Latest news with #RussiaandEurasiaProgram
The Sun
5 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Trump's Russia oil tariffs risk global economic and political fallout
WASHINGTON/LONDON: From punishing Brazil to trying to curb imports of fentanyl, U.S. President Donald Trump has wielded the threat of tariffs as an all-purpose foreign policy weapon. With a Friday deadline for Russia to agree to peace in Ukraine or have its oil customers face secondary tariffs, Trump has found a novel, but risky, use for his favorite trade tool. The administration took a step toward punishing Moscow's customers on Wednesday, imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India over its imports of Russian oil, marking the first financial penalty aimed at Russia in Trump's second term. No order has been signed for China, the top Russian oil importer, but a White House official said on Wednesday secondary measures that Trump has threatened against countries buying the petroleum were expected on Friday. These are the latest in a string of Trump's tariff threats on non-trade issues such as pressing Denmark to give the U.S. control of Greenland, attempting to stop fentanyl deliveries from Mexico and Canada, and penalizing Brazil over what he described as a 'witch hunt' against former President Jair Bolsonaro. While secondary tariffs could inflict pain on the Russian economy - severing a top source of funding for Russian President Vladimir Putin's war effort - they also carry costs for Trump. Oil prices will likely rise, creating political problems for him before next year's U.S. midterm congressional elections. The tariffs would also complicate the administration's efforts to secure trade deals with China and India. For his part, Putin has signaled that Russia is prepared to weather any new economic hardship imposed by the U.S. and its allies. There is 'close to zero chance' Putin will agree to a ceasefire due to Trump's threats of tariffs and sanctions on Russia, said Eugene Rumer, a former U.S. intelligence analyst for Russia who directs the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Russia and Eurasia Program. 'Theoretically if you cut off Indian and Chinese purchases of oil that would be a very heavy blow to the Russian economy and to the war effort. But that isn't going to happen,' he said, adding that the Chinese have signaled they will keep buying Russia's oil. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Russian embassy in Washington did not immediately respond. NEW COSTS FOR RUSSIA Secondary tariffs would hurt Russia, the world's second leading oil exporter. The West has pressured Russia since late 2022 with a price cap on its oil exports, intended to erode Russia's ability to fund the war. That cap has piled costs on Russia as it forced it to reroute oil exports from Europe to India and China, which have been able to import huge amounts of it at discounted prices. But the cap also kept oil flowing to global markets. In an early sign that Putin hopes to avoid the tariffs, the White House said that Putin and Trump could meet as soon as next week, following a meeting between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian leader on Wednesday. But some analysts are skeptical that Moscow is ready to stop the war. Brett Bruen, former foreign policy adviser for former President Barack Obama now head of the Global Situation Room consultancy, cautioned that Putin has found ways to evade sanctions and other economic penalties. And even if tariffs and sanctions cut into Russia's revenues, Putin is not under much domestic pressure. Secondary tariffs, Bruen said, could start to cause some economic pain. 'But the question is whether that really changes Putin's behavior.' The tariffs could also create new problems for the Trump administration as it pursues sweeping trade deals, especially with India and China. Kimberly Donovan, a former U.S. Treasury official, said the tariffs could hamper the U.S. bilateral and trade relationships with India and China. 'You've got two major oil importers that can kind of dig in their heels and push back, knowing what the U.S. needs out of them,' said Donovan, now director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative in the Atlantic Council's GeoEconomics Center. China has demonstrated leverage over the U.S. by cutting off mineral exports and new tariffs would upset a delicate balance negotiated since May to restart those flows critical to a host of U.S. industries. India has leverage over generic pharmaceutical exports and precursor chemicals to the U.S. Both countries say that oil purchases are a sovereign matter and contend that they are playing by the previous rules, namely the price cap on Russian crude. RUSSIAN ROULETTE Secondary tariffs would raise the cost of imports into the United States of products from Russia's customers, giving them an incentive to buy their oil elsewhere. Squeezing the shipments risks spiking fuel prices and inflation around the world that could pose political difficulties for Trump. The month after Moscow's February 2022 invasion, fears of disruptions from Russia pushed international crude prices close to $130 per barrel, not far from their all-time high of $147. If India were to stop buying 1.7 