Latest news with #Trump-leaning
CNN
04-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Zelensky faces a fateful choice as Ukraine reels from Trump's aid suspension
Pausing military aid is the most damaging move the Trump administration can make to Ukraine's war effort, and however opaque the immediate practical consequence may be, the psychological impact for Ukrainians has been immense and catastrophic. The last time US military aid was held up – by Trump-leaning Republicans in December 2023, when $60 billion was stalled for several months – the damage to morale was seismic. And after that delay, the momentum on the front lines changed from Ukraine pursuing a mostly unsuccessful counteroffensive, to being largely in defense. On Tuesday morning, Kyiv was still reeling from the hammer blow, and trying to suggest the impact might not be catastrophic. An adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mykhailo Podolyak, posted: 'First, it is necessary to assess which specific programs will cease to function, considering that many were already in their final stages.' Ukraine's stocks of critical artillery shells could run out by May or June following the pause, a Ukrainian official told CNN on Tuesday. The official said that the first ammunition crisis following the US military aid pause would involve Patriot air defense missiles, which could run out in a matter of weeks. 'We will adapt, but the question is how many additional people, and how much more territory, we lose while we do,' the official said. Reactions from frontline troops noted the heavy role drones, or UAVs, play in holding back Russian assaults, but also the vital need for American-supplied air-defense missiles. 'Our weakness is in air-defense missiles – the Patriots,' said Yegor Firsov, the chief sergeant of a UAV strike platoon. 'Even we, the military, would like to have our families, our rear, protected as much as possible when we are serving on the frontline. Eighty per cent of all destruction, from a tank to an enemy dugout, is carried out directly by drones. So, of course, we have a chance to survive together with Europe.' Serhii Filimonov, commander of the 108th Separate Mechanized Battalion, or 'Da Vinci Wolves,' which has been fighting outside the strategic town of Pokrovsk for nine months, said: 'American support is critical for defending the sky, and financial assistance affects the economy and morale of society, which is also important for the frontline.' A Ukrainian source told CNN the decision did not impact intelligence sharing, which is a lower-cost but impactful component of US support to Kyiv's war effort. Yet the nature of President Donald Trump's move – however it plays out in practical terms – throws a focus on his rift with Zelensky and what must be done to heal it. Trump officials have hinted at the need for a public apology. It is clear they are also reluctant to present the proposed deal giving the United States access to Ukraine's mineral riches for signature, although Trump did hint Monday that that agreement might see progress in the coming days. The Trump administration has also said Zelensky needs to commit to peace, yet not specified in any great detail what this peace would look like. Washington has laid out a vision of peace that appears a little binary – a moment in which the war stops and Moscow agrees to Trump's solution unequivocally. Trump has said repeatedly he does not believe President Vladimir Putin will violate any deal they forge together. His European allies disagree, and insist any peace deal is made with enough security guarantees for Ukraine that it can fend off any renewed Russian aggression. Ukrainian officials highlight, with evidence on their side, that Russia has violated more than 20 ceasefires or deals in the past decade. The peace Trump wants appears to require Zelensky to demand no further US support; rely on European allies possibly functioning without American assistance; sign up to a deal which provides Washington with an unspecified stream of cash from Ukraine's natural resources to repay the US for aid, as well as invest in reconstruction; and then finally accede to whatever peace deal terms and conditions Trump agrees with Moscow, possibly without Ukraine at the table. That is a big ask of a wartime leader. It demands of Zelensky that he unconditionally trust that the US president is acting in Ukraine's interests. A public apology to Trump would go some distance, perhaps, in resolving the horrific collapse in Kyiv and Washington's alliance. Yet it could have a fundamental impact on some Ukrainian morale: troops would see their commander in chief, in their eyes, apologizing for being bullied. It would say to Ukraine's European allies that Kyiv has put Trump entirely in the driving seat, unclear on the destination he has in mind. Ukraine has reason to distrust: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 saw Kyiv surrender its nuclear weapons for security guarantees from the US, United Kingdom and Russia. Ukrainians have since endured a decade of Russian aggression, starting with its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. If even these explicit security guarantees changed nothing, why sign away the country's mineral wealth if that comes without any specific promise to continue military aid? Zelensky's fate has become an occasional Trump talking point, and his future as a US partner hinges on his 'acceptance of peace.' The peace Zelensky, and his European backers, seek is one where Ukraine is adequately armed and protected so that any renewed Russian assault – after months of re-fit and replenishment during a ceasefire renders Moscow's war machine potent again – can be repelled. Zelensky and Europe appear guided in their approach by the lessons of the 1930s. Trump appears guided by his belief that his personal relationships and deal-making acumen can disruptively win out over the brutal realities of war and geopolitics. Ukraine's president has a fateful choice ahead of him: accede to your erstwhile ally's demand, and say you are sorry, while handing over your nation's wealth, and assenting to undefined terms of a peace deal discussed without you. It places Ukraine in the most unfavorable position imaginable, after three years of savage Russian assault. The payback is that, if Trump agrees, the US might continue to provide Ukraine with the vital third to a fifth of all military assistance they have in the past received. Laid out bare, is this a choice at all? CNN's Svitlana Vlasova contributed to this report.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Zelensky faces a fateful choice as Ukraine reels from Trump's aid suspension
