Connect with us

Europe

Trump’s 50-day shift on Ukraine is a big deal — but probably not for Putin

Published

on



CNN
 — 

New developments Tuesday reinforced the idea that President Donald Trump has significantly shifted his view of the Ukraine war.

But his short time horizons and lack of specificity on what exactly he will do for Ukraine, which are hallmarks of his leadership, mean the most critical factor preventing an end to the conflict will remain unchanged. There is little reason to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin will change his own calculations on a war he sees as a historic imperative and that may be existential for him politically.

Still, some things have undeniably changed.

Worst-case scenarios for what the first six months of Trump’s second term could mean for Ukraine didn’t come to pass.

This assessment excludes the Ukrainian civilians killed in Russia’s recent deadly escalation of drones and missile strikes, including on apartment blocks.

But Trump hasn’t folded to his erstwhile friend Putin. He’s not left Europe in the lurch under the shadow of an increasingly expansionist Russia amid the continent’s worst land war since World War II. Trump seems more warmly disposed toward NATO than he has been for years.

Ukrainian flags and portraits of soldiers are seen at a memorial for fallen fighters in Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 14.

Ukraine faces the possibility of losing territory to a Russian summer offensive and more horror that civilians must bear. But diplomatically, it’s in a more favorable position with the Trump administration than anyone could have dared hope when President Volodymyr Zelensky got an Oval Office dressing-down in February. That means its hopes of surviving as an independent, sovereign state have improved.

Trump’s hostility toward Kyiv and misgivings about pumping US aid into a World War I-style quagmire might mostly be motivated by his dismay that Putin snubbed his peace plans, which were slanted toward the Kremlin.

But he at least has now shed some misconceptions that by force of personality alone he can bend Putin to his will. And by promising Patriot missiles to Kyiv — which Trump said on Tuesday are “already being shipped” — and being open to a new Russia sanctions push in Congress, he’s added steel to American peacemaking.

Trying to coerce Putin to the table may not work either. But at least Trump isn’t giving Ukraine away.

Trump’s shift will allow all sides to recalibrate to new realities. Although, as CNN’s Matthew Chance pointed out, Trump’s 50-day deadline for Moscow to talk peace offers a seven-week window for the cynics in Moscow to lock in as many gains as possible by raining fire and death on Ukraine.

Still, Trump has given himself some time to decide where he wants to go on Ukraine. And NATO states can enhance their own utility to Trump following a successful alliance summit.

Zelensky can try to build more goodwill with Trump to shape his approach to any future peace deals — though his experience in the Oval Office is a warning not to try to push the president too far.

And while the caveats about Putin being willing to wage indefinite war still apply, there’s a small chance a few more weeks will persuade Putin to contemplate a US off-ramp to a deal likely to hand him territory he’s seized in the three-year war and that he could spin as a win for Russian pride and security as well as a rebuke to the West.

Trump appeared optimistic Tuesday as he defended the ultimatum’s timeline. “A lot of opinions change very rapidly — might not be 50 days, might be much sooner than 50 days,” the president said.

It would be unwise to assume Trump’s estrangement with Putin is permanent.

His anger seems mostly born of disappointment that Putin has not delivered him a win with a peace deal that might yield a Nobel Prize rather than any deep sentimental or geopolitical concern for the implications of abandoning Ukraine.

And, as usual, the president has tempered previous vehement criticism of the Russian leader. After slamming Putin’s “bullsh*t” last week, Trump on Monday told the BBC: “I’m not done with him.”

Trump is transactional, operates in short windows of time and constantly seeks to land minor wins he can highlight. So, if he turned around and said he was meeting Putin in a summit next month or got mad at a new perceived slight from Zelensky, no one would be surprised.

“My concern here is that Donald Trump has the ability to be swayed very quickly,” said Sabrina Singh, a former Pentagon deputy press secretary who is now a CNN global affairs commentator.

“I fear that it’s only a matter of time until there’s another call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin where Putin gives some sort of concessions and says we’ll give a temporary five-day ceasefire and then turns around and says well, ‘Ukraine violated this ceasefire so we’re going to continue on with our war,’” Singh said on CNN News Central.

Still, Trump’s change of position is significant.

By following through on his vow to send “top of the line weapons” to Ukraine quickly, he is taking a big step. Patriot anti-missile defense systems could save many civilian lives, but Trump is embracing a political risk in ditching campaign-trail skepticism toward Ukraine shared by many MAGA supporters.

A US Army commander discusses Patriot battery readiness with soldiers assigned to an Air Defense Artillery Regiment on February 19.

Trump has also shown more openness to sanctions. Trade between the US and Russia is minuscule at this point, so bilateral punishments won’t mean much. But if Trump does make good on a threat to impose secondary sanctions on nations that buy Russian products, especially energy exports, he could choke Moscow’s economy and war machine.

