Latest news with #WesternLeaders
Russia Today
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Putin ends the charade: Trump call puts brakes on West's diplomatic offensive
In recent weeks, the focus of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has shifted noticeably from the battlefield to the diplomatic arena. Political actors on all sides have turned their attention to shaping the terms of a potential settlement – or at least the framework for future negotiations. This latest phase began with a coordinated visit by Western European leaders to Kiev and concluded, for now, with a phone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Monday. But the centerpiece of this diplomatic shift was the unexpected resumption of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul. What's unfolding is not just a conversation about peace, but a broader contest over influence and strategic direction. Competing visions of how the conflict should end – or be managed – are colliding in real time. Western Europe is scrambling to maintain relevance, Ukraine is caught between urgency and uncertainty, and Trump, now at the center of this geopolitical tug-of-war, is being courted by both sides. So, who's really winning this shadow war of influence? And what happens if the diplomatic front collapses? Let's take a closer look. On May 10, leaders from France, the UK, Germany, and Poland traveled to Kiev. Their message to Russia was blunt: Agree to a 30-day ceasefire or face new sanctions and new supplies of European weapons to Ukraine. This wasn't surprising. Peace initiatives led by Trump and his adviser, Steve Witkoff, had stalled by early May, creating an opening for the 'war party' led by European globalists – figures with whom Kiev has naturally aligned for obvious reasons. But there's a problem: Europe is out of both weapons and sanctions. Germany still has a few symbolic Taurus missiles tucked away like heirloom jewels, but even if it decides to part with them, the numbers wouldn't meaningfully shift the balance on the battlefield. This leaves the Western Europeans with just one real move: Convince Trump to back their agenda, boxing him into a policy that isn't his own. That same evening, Putin made his countermove: He publicly invited Kiev to resume direct peace talks in Istanbul. With that offer, the Russian president: Set the terms of negotiation himself, signaling that Russia holds the advantage and Ukraine has more to lose by dragging this out; Sidelined Western Europe entirely, effectively discarding Witkoff's peace plan in favor of talks not about a token ceasefire, but a lasting peace on Russia's terms. It was also a clear act of diplomatic trolling – inviting the Ukrainians back to the very same negotiating table they had walked away from three years ago in Istanbul, with Vladimir Medinsky once again leading the Russian delegation. Despite some trolling, Russia sent a relatively heavyweight delegation to Istanbul: The head of military intelligence, top deputies from the foreign and defense ministries, and a cadre of seasoned experts. This is the sort of team you'd expect at serious negotiations – if the parties actually shared common ground. They don't, at least not yet. Still, the talks were more substantive than expected. Neither side stormed out, and the discussions were described as constructive. Most notably, the two sides agreed to continue talking – and to carry out the largest prisoner exchange of the conflict so far. The exchange is structured as a one-to-one swap – 1,000 prisoners from each side: Nearly all captured Russians and roughly one-sixth of the Ukrainian POWs. The original goal was a full exchange of 'all for all', but the current results still clearly favor Moscow. I've long argued that the only path to lasting peace lies in a direct Russia-Ukraine agreement. This would require Kiev to renounce its anti-Russian posture and accept Moscow's terms. And this can only happen if Ukraine ditches its alignment with the European war lobby led by French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Just last Thursday, that seemed impossible. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky was grandstanding, demanding Putin come to Istanbul, insisting on an immediate ceasefire, and more. But curiously, Western Europe wasn't invited to the Istanbul talks at all. No EU officials were in Türkiye. The ultimatums issued just days earlier? Ignored by both Moscow and Washington. While the talks proceeded in Istanbul, Zelensky flew to Albania for another round of photo-ops with Macron and company. The timing made the trip seem like a deliberate distraction. If so, it failed. The Istanbul talks dominated the headlines, while images from Albania barely registered – except for the bizarre, kindergarten-like setting of the Macron-Zelensky meeting. Western propaganda might have cast Istanbul as a meeting of Putin's 'lackeys' and Albania as the nerve center of the free world, but public perception told a different story. So, why did the Istanbul talks go better than expected? Because for the first time in three years, Ukraine dropped the theatrics and sat down for a real conversation. Perhaps someone in Kiev is finally realizing that the longer they bet on Western Europe's failing hand, the harder Ukraine's eventual collapse will hit. Maybe it's not Zelensky himself, but someone close to him. If that's true, we could be looking at an internal split in the Ukrainian leadership, which so far has remained relatively unified. The obsession of the Ukrainians and the Western Europeans with an immediate ceasefire is telling. A year ago, Kiev insisted that no talks could begin without Russia's full withdrawal, NATO guarantees, and more. Now? Just a month-long pause. Why the shift? Because without US backing, the Western European states know they must become Ukraine's rear guard, replacing Washington. But to negotiate from a position of strength, the bloc would need to confront Putin directly – something leaders like Macron and Starmer are clearly unwilling to do. So instead, they're leaning on Trump to pressure Moscow into a ceasefire – to buy time and prepare Ukraine for the next round. Right now, the real battle is for Trump's favor. If Putin convinces him to drop the ceasefire demand, Ukraine may be forced to fold. Where did Trump's ceasefire-first idea come from anyway? It echoes dozens of Cold War-era conflicts, in which international powers froze hostilities to manage crises indefinitely – often using UN peacekeepers to keep the lid on. Trump seems fixated on that model. His team echoes his thinking, even as they each quietly pursue different strategies. But Ukraine isn't a proxy war in the jungle; it's a massive conflict with no outside force capable of imposing peace. And it appears Trump is beginning to realize that. At this point, he has two realistic options: Keep drifting with former US President Joe Biden's failed policies (a win for the war party), or start pulling the US out of Ukraine altogether. He may have already made up his mind; we'll know soon enough. Why does it matter? Under Biden, Washington carried the full weight of the conflict. The scale of the conflict today exists only because the US saw Moscow's moves as a direct threat to American power. But after the failure of the sanctions blitz and military escalation in 2022, the US mostly coasted along. Now, after the Istanbul meeting, Trump says he wants to handle war and peace with Putin directly. That's bad news for Kiev and Brussels, who've been scrambling to insert themselves into these talks since February. Their latest attempt – the Kiev ultimatum of May 10 – was flatly ignored by both Washington and Moscow. It's likely that yesterday's Putin-Trump phone call centered on the ceasefire. Putin's goal: To persuade Trump that his idea of an unconditional pause plays right into the hands of Ukraine and the European war lobby. A ceasefire must lead to a lasting peace – not just another pause before the next escalation. Trump has blasted Biden's policies as catastrophic. Now Ukraine and Western Europe are trying to lure him into continuing them under a different name. They're not even hiding it. The plan is to use any ceasefire as a window to resupply, regroup, and possibly escalate. Western European troops entering Ukraine are now openly discussed. Naturally, Russia can't accept that on its borders. An unconditional ceasefire now wouldn't bring peace closer – it would bring us closer to World War III. Sustainable peace is only possible if Ukraine and its European backers abandon their current policies. And based on the statements following today's call, Trump seems to be warming to that logic. Which means the diplomatic round that began on May 10 goes to Russia. It's been just ten days, and no one's even talking about the ultimatum made in Kiev anymore.