Pausing military aid is the most damaging move the Trump administration can make to Ukraine's war effort, and however opaque the immediate practical consequence may be, the psychological impact for Ukrainians has been immense and catastrophic. The last time US military aid was held up – by Trump-leaning Republicans in December 2023, when $60 billion was stalled for several months – the damage to morale was seismic. And after that delay, the momentum on the front lines changed from Ukraine pursuing a mostly unsuccessful counteroffensive, to being largely in defense. On Tuesday morning, Kyiv was still reeling from the hammer blow, and trying to suggest the impact might not be catastrophic. An adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mykhailo Podolyak, posted: 'First, it is necessary to assess which specific programs will cease to function, considering that many were already in their final stages.' Ukraine's stocks of critical artillery shells could run out by May or June following the pause, a Ukrainian official told CNN on Tuesday. The official said that the first ammunition crisis following the US military aid pause would involve Patriot air defense missiles, which could run out in a matter of weeks. 'We will adapt, but the question is how many additional people, and how much more territory, we lose while we do,' the official said. Reactions from frontline troops noted the heavy role drones, or UAVs, play in holding back Russian assaults, but also the vital need for American-supplied air-defense missiles. 'Our weakness is in air-defense missiles – the Patriots,' said Yegor Firsov, the chief sergeant of a UAV strike platoon. 'Even we, the military, would like to have our families, our rear, protected as much as possible when we are serving on the frontline. Eighty per cent of all destruction, from a tank to an enemy dugout, is carried out directly by drones. So, of course, we have a chance to survive together with Europe.' Serhii Filimonov, commander of the 108th Separate Mechanized Battalion, or 'Da Vinci Wolves,' which has been fighting outside the strategic town of Pokrovsk for nine months, said: 'American support is critical for defending the sky, and financial assistance affects the economy and morale of society, which is also important for the frontline.' A Ukrainian source told CNN the decision did not impact intelligence sharing, which is a lower-cost but impactful component of US support to Kyiv's war effort. Yet the nature of President Donald Trump's move – however it plays out in practical terms – throws a focus on his rift with Zelensky and what must be done to heal it. Trump officials have hinted at the need for a public apology. It is clear they are also reluctant to present the proposed deal giving the United States access to Ukraine's mineral riches for signature, although Trump did hint Monday that that agreement might see progress in the coming days. The Trump administration has also said Zelensky needs to commit to peace, yet not specified in any great detail what this peace would look like. Washington has laid out a vision of peace that appears a little binary – a moment in which the war stops and Moscow agrees to Trump's solution unequivocally. Trump has said repeatedly he does not believe President Vladimir Putin will violate any deal they forge together. His European allies disagree, and insist any peace deal is made with enough security guarantees for Ukraine that it can fend off any renewed Russian aggression. Ukrainian officials highlight, with evidence on their side, that Russia has violated more than 20 ceasefires or deals in the past decade. The peace Trump wants appears to require Zelensky to demand no further US support; rely on European allies possibly functioning without American assistance; sign up to a deal which provides Washington with an unspecified stream of cash from Ukraine's natural resources to repay the US for aid, as well as invest in reconstruction; and then finally accede to whatever peace deal terms and conditions Trump agrees with Moscow, possibly without Ukraine at the table. That is a big ask of a wartime leader. It demands of Zelensky that he unconditionally trust that the US president is acting in Ukraine's interests. A public apology to Trump would go some distance, perhaps, in resolving the horrific collapse in Kyiv and Washington's alliance. Yet it could have a fundamental impact on some Ukrainian morale: troops would see their commander in chief, in their eyes, apologizing for being bullied. It would say to Ukraine's European allies that Kyiv has put Trump entirely in the driving seat, unclear on the destination he has in mind. Ukraine has reason to distrust: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 saw Kyiv surrender its nuclear weapons for security guarantees from the US, United Kingdom and Russia. Ukrainians have since endured a decade of Russian aggression, starting with its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. If even these explicit security guarantees changed nothing, why sign away the country's mineral wealth if that comes without any specific promise to continue military aid? Zelensky's fate has become an occasional Trump talking point, and his future as a US partner hinges on his 'acceptance of peace.' The peace Zelensky, and his European backers, seek is one where Ukraine is adequately armed and protected so that any renewed Russian assault – after months of re-fit and replenishment during a ceasefire renders Moscow's war machine potent again – can be repelled. Zelensky and Europe appear guided in their approach by the lessons of the 1930s. Trump appears guided by his belief that his personal relationships and deal-making acumen can disruptively win out over the brutal realities of war and geopolitics. Ukraine's president has a fateful choice ahead of him: accede to your erstwhile ally's demand, and say you are sorry, while handing over your nation's wealth, and assenting to undefined terms of a peace deal discussed without you. It places Ukraine in the most unfavorable position imaginable, after three years of savage Russian assault. The payback is that, if Trump agrees, the US might continue to provide Ukraine with the vital third to a fifth of all military assistance they have in the past received. Laid out bare, is this a choice at all? CNN's Svitlana Vlasova contributed to this report.