million barrels per day of Russian crude, about 2% of global supply, world prices would jump from the current $66, analysts said. JP Morgan analysts said this month it was 'impossible' to sanction Russian oil without triggering a price jump. Any perceived disruptions to Russian shipments could propel Brent oil prices into the $80s or higher. Despite Trump's statements that U.S. producers would step in, it would be unable to quickly ramp up, they said. Russia could retaliate, including closing the CPC Pipeline from Kazakhstan, which could create a global supply crisis. Western oil firms Exxon , Chevron, Shell , ENI and TotalEnergies ship up to 1 million barrels per day via CPC, which has total capacity of 1.7 million bpd. Cullen Hendrix, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said energy shocks are never welcome, especially not amidst a softening housing market and weak job growth. A key question is whether Trump can frame any economic pain as necessary to force Russia to negotiate. 'Of all his tariff gambits, this is the one that could resonate best with voters, at least in principle,' said Hendrix. 'It's also one with massive downside risks.' - Reuters
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
Trump tariffs on Russia's oil buyers bring economic, political risks
WASHINGTON/LONDON: From punishing Brazil to trying to curb imports of fentanyl, U.S. President Donald Trump has wielded the threat of tariffs as an all-purpose foreign policy weapon. With a Friday deadline for Russia to agree to peace in Ukraine or have its oil customers face secondary tariffs, Trump has found a novel, but risky, use for his favorite trade tool. The administration took a step toward punishing Moscow's customers on Wednesday, imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India over its imports of Russian oil, marking the first financial penalty aimed at Russia in Trump's second term. No order has been signed for China, the top Russian oil importer, but a White House official said on Wednesday secondary measures that Trump has threatened against countries buying the petroleum were expected on Friday. These are the latest in a string of Trump's tariff threats on non-trade issues such as pressing Denmark to give the U.S. control of Greenland, attempting to stop fentanyl deliveries from Mexico and Canada, and penalizing Brazil over what he described as a 'witch hunt' against former President Jair Bolsonaro. While secondary tariffs could inflict pain on the Russian economy - severing a top source of funding for Russian President Vladimir Putin's war effort - they also carry costs for Trump. Oil prices will likely rise, creating political problems for him before next year's U.S. midterm congressional elections. The tariffs would also complicate the administration's efforts to secure trade deals with China and India. For his part, Putin has signaled that Russia is prepared to weather any new economic hardship imposed by the U.S. and its allies. There is 'close to zero chance' Putin will agree to a ceasefire due to Trump's threats of tariffs and sanctions on Russia, said Eugene Rumer, a former U.S. intelligence analyst for Russia who directs the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Russia and Eurasia Program. 'Theoretically if you cut off Indian and Chinese purchases of oil that would be a very heavy blow to the Russian economy and to the war effort. But that isn't going to happen,' he said, adding that the Chinese have signaled they will keep buying Russia's oil. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Russia reintroduces ban on petrol exports till year end The Russian embassy in Washington did not immediately respond. New costs for Russia Secondary tariffs would hurt Russia, the world's second leading oil exporter. The West has pressured Russia since late 2022 with a price cap on its oil exports, intended to erode Russia's ability to fund the war. That cap has piled costs on Russia as it forced it to reroute oil exports from Europe to India and China, which have been able to import huge amounts of it at discounted prices. But the cap also kept oil flowing to global markets. In an early sign that Putin hopes to avoid the tariffs, the White House said that Putin and Trump could meet as soon as next week, following a meeting between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian leader on Wednesday. But some analysts are skeptical that Moscow is ready to stop the war. Brett Bruen, former foreign policy adviser for former President Barack Obama now head of the Global Situation Room consultancy, cautioned that Putin has found ways to evade sanctions and other economic penalties. And even if tariffs and sanctions cut into Russia's revenues, Putin is not under much domestic pressure. Secondary tariffs, Bruen said, could start to cause some economic pain. 'But the question is whether that really changes Putin's behavior.' The tariffs could also create new problems for the Trump administration as it pursues sweeping trade deals, especially with India and China. Kimberly Donovan, a former U.S. Treasury official, said the tariffs could hamper the U.S. bilateral and trade relationships with India and China. 