CBC
16-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
A Trump doctrine in foreign policy? He just made it clearer than ever
Social Sharing In one notable speech, on one memorable trip, we saw the clearest ever outline of what one might call the Trump Doctrine in foreign policy. The current U.S. president doesn't tend to indulge in grand theory talk, but he effectively laid one out in Saudi Arabia. It might be summed up as: less moralizing, more money. In other words, the pursuit of prosperity takes precedence over lofty rhetoric about democracy. This, in his telling, is a recipe for peace and stability. Tuesday's speech in Riyadh was not, of course, the speech the last Republican president, George W. Bush, would have given for the first overseas trip of a presidential term. Nor was it the speech Barack Obama gave in his first presidential address to the Arab world, when he spoke at length about democracy to university students in Cairo. Trump spoke to a business crowd. And he, in contrast, disparaged Western do-gooders who travel around the world trying to spread democracy. He had the CEOs on their feet applauding as he saluted the leadership of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. That's the same Mohammed bin Salman who was briefly treated as persona non grata in Washington for his suspected role in the murder and hacking to pieces of a columnist for the Washington Post. "Commerce, not chaos," is how Trump described the Saudi leader's winning approach, before turning to criticize Western busybodies. "It's crucial for the wider world to note, this great transformation [in Saudi Arabia] has not come from Western interventionists or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs," he said. "No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neo-cons or liberal non-profits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, and so many other cities." WATCH | Trump tours the Middle East: Recapping Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia 2 days ago Duration 0:36 Trump ridiculed so-called nation-builders who, he said, wrecked more nations than they built, intervening in complex societies they did not understand. The speech "might've been the clearest articulation of how Trump sees foreign policy," said Stephen Wertheim, a historian of U.S. foreign policy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "He openly espoused transactionalism." What this means for the rest of us The address helped weave together loose threads in seemingly unrelated events of his presidency. Gaza? In Trump's view, it should be a resort, rich with hotels and U.S. investors. Ukraine? President Volodymyr Zelenskyy got browbeaten in the White House, but has since signed a U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal and is back in Trump's better graces. Trump announced hundreds of billions in business deals in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including a massive investment in a sprawling data centre. During the trip, he also lifted sanctions on Syria, drawing a standing ovation led by the Saudi leader. Does this approach make the world safer? Foreign policy thinkers interviewed for this story raised some pros, and cons, then, on balance, admitted they don't know. "To be determined," said Wertheim, who sees some benefits — lower risk of a certain type of war, and fewer accusations of U.S. hypocrisy while promoting democracy but selectively choosing which autocrats to ally with. On the other hand, he says, allowing autocrats free rein is a potential recipe for instability. "No one knows. Absolutely no one," said Daniel Immerwahr, a historian of U.S. foreign policy at Northwestern University. He agrees with Trump that nation-building has been destructive, but worries about a world where dictators abuse their citizens, and threaten neighbouring countries, without fear of the U.S., resembling the early 20th century. Trump's values-light approach certainly has potential to make foreign affairs less, not more, predictable. Look no further than U.S. allies, and adversaries, now finding themselves confused about where they stand. Look at how he's blown hot and cold on NATO, on Ukraine and on China, imposing and removing tariffs, and swerving back and forth on restricting trade in high-tech products. It can be hard to plan around that. Especially for the countries closest to the U.S., notably one, Canada, that he keeps talking about as some corporate takeover target. Perhaps Canadians might draw limited reassurance from one rare thing Trump said he would do as a matter of principle: defend Canada if it were invaded. "We protect Canada militarily and we always will. That's not a money thing," Trump said, during his White House meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney. There is some appeal to Trump's approach to foreign policy. Even his critics concede that. Two former Obama staffers, on their foreign-affairs podcast this week, saluted some things Trump is doing in the Middle East. They said the traditional foreign-policy attitudes in Washington are, sometimes, not transactional enough; they applauded Trump for ignoring any criticism, including from ally Israel, and reopening ties with Syria. "I think Trump deserves a lot of credit," Tommy Vietor said in his podcast Pod Save The World, adding that he likes the fact Trump doesn't care what Washington's foreign-policy "blob" thinks. New York Times reporters in different parts of the Arab world chronicled the mixed reactions in a piece titled: "Trump's Pledge to the Middle East: No More 'Lectures on How to Live.'" A human-rights lawyer told the paper that this is less hypocritical than the U.S. constantly talking about rights and democracy, and then selectively ignoring those things in places, and moments, that suit it. At least now, he said, the Americans are clear. Or are they? A consistent philosophy? Not exactly There are still hypocrisies, or at the very least inconsistencies. The U.S. talks to autocrats and communists on several continents but, in part for domestic political reasons, shuts them out in Venezuela and Cuba. That's one reason not to read too much into the speech, Wertheim says. It's not an iron-clad philosophy. Also, he says, Trump isn't as radical a change agent as he presents himself. For example: the neoconservative impulse to spread democracy at gunpoint went out of fashion years ago. It's true, Joe Biden backed Ukraine, sending it arms; but, Wertheim added, he opposed Bush-style interventionism and actually pulled out of one such mission, in Afghanistan. As for the potential effect of Trump's attitude on human rights, the Times also spoke to people in the Middle East worried about what it could mean. One was the son of a 75-year-old U.S.-Saudi dual citizen, forbidden from leaving the kingdom after he was arrested, then released, over critical social-media posts. He said past U.S. administrations might have raised this with the Saudis. But he said he hasn't managed to get anyone in the Trump administration to talk to him. On their podcast, the ex-Obama staffers said there's a third approach. A middle ground between military adventurism and democracy-at-gunpoint, and, on the other end, the near-total indifference to democratic values. "We shouldn't let [Trump's] accurate disregard for American interventionism lead you to believe that the only alternative is a bunch of, let's face it, a bunch of … white American CEOs and a bunch of royals sitting around and deciding everything themselves either," Ben Rhodes said. "There needs to be a voice for people in these discussions in this part of the world." The podcast episode was titled, "Con Man Air: Trump's Middle East Cash Grab," reflecting a jaundiced view of this Mideast trip as a grift for Trump and his family. It could just as easily have been a reference to the animating philosophy of Trump's foreign policy. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who spoke of America as a shining city on a hill, Trump speaks of a different gleam — of a golden age, animated by a simpler, clearer philosophy: Follow the money. Where ideals are out, and the art of the deal is in.
Russia Today
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Moscow says it won't be pressured over Ukraine 30-day truce
The Kremlin has rejected what it describes as external pressure surrounding the 30-day truce demanded by Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky and supported by Western to CNN on Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia had already declared a three-day ceasefire earlier in the week, which was met with silence from Kiev. 'Actually, a couple of days ago, Putin announced a ceasefire for three days,' Peskov said. 'Did you hear any reaction from Kiev? No, we didn't either. Did you hear any criticism of Kiev for not being able to respond or not willing to respond? No.' Leaders from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland gathered in Kiev on Saturday for high-level talks with Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky. According to him, the gathering also included virtual participation from more than 30 countries. Following the meeting, Zelensky wrote on X that participants agreed to a full and unconditional ceasefire must begin on Monday, May 12, and last for at least 30 days. 'Together, we demand this from Russia,' he stated. He warned that if Moscow refuses the truce, stronger sanctions should be imposed on Russia's energy and banking sectors. Preparations are already underway for a 17th package of EU sanctions, which will be coordinated with measures from the UK, Norway, and US, Zelensky claimed. Peskov told CNN that the Kremlin was still evaluating the latest developments. 'We have to think about that. We have our own position.' He also criticized what he described as an increasingly hostile posture from Western European states. 'Yes, definitely we see that Europe is confronting us. We feel it, we know it, and we are quite accustomed to that.' The Kremlin spokesman reiterated Moscow's willingness to engage in talks. 'We are open for dialogue. We are open for attempts to have a settlement in Ukraine,' he said, expressing appreciation for the mediation efforts coming from the Trump administration. 'But at the same time, it's quite useless to try to press upon us,' he added. Kiev has repeatedly called for an immediate 30-day ceasefire in recent months, framing it as essential for starting diplomatic efforts. Moscow argued that such a pause would primarily benefit Ukraine by allowing its forces to regroup and replenish weapons stockpiles. Speaking to ABC News on Friday, Dmitry Peskov also stressed that any truce would require a halt to Western arms deliveries, saying, 'Otherwise, it will be an advantage for Ukraine.'