CNN
04-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Zelensky faces a fateful choice as Ukraine reels from Trump's aid suspension
Pausing military aid is the most damaging move the Trump administration can make to Ukraine's war effort, and however opaque the immediate practical consequence may be, the psychological impact for Ukrainians has been immense and catastrophic. The last time US military aid was held up – by Trump-leaning Republicans in December 2023, when $60 billion was stalled for several months – the damage to morale was seismic. And after that delay, the momentum on the front lines changed from Ukraine pursuing a mostly unsuccessful counteroffensive, to being largely in defense. On Tuesday morning, Kyiv was still reeling from the hammer blow, and trying to suggest the impact might not be catastrophic. An adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mykhailo Podolyak, posted: 'First, it is necessary to assess which specific programs will cease to function, considering that many were already in their final stages.' Ukraine's stocks of critical artillery shells could run out by May or June following the pause, a Ukrainian official told CNN on Tuesday. The official said that the first ammunition crisis following the US military aid pause would involve Patriot air defense missiles, which could run out in a matter of weeks. 'We will adapt, but the question is how many additional people, and how much more territory, we lose while we do,' the official said. Reactions from frontline troops noted the heavy role drones, or UAVs, play in holding back Russian assaults, but also the vital need for American-supplied air-defense missiles. 'Our weakness is in air-defense missiles – the Patriots,' said Yegor Firsov, the chief sergeant of a UAV strike platoon. 'Even we, the military, would like to have our families, our rear, protected as much as possible when we are serving on the frontline. Eighty per cent of all destruction, from a tank to an enemy dugout, is carried out directly by drones. So, of course, we have a chance to survive together with Europe.' Serhii Filimonov, commander of the 108th Separate Mechanized Battalion, or 'Da Vinci Wolves,' which has been fighting outside the strategic town of Pokrovsk for nine months, said: 'American support is critical for defending the sky, and financial assistance affects the economy and morale of society, which is also important for the frontline.' A Ukrainian source told CNN the decision did not impact intelligence sharing, which is a lower-cost but impactful component of US support to Kyiv's war effort. Yet the nature of President Donald Trump's move – however it plays out in practical terms – throws a focus on his rift with Zelensky and what must be done to heal it. Trump officials have hinted at the need for a public apology. It is clear they are also reluctant to present the proposed deal giving the United States access to Ukraine's mineral riches for signature, although Trump did hint Monday that that agreement might see progress in the coming days. The Trump administration has also said Zelensky needs to commit to peace, yet not specified in any great detail what this peace would look like. Washington has laid out a vision of peace that appears a little binary – a moment in which the war stops and Moscow agrees to Trump's solution unequivocally. Trump has said repeatedly he does not believe President Vladimir Putin will violate any deal they forge together. His European allies disagree, and insist any peace deal is made with enough security guarantees for Ukraine that it can fend off any renewed Russian aggression. Ukrainian officials highlight, with evidence on their side, that Russia has violated more than 20 ceasefires or deals in the past decade. The peace Trump wants appears to require Zelensky to demand no further US support; rely on European allies possibly functioning without American assistance; sign up to a deal which provides Washington with an unspecified stream of cash from Ukraine's natural resources to repay the US for aid, as well as invest in reconstruction; and then finally accede to whatever peace deal terms and conditions Trump agrees with Moscow, possibly without Ukraine at the table. That is a big ask of a wartime leader. It demands of Zelensky that he unconditionally trust that the US president is acting in Ukraine's interests. A public apology to Trump would go some distance, perhaps, in resolving the horrific collapse in Kyiv and Washington's alliance. Yet it could have a fundamental impact on some Ukrainian morale: troops would see their commander in chief, in their eyes, apologizing for being bullied. It would say to Ukraine's European allies that Kyiv has put Trump entirely in the driving seat, unclear on the destination he has in mind. Ukraine has reason to distrust: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 saw Kyiv surrender its nuclear weapons for security guarantees from the US, United Kingdom and Russia. Ukrainians have since endured a decade of Russian aggression, starting with its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. If even these explicit security guarantees changed nothing, why sign away