'You've got two major oil importers that can kind of dig in their heels and push back, knowing what the U.S. needs out of them,' said Donovan, now director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative in the Atlantic Council's GeoEconomics Center. China has demonstrated leverage over the U.S. by cutting off mineral exports and new tariffs would upset a delicate balance negotiated since May to restart those flows critical to a host of U.S. industries. India has leverage over generic pharmaceutical exports and precursor chemicals to the U.S. Both countries say that oil purchases are a sovereign matter and contend that they are playing by the previous rules, namely the price cap on Russian crude. Russian roulette Secondary tariffs would raise the cost of imports into the United States of products from Russia's customers, giving them an incentive to buy their oil elsewhere. Squeezing the shipments risks spiking fuel prices and inflation around the world that could pose political difficulties for Trump. The month after Moscow's February 2022 invasion, fears of disruptions from Russia pushed international crude prices close to $130 per barrel, not far from their all-time high of $147. If India were to stop buying 1.7 million barrels per day of Russian crude, about 2% of global supply, world prices would jump from the current $66, analysts said. JP Morgan analysts said this month it was 'impossible' to sanction Russian oil without triggering a price jump. Any perceived disruptions to Russian shipments could propel Brent oil prices into the $80s or higher. Despite Trump's statements that U.S. producers would step in, it would be unable to quickly ramp up, they said. Russia could retaliate, including closing the CPC Pipeline from Kazakhstan, which could create a global supply crisis. Western oil firms Exxon , Chevron, Shell , ENI and TotalEnergies ship up to 1 million barrels per day via CPC, which has total capacity of 1.7 million bpd. Cullen Hendrix, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said energy shocks are never welcome, especially not amidst a softening housing market and weak job growth. A key question is whether Trump can frame any economic pain as necessary to force Russia to negotiate. 'Of all his tariff gambits, this is the one that could resonate best with voters, at least in principle,' said Hendrix. 'It's also one with massive downside risks.'
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Can Russia's war machine survive without outside aid?
More than three years since the start of Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia's defense industry has adapted to a new normal. Despite a web of international sanctions designed to cripple military production, factories across the country have been able to keep building bullets and shells, drones and military vehicles. The resulting arms are not top-of-the-range military systems. But they are, simply put, enough. "Russia's military-industrial complex has been providing the armed forces just about enough of what they need at any given time," says Mathieu Boulegue, a consulting fellow for the Russia and Eurasia Program at Chatham House and a non-resident senior fellow at CEPA. "Things don't have to be great; not everything needs to be functioning or running. You just need to have them accessible for the armed forces at the right moment and in the right place." This "good enough" system of military supplies, however, is still reliant on outside help. A global web of parallel imports allows Russia to procure components via third countries who have not agreed to sanction measures — a group that includes countries across Central Asia and the South Caucasus, as well as larger economies such as India and China. Other countries supply Russia directly with weapons systems and munitions. An investigation published by Reuters and the Open Source Center (OSС) in mid-April found that the majority of artillery shells used by Russian forces in Ukraine in 2024 were manufactured in North Korea. In some Russian military units, between 75% and 100% of artillery shells are North Korean-made, the report said. But if this intervention results in "just enough," then could cutting outside supplies destroy Russian military production completely? Military supply chains are complex. Even basic weapon systems and munitions require a long list of components, although not all of these parts are restricted or difficult to obtain. Cotton remains unsanctioned, even though cotton cellulose is a vital part of making bullets and munitions. Higher-tech components such as microchips and semiconductors, however, are more difficult to acquire — and this is where Russia's third-country connections prove vital. "Many of the semiconductors employed on Russian missiles and drones being used to attack Ukraine today were manufactured in 2024, which suggests that they lack significant inventories of smuggled components," says Dr. Marc de Vore, a senior lecturer at the University of St Andrews, a fellow at the Council for Geostrategy, and a fellow at the Royal Navy Strategic Studies Center. Russia still imports a wide range of machine tools, parts, and components: from metal-working centers to electronics and fuel filters. Semiconductors are vital in the manufacture of drones and