will also be watching closely. If Trump hands Putin a win, Beijing may feel emboldened to escalate its military efforts in Taiwan and the South China Sea. Trump's credibility crisis A recent poll found that over half of Americans believe Trump is too close to Russia. His willingness to publicly signal diplomatic compromises, such as preventing Ukraine from joining Nato, reveals a weak negotiating style that undermines US credibility on the global stage. Trump's approach echoes his past diplomatic missteps, which some have described as 'cowboy diplomacy' – a strategy that prioritises personal deal-making over structured policy, ultimately leading to strategic blunders. Far from strengthening US leverage, his premature openness about concessions gives Putin room to dictate the terms of engagement. Trump's misreading of Putin's playbook is leading to a weaker US position, a more vulnerable Ukraine, and a divided Nato. History clearly shows that Russia only respects power, not appeasement, yet Trump's diplomacy appears to offer unilateral concessions with little strategic gain. Unless the US reverses course and reasserts its leadership in defending Ukraine and deterring Russia, Trump's policies will not end the war but ensure that it drags on, only with Moscow instead of Europe or the US dictating its terms. .
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Being soft on Russia has never worked, and history proves it
Since returning to the White House in 2025, US President Donald Trump has dramatically reshaped US policy toward Russia, adopting a markedly softer stance on Vladimir Putin and the ongoing war in Ukraine. This approach has included cutting military aid to Ukraine, and pressuring Kyiv to accept unfavourable terms to end the fighting. Trump is also weakening America's negotiating position by repeatedly and prematurely signalling the concessions the US is willing to make. Historically, Russia has responded to strength, not appeasement. As US diplomat and historian George Kennan famously stated in his 1946 Long Telegram, the Soviet Union understood only the language of power. He was proven right – throughout and since the Cold War, Western concessions have often invigorated rather than calmed Russian aggression. Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy is reinforcing this established pattern, emboldening Moscow, and diminishing any prospect of a just resolution to the Russo-Ukrainian war. Leer más: Since February, President Trump has taken several actions that align with Russian strategic interests. These have included: Cutting military aid to Ukraine, despite bipartisan warnings that reducing support could shift battlefield momentum in Russia's favor Blocking Nato membership and refusing security guarantees for Ukraine, signalling that territorial expansion can be rewarded rather than deterred Blaming Kyiv for the war while downplaying Russia's responsibility and ignoring the indisputable reality that Russia invaded Ukraine, a stance that echoes Kremlin propaganda narratives Criticising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for postponing elections under martial law, despite Ukraine's constitutional justification Siding with Russia, North Korea and Belarus to vote against a UN resolution condemning Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity. This approach mirrors historical examples of Western appeasement, from Neville Chamberlain's 1938 Munich Agreement to the weak enforcement of President Obama's 'red line' in Syria in 2013. By preemptively offering concessions, Trump has weakened US leverage, removing any incentive for Putin to negotiate in good faith. Leer más: Unlike Western democracies, Putin's Russia operates on power dynamics rather than diplomatic courtesies. Trump's early giveaways – such as suggesting the recognition of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories – will therefore be seen in Moscow as a show of weakness, not goodwill. This weakens the US' leverage in negotiations, and by extension that of its allies too. 20th century history confirms that Russia only responds to forceful deterrence. The Reagan administration's Cold War military buildup undeniably contributed to the Soviet Union's economic collapse, and Nato expansion in the 1990s and early 2000s deterred Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe. More recently, the weak US response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea paved the way for Russia to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump's diplomatic overtures, unaccompanied by credible enforcement mechanisms, project weakness rather than pragmatism. This only encourages Moscow to escalate rather than compromise. While Trump attempts to broker a deal with Putin, European allies are growing increasingly wary of US commitment to transatlantic security. His administration downplayed Russia's threat at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, shocking European leaders. US disengagement has now pushed the continent toward urgently building an independent defence strategy, potentially weakening Nato cohesion. The aforementioned voting alongside Russia at the UN on a Ukraine-related resolution will have further fractured America's alliances. Trump's policies risk creating a strategic vacuum, forcing Europe to act alone while simultaneously emboldening Russia and China to expand their geopolitical ambitions. Recent peace talks in Saudi Arabia illustrate Russia's strategic approach to negotiations. Moscow actively blocked the participation of US special envoy Keith Kellogg, showcasing its attempt to manipulate the diplomatic process. This follows a classic Russian negotiating tactic of prolonging talks while making unrealistic demands. In Saudi Arabia, these included keeping occupied Ukrainian territories, limiting Ukraine's military capabilities, and forbidding foreign peacekeepers. As analysts have pointed out, Putin does not intend to stop the war, only to reshape the battlefield on his terms. Trump's miscalculations therefore leave Russia free to continue its offensive in the knowledge that US pressure on Ukraine will weaken any resistance. A fragile ceasefire, as is currently under negotiation, will allow Russia to regroup and launch new attacks, and could be broken at any time. China will also be watching closely. If Trump hands Putin a win, Beijing may feel emboldened to escalate its military efforts in Taiwan and the South China Sea. A recent poll found that over half of Americans believe Trump is too close to Russia. His willingness to publicly signal diplomatic compromises, such as preventing Ukraine from joining Nato, reveals a weak negotiating style that undermines US credibility on the global stage. Trump's approach echoes his past diplomatic missteps, which some have described as 'cowboy diplomacy' – a strategy that prioritises personal deal-making over structured policy, ultimately leading to strategic blunders. Far from strengthening US leverage, his premature openness about concessions gives Putin room to dictate the terms of engagement. Trump's misreading of Putin's playbook is leading to a weaker US position, a more vulnerable Ukraine, and a divided Nato. History clearly shows that Russia only respects power, not appeasement, yet Trump's diplomacy appears to offer unilateral concessions with little strategic gain. Unless the US reverses course and reasserts its leadership in defending Ukraine and deterring Russia, Trump's policies will not end the war but ensure that it drags on, only with Moscow instead of Europe or the US dictating its terms. Este artículo fue publicado originalmente en The Conversation, un sitio de noticias sin fines de lucro dedicado a compartir ideas de expertos académicos. Lee mas: Putin mulls over US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal – but the initial signs aren't positive Saudi Arabia's role as Ukraine war mediator advances Gulf nation's diplomatic rehabilitation − and boosts its chances of a seat at the table should Iran-US talks resume Three years after Russia's invasion, a global online army is still fighting for Ukraine Christo Atanasov Kostov no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