the country's mineral wealth if that comes without any specific promise to continue military aid? Zelensky's fate has become an occasional Trump talking point, and his future as a US partner hinges on his 'acceptance of peace.' The peace Zelensky, and his European backers, seek is one where Ukraine is adequately armed and protected so that any renewed Russian assault – after months of re-fit and replenishment during a ceasefire renders Moscow's war machine potent again – can be repelled. Zelensky and Europe appear guided in their approach by the lessons of the 1930s. Trump appears guided by his belief that his personal relationships and deal-making acumen can disruptively win out over the brutal realities of war and geopolitics. Ukraine's president has a fateful choice ahead of him: accede to your erstwhile ally's demand, and say you are sorry, while handing over your nation's wealth, and assenting to undefined terms of a peace deal discussed without you. It places Ukraine in the most unfavorable position imaginable, after three years of savage Russian assault. The payback is that, if Trump agrees, the US might continue to provide Ukraine with the vital third to a fifth of all military assistance they have in the past received. Laid out bare, is this a choice at all? CNN's Svitlana Vlasova contributed to this report.
Yahoo
01-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Still Talking About Buying Greenland. Here's Where That's Headed.
Of all the priorities Donald Trump has set since returning to power, his fixation on Greenland has ranked among the most mystifying. The president's insistence that the U.S. should 'own and control' the world's largest island has unsettled its inhabitants and inspired his allies to imagine it as America's 51st state. It has also raised a host of questions about why and how a possible U.S.-Greenland union could come to be. POLITICO Magazine recently traveled to Greenland's capital, Nuuk, and came back with answers. Well, not really. The days have long passed since you could outright purchase a huge chunk of territory from a European power in the new world. What the United States did when it purchased Alaska from Russia in the middle of the 19th century is just not in line with today's international legal norms and standards. There's also no clear legal path toward doing so. The people of Greenland have too many rights over their own self-determination for an outright purchase. That doesn't mean that there's nothing Donald Trump can do regarding Greenland. One of the more plausible ideas that's been gaining some traction in Trump-leaning foreign policy circles is what's called a compact of free association. This is a sort of arrangement that the United States already has with some small island nations in the Pacific. It's short of actually forming a union with Greenland — or making it a 51st state — but involves special privileges for both the U.S. and the other nation involved. In the case of Greenland, things are a bit more complicated because for the time being, at least, Greenland is an autonomous territory of the kingdom of Denmark. That means that they have a lot of rights to self-determination, but its foreign policy is determined by Denmark. But even for something like a free association agreement to work, there are a lot of other steps that would have to occur. First, there's a process that's been laid out for Greenland's eventual potential independence from Denmark. There would have to be a referendum in Greenland supporting independence. There's not even total agreement about exactly how that process would work. Then having achieved full independence, Greenland would then have to choose to enter into a free association agreement or some other kind of special arrangement with the United States. Well, it's really big. It's not so far from the U.S. — it's actually 13 miles from Canada at their closest point, and it's strategically located in the Arctic. Arctic ice has been melting. Russia has become more active in that region. China, though it's not an Arctic nation, has also become more active in the Arctic. So, the United States has a military and strategic interest in having a greater presence in that part of the Arctic. There's already an important American air base in the north of the island, and in the south of the island there are deposits of rare earth minerals. As the world seems to be de-globalizing to an extent — and strategic economic blocs are forming — a source of rare earth minerals that is not in China, that's near the United States is potentially very valuable. President Trump, so far, hasn't directly articulated those strategic goals, though some in his administration have. The United States is an economic and military power next door. The U.S. is already guaranteeing Greenland security. A closer military relationship would cement that guarantee and trade relationship with the largest, most dynamic economy in the world. Another potential benefit would just be the right of people from Greenland to live and work in the U.S. That being said, I was on the ground in Greenland in December, and there was not a huge amount of appetite for a big deal with the U.S. anytime soon. One researcher based in Greenland showed me a recent survey where a majority of Greenlanders said they would like to have closer relations with the U.S., but even more Greenlanders said that they'd like to have closer relations with all sorts of other countries, including Iceland and Canada. So, if President Trump is relying on a popular groundswell in Greenland to get this deal across the finish line, he's still got some convincing to do. Probably not. An outright purchase or a free association agreement remains a long way off. But Donald Trump clearly has the attention of the governments of Greenland and Denmark, and so all sorts of potential measures involving greater military or economic integration could easily be on the table. There could still be some form of a deal that would see maybe more trade or better or more strategic bases in Greenland for the United States.