missiles. Some countries, such as North Korea and Iran, are happy to provide military systems to Russia outright. Others supply the equipment needed to produce military equipment and vehicles. "Russia's military industry has been dependent on the global supply chains for decades. As for today, Russia still imports a wide range of machine tools, parts, and components: from metal-working centers to electronics and fuel filters," says Pavel Luzin, an analyst for Riddle Russia and a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). In a post-sanctions world, Russia has been able to substitute the components it once imported from Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States with those from China, India, and elsewhere. "The cost of these new supplies is usually much higher, and the quality is lower," Luzin says. "(But) Russia's army uses everything it has. The only limiting factor here is the number of arms. The army doesn't care much about how and when the new weapons will be produced, it just has needs and requirements." Even more, governments aid Moscow simply by turning a blind eye. Laws passed in Russia in May 2022 allow sanctioned items to be imported into Russia without approval from trademark owners — they only need to be redirected to a third country before being re-exported to Russia itself. The so-called "parallel import" schemes prop up Russia's wartime economy by channeling consumer goods to the country's middle classes. But materials that can be used in military production also arrive through these channels — including "dual-purpose" items that may not be intended for army use but can be cannibalized for parts and used in military production. Such schemes are big business. While exact data is hard to come by, between May and December 2022, Moscow reported importing some 2.4 million tons of goods worth $20 billion via parallel imports, meaning in violation of copyrights and without the approval from trademark owners. The potential to profit from such trade means that there is no shortage of countries willing to look the other way. Large quantities of parallel imports have been reported from countries across Central Asia and the South Caucasus, as well as Türkiye and the UAE. Boulegue says Russia has poured considerable resources into building such alternative supply chains, which are often dependent on illegal networks. "Since the Soviet era, (Russia has) been extremely good at keeping a network of agents abroad through espionage and intelligence," he says. "They reactivated this network of people to continue importing all these components and hardware that can be used for the military industry illegally." With the first sanctions passed against Russia more than a decade ago, when Moscow annexed Ukrainian Crimea, there has been plenty of time to plan for supply route backups. "The Russian authorities established a central database with every piece of equipment or component that goes into each individual Russian weapon system that fits into the army," Boulegue says. "From that list, they started establishing plans: plan A, plan B, plan C, whether they could get hold of it through domestic production, imports, parallel import, illegal import, and so on." But what would happen if these supply lines were broken and Russia's military producers could no longer receive much-needed imports? So far, Moscow has been relatively successful in ramping up its domestic production. Military plants have been able to offer new positions with higher wages to attract workers, particularly in Russia's poorer regions. Assembly lines have also kicked up a gear, with workers reporting "round-the-clock production" during high-level official visits. Russia's military producers are also adapting their own equipment and machinery. "Russia has invested in machine tooling for producing nitrocellulose (which can be used to power munitions) using wood pulp, as opposed to cotton, which will decrease their long-term dependence on cotton cellulose," De Vore says. The Kremlin has also been able to leverage stored Soviet-era military equipment. Even machinery and vehicles produced in the 1950s have been retrofitted to play a battlefield role, with the British Defense Ministry reporting that T-62 tanks, first introduced in 1954, had been seen in the field. Yet, not even these stockpiles can last forever. A report by open-source research group Oryx in February 2025 found that Russia's armed forces have already lost more than half of their available military hardware, and approximately 50% of equipment lost had come from Soviet stocks. Other weapon-tracking projects have posted similar findings. In the longer term, Russia's military production rates would fall, forcing the army to prioritize certain weapon systems. "Imagine that instead of 1,000 microchips, you only have 100," Boulegue says. "You will have an internal struggle to determine who has priority." Russia's military-industrial complex would also attempt to adapt to this new reality. A disrupted supply of semiconductors would likely see producers redesigning drones and missiles to use Chinese-designed components that would be easier to procure, De Vore says. But this would be no quick fix. "(Adapting drones to use Chinese components) would take substantial time and engineering hours: it takes about three months of engineering hours to redesign one system around a different semiconductor of equal capacity," De Vore says. "During key offensives, they would likely also rely more on fixed-wing jets to drop bombs, which would lead to increased aircraft losses." All this means that if Moscow is forced to rely solely on internal production, it can expect to face difficult decisions. Production capacity could be increased, but only by reforging the economy and placing it on a wartime footing. This would include using factories formerly producing consumer goods to start building weapons or other items for military use. Without this kind of all-consuming societal shift, Russia's military production would not be able to survive. "Russia is able to cope under the current conditions because they've already absorbed the initial shock sanctions in 2014 and the second shock of 2022," Boulegue says. "They are able to sustain a form of continuity in production with all these schemes in place, internal and foreign. If we remove the foreign parts, then the internal part collapses completely because they will definitely not be able to keep up with the demands of the war." Unraveling the web of supply chains used by Russia to feed its military industrial complex is a daunting task. But there are steps that the world can take to put further pressure on Moscow's war machine. An obvious step is further sanctions. These could crack down on the range of products that Russia can import legally and extend to punish secondary or tertiary companies that provide Moscow with components. "If we know there is cotton needed for the bullets, why don't we sanction the cotton industry in Russia? Why don't we make cotton imports to Russia forbidden?" Boulegue says. "Yes, it's a huge undertaking. But we've been placing countries under sanction for years. It's a question of scaling it up." Luzin agrees that further sanctions could be effective. "Sanctions have already damaged the arms industry of Russia hard. (But) further pressure needs to be increased," he says. "For instance, India must follow the embargo on supplying metal-working machine tools in Russia." There are also other avenues for pressure. Moscow's oil exports could be cut crucially if restrictions were put on tankers carrying Russian oil. This would put huge pressure on Russia's ability to replenish the foreign currency reserves it uses to buy military components. "Go after the shadow fleet, lower the price cap, and convince other states (such as India) to apply the (Western-agreed) price cap (on oil purchases from Russia), and one might tip Russia's economy into overheating," De Vore says. But just as Russia's military production could depend on how far Moscow is willing to go in commandeering civilian infrastructure, there's also the question of which steps the West is willing to take. Intermediate-range ballistic missile strikes on factories and R&D institutes in Russia's European segment is another route that Kyiv could take to destroy the weapons being fired at Ukraine — yet it is not an option that allies wish to support. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ukraine's on board with a cease-fire deal. Now, Trump just has to get Russia to stop attacking it.
Ukraine has "expressed readiness" to accept a US proposal for a 30-day cease-fire with Russia. The US will resume the flow of arms and intelligence to Ukraine. The next challenge for the Trump administration will be getting Russia to agree. KYIV, Ukraine — Kyiv is open to a cease-fire with Moscow, but that's only half of the equation. The Trump administration has to get Russia to stop attacking Ukraine. Ukraine signaled that it is ready to accept a US proposal for an immediate 30-day cease-fire with Russia, Kyiv and Washington said in a joint statement Tuesday. It creates a new opening in the effort to end the brutal three-year war. The US said it will immediately resume military aid shipments and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, according to the joint statement from both delegations. The next step — getting Russian President Vladimir Putin to cease his missile barrages and assaults on Ukraine — may prove particularly tricky. Ukraine is continuing to see Russian attacks. "Russia is not stopping its attacks; it continues missile strikes on civilians and critical infrastructure," Mykhailo Podolyak, a Ukrainian presidential advisor, told Business Insider last week amid the pause in US support. "Russia is not stopping and will not stop." Russia has relentlessly attacked Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv, with missiles and drones throughout the conflict. Last week, President Donald Trump threatened Moscow with sanctions and tariffs if it didn't reach a cease-fire, but the strikes have continued even after the direct talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in February. Russia attacked Ukraine overnight last Thursday with 67 missiles and nearly 200 drones, one of its largest strikes of the entire war. At that time, Dara Massicot, an expert on the Russian military with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Russia and Eurasia Program, said on X that any