Politico
01-03-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Trump's Still Talking About Buying Greenland. Here's Where That's Headed.
Of all the priorities Donald Trump has set since returning to power, his fixation on Greenland has ranked among the most mystifying. The president's insistence that the U.S. should 'own and control' the world's largest island has unsettled its inhabitants and inspired his allies to imagine it as America's 51st state. It has also raised a host of questions about why and how a possible U.S.-Greenland union could come to be. POLITICO Magazine recently traveled to Greenland's capital, Nuuk, and came back with answers. Well, not really. The days have long passed since you could outright purchase a huge chunk of territory from a European power in the new world. What the United States did when it purchased Alaska from Russia in the middle of the 19th century is just not in line with today's international legal norms and standards. There's also no clear legal path toward doing so. The people of Greenland have too many rights over their own self-determination for an outright purchase. That doesn't mean that there's nothing Donald Trump can do regarding Greenland. One of the more plausible ideas that's been gaining some traction in Trump-leaning foreign policy circles is what's called a compact of free association. This is a sort of arrangement that the United States already has with some small island nations in the Pacific. It's short of actually forming a union with Greenland — or making it a 51st state — but involves special privileges for both the U.S. and the other nation involved. In the case of Greenland, things are a bit more complicated because for the time being, at least, Greenland is an autonomous territory of the kingdom of Denmark. That means that they have a lot of rights to self-determination, but its foreign policy is determined by Denmark. But even for something like a free association agreement to work, there are a lot of other steps that would have to occur. First, there's a process that's been laid out for Greenland's eventual potential independence from Denmark. There would have to be a referendum in Greenland supporting independence. There's not even total agreement about exactly how that process would work. Then having achieved full independence, Greenland would then have to choose to enter into a free association agreement or some other kind of special arrangement with the United States. Well, it's really big. It's not so far from the U.S. — it's actually 13 miles from Canada at their closest point, and it's strategically located in the Arctic. Arctic ice has been melting. Russia has become more active in that region. China, though it's not an Arctic nation, has also become more active in the Arctic. So, the United States has a military and strategic interest in having a greater presence in that part of the Arctic. There's already an important American air base in the north of the island, and in the south of the island there are deposits of rare earth minerals. As the world seems to be de-globalizing to an extent — and strategic economic blocs are forming — a source of rare earth minerals that is not in China, that's near the United States is potentially very valuable. President Trump, so far, hasn't directly articulated those strategic goals, though some in his administration have. The United States is an economic and military power next door. The U.S. is already guaranteeing Greenland security. A closer military relationship would cement that guarantee and trade relationship with the largest, most dynamic economy in the world. Another potential benefit would just be the right of people from Greenland to live and work in the U.S. That being said, I was on the ground in Greenland in December, and there was not a huge amount of appetite for a big deal with the U.S. anytime soon. One researcher based in Greenland showed me a recent survey where a majority of Greenlanders said they would like to have closer relations with the U.S., but even more Greenlanders said that they'd like to have closer relations with all sorts of other countries, including Iceland and Canada. So, if President Trump is relying on a popular groundswell in Greenland to get this deal across the finish line, he's still got some convincing to do. Probably not. An outright purchase or a free association agreement remains a long way off. But Donald Trump clearly has the attention of the governments of Greenland and Denmark, and so all sorts of potential measures involving greater military or economic integration could easily be on the table. There could still be some form of a deal that would see maybe more trade or better or more strategic bases in Greenland for the United States.