potential carrots offered to the Russians in Riyadh "were not enough to cause the Kremlin to pause ops." She added that Moscow doesn't care if it embarrasses the US. War experts have seen few signs that Moscow is ready to end its war in Ukraine. Conflict analysts at the Institute for the Study of War think tank in Washington noted last week that Putin and his foreign ministry rejected the possibility of a negotiated cease-fire. "We'll take this offer now to the Russians, and we hope that they'll say yes, that they'll say yes to peace," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday. "The ball is now in their court." Russian officials recently leveled demands likely to be non-starters with Ukraine: the surrender of more territory Russia does not control, tight caps that would shrink Ukraine's military to a fraction of its current size, and no European troops to monitor that Ukraine to keep the peace. Ukrainians and their international partners worry that Russia will use a cease-fire to rebuild its battered forces and re-invade Ukraine in the coming years in an echo of the 2015 deal that failed to end Russia's territorial aggression in eastern Ukraine. The biggest factor that brought about Ukraine's change on cease-fire talks was Trump's willingness to publicly break with Ukraine and temporarily starve its longtime partner of much-needed military support while also pushing for huge concessions to Ukraine's natural resources. After a contentious White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy toward the end of February, the Trump administration shut down the flow of security assistance to Ukraine last week and immediately followed that move by cutting intelligence sharing with Kyiv and limiting access to crucial satellite imagery. In that meeting, Zelenskyy noted past failures and expressed concerns that Putin would not adhere to a cease-fire deal. Trump, however, said last week that he believed Putin would actually want to end the war. Tuesday's announcement comes shortly after US and Ukrainian delegations met in Saudi Arabia for high-stakes peace talks. Diplomats agreed to "immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine's long-term security," the statement said. The US will next discuss the specifics with Russia. Ukraine emphasized the need to involve European partners in the peace process; Trump has so far resisted providing any security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a cease-fire deal, saying that will be Europe's problem to figure out. The Tuesday statement said the US and Ukraine were also close to signing a rare earth minerals agreement that the two countries were slated to sign last month. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Totally screwed' — How Trump, Hegseth are damaging Ukraine in talks with Russia
After promising to quickly resolve the war in Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump and his top officials' actions on Feb. 12 appeared to undermine Ukraine's leverage in peace talks, renewing fears that his plans for a quick resolution could amount to a victory for Russia. Trump announced he had held phone calls with both Russian leader Vladimir Putin and President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying peace negotiations would start "immediately" and a ceasefire is in the "not too distant future." Earlier in the day, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said "returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective," and that NATO membership for Ukraine is not an option. By conceding leverage points before negotiations have formally started, Trump's team has "totally screwed their own negotiating position," Timothy Ash, an associate fellow at the Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia Program, told the Kyiv independent. "Why, even before negotiations start, would you give away your negotiating leverage?" Ash said. "We might ultimately agree that NATO is not appropriate at this time, or maybe never, but it's a card that Trump could have used in negotiations. Similarly with territory. Trump could have played hardball." "It seemed like a rookie error," Ash added. For many in Ukraine, the U.S. voicing concessions on territory and NATO membership — before conducting any formal negotiations involving Ukraine — amounted to a betrayal by a key ally. "This means that we cannot trust our partners," said Petro Andryushchenko, former Mariupol mayoral advisor and head of the Center for the Study of Occupation. "This is exactly what the president (Zelensky) means when he says, 'If we are not accepted into NATO, we have to build NATO here.'" 'I think it destroys the whole basis of democracy and the building of the world after the Second World War.' Territorial concessions are particularly devastating for those living in difficult conditions under occupation, Andryushchenko said, as they will have to face the idea that they will never rejoin Ukraine. Roughly one fifth of Ukraine's territory is occupied by Russia, with Russian forces still advancing slowly in eastern Ukraine. Ukrainians living under occupation experience "widespread" human rights violations, the UN has found, including threats, unlawful imprisonment, and torture. "Imagine being under occupation, helping to believe in liberation, helping with your every step, your life, reporting information about the presence of Russian troops, their behavior — important things that bring us closer to victory. And now you are told that no, you are not needed, you are there forever," he said. "I think it destroys the whole basis of democracy and the building of the world after the Second World War." Since taking office, Trump has had significant military, financial, and diplomatic options at his disposal that could be used against Russia to extract better terms for Ukraine. Oleksandr Merezhko, a top member of parliament from President Volodymyr Zelensky's party, disputed Hegseth's comment that restoring Ukraine's pre-war borders was "unrealistic," calling the prospect "absolutely realistic" if more were done to pressure Russia. Trump himself had earlier floated the idea of applying high tariffs and sanctions to Russia's struggling economy if a peace deal was not achieved. "To (restore the borders), Ukraine needs to get enough contemporary weaponry which would allow it to have, at a minimum, parity with Russia on the battlefield. Additionally, the use of serious financial sanctions against Russia's banking and financial system could have paralyzed the Russian war machine," Merezhko said. "Regrettably, we don't see that yet." Not all were surprised by Hegseth's comments. John Foreman, the former British ambassador to Moscow, told the Kyiv Independent that they revealed an "ultra-realist approach." "The Americans aren't prepared to put NATO troops into Ukraine. We know that, because if they had, they would have done it in 2022. And de facto, Ukraine's going to lose land as part of any peace deal, because Ukraine can't push the Russians out," said Foreman. "I can see why it's gone down badly in Kyiv, and amongst some European capitals. But to be honest, you shouldn't be surprised." The phone call with Putin is still significant, Foreman noted, in terms of signalling how the discussions are being carried out — with Trump speaking directly to Putin without other American allies present. President Joe Biden previously cut all direct communication with Putin after the 2022 invasion. "The Russians have got what they really wanted as a start — direct conversation with America, over the head of the Europeans, and over, perhaps, the head of the Ukrainians," said Foreman. "If there is an agreement made behind our backs, it simply will not work." European leaders — suddenly left out of discussions after nearly three years of close involvement with the U.S. on Ukraine-related issues under President Joe Biden's administration — scrambled to react to Trump's comments. Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, said: "Why are we giving (Russia) everything they want, even before negotiations have started? … If there is an agreement made behind our backs, it simply will not work." European officials are concerned that they might be left to shoulder the costs of Ukraine's post-war reconstruction and security after being excluded from the discussions between Trump and Putin, the Financial Times reported on Feb. 13. Six European countries released a statement with Ukraine and the European Commission following Trump's comments, that read: "Our shared objectives should be to put Ukraine in a position of strength. Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations." The statement also committed to Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. Germany, France, the U.K., Poland, Italy, and Spain signed the statement. Within the U.S. as well, Trump and Hegseth's comments provoked backlash from some officials. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal called Hegseth's message a "surrender and betrayal" of Ukraine, while Senator Adam B. Schiff also condemned Hegseth's comments and criticized Trump for calling Putin before he spoke with Zelensky. John Bolton, a former national security adviser to Trump, told CNN: "Trump has effectively surrendered to Putin before the negotiations have even begun." The terms quoted by Hegseth "could have been written in the Kremlin," Bolton added. Hegseth pushed back on claims that a swift negotiation would be a 'betrayal' at a press conference in Brussels, the Guardian reported. 'There is no betrayal — there is a recognition that the whole world and the U.S. is invested in peace, in a negotiated peace,' he said. Trump's calls to Putin and Zelensky have nonetheless set the stage for talks to end the Ukraine war, signaling a new phase after nearly three years of war. No negotiations have taken place since the war's early months. Zelensky is expected to meet with several top U.S. officials in the next few days at the Munich Security Conference from Feb. 14-16. According to the President's Office, Trump's Ukraine and Russia envoy Keith Kellogg and Vice President JD Vance are among those he is planning to meet. Kellogg is also scheduled to visit Ukraine on Feb. 20. Trump has said he may meet with Putin in Saudi Arabia and plans to meet Zelensky soon, though he did not provide details. Read also: Trump says peace talks to start 'immediately.' But what terms would be acceptable for Ukraine? We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