Still, would he really target India and China — two leading purchasers of Russian goods, in a move that could severely disrupt US relations with those giant powers and throw the global economy into turmoil? His erratic history of imposing and then suspending tariffs as part of his global trade war suggests not. Moscow may be banking on it.

It also matters what, if any, additional weapons Trump may send to Ukraine. Its most optimistic supporters were delighted on Tuesday when the Financial Times first reported that the president had asked Zelensky in a phone call about Kyiv’s capacity to target both Moscow and St. Petersburg. But Trump toned down the speculation on Tuesday, although aides told CNN that he has not ruled out shipping certain categories of offensive weapons to Ukraine that he’s so far been unwilling to provide.

“No, he shouldn’t target Moscow,” Trump told reporters, referring to Zelensky. “I’m on nobody’s side. You know whose side I’m on? Humanity’s side.”

Though he’d likely not admit it, the president is in a similar spot to one long occupied by his predecessor President Joe Biden. He’s considering how far he can push Putin while avoiding inflammatory steps that might cross his invisible red lines and widen the war.

Trump’s new tolerance and even appreciation for NATO follows genuine fears that his new term might trigger the political earthquake of a US withdrawal.

Credit goes to quiet diplomacy by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, who’ve worked on Trump and counseled Zelensky on how to approach the US in recent months.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, meanwhile, choreographed an alliance summit in the Netherlands last month that delivered a political triumph for the president. An agreement that NATO states would spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035 allowed Trump to argue he’d forced Europe to get serious about protecting itself and alleviating the burden on the US.

Alongside Rutte in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump praised Europe’s spirit for the war in Ukraine, adding, “Ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing — it’s a very good thing.”

Now, NATO has solved another political problem for the president. It’s effectively being used as a front for him to send Patriot missiles to Kyiv. European nations are sending the batteries to Kyiv, after which US NATO allies will buy replacements from the US.

President Donald Trump, right, shakes the hand of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on Monday.

Rutte portrayed this diplomatic ballet as another win for Trump.

“Mr. President, dear Donald, this is really big, this is really big,” Rutte said, using characteristic praise that comes across as sycophancy to many but that Trump takes at face value. “You called me on Thursday, that you had taken a decision, and a decision is that you want Ukraine (to have) what it needs to have to maintain — to be able to defend itself against Russia — but you do want the Europeans to pay for it, which is totally logical,” Rutte said.

The NATO conduit offers at least symbolic distance for Trump as he sends weapons to Ukraine for use in a war against Russia. It allows some level of plausible deniability if MAGA activists disapprove. And it satisfies Trump’s obsession with driving a good financial deal. Expect to hear him argue he’s secured new sales and even jobs for US defense workers.

The promise that other offensive weapons could also get to Ukraine using the same route is unspecific, however. It’s not clear whether Ukraine will get weapons that will enable it to make battlefield advances against Russia. And it’s unlikely that any US assistance will mirror the vast packages of military assistance and aid that were approved by Congress in the Biden administration.

The atmosphere on Capitol Hill is also changing. A drive to sanction Russia more severely already had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and Trump has shown he can muster majorities in the House for his priorities.

Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham and his Democratic co-sponsor Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Monday that their bill could be a “real executive hammer” to isolate Russia. But the measure could still stir dissent in the GOP base at a time when Trump is already upsetting some supporters over the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who opposes more aid to Ukraine, said Tuesday he doesn’t see an urgent need for a bill now that Trump has threatened to impose sanctions on Russia and even secondary punishments on India and China.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul blasted the initiative as “one of the most dangerous bills ever to come before the Senate.” He predicted a total cut-off of trade with China, India and Turkey if they were to be hit by US punishments.

So the domestic politics of Trump’s Ukraine shift are not yet fully settled.

And neither, really, is the geopolitical situation.

Trump has adopted a tougher policy toward Putin, but it’s not definitive or guaranteed to last. The extent of future US military support for Ukraine remains unclear, even if Kyiv’s government is in better standing with the president than ever before. And European NATO states can breathe a sigh of relief about Trump, but his trade war threats have caused a deep transatlantic rift.

All of this means that Putin’s key calculation all along — that he can outlast the West on the war in Ukraine — seems unlikely to significantly shift.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Europe

Kneecap, Massive Attack, Brian Eno among UK and Irish musicians banding together to speak out on Israel’s war in Gaza

Published

on



CNN
 — 

A group of musicians from the United Kingdom and Ireland say they have formed a syndicate to advocate for artists speaking out against Israel’s war in Gaza and the role of foreign governments in funding it.

“Because of our expressions of conscience, we’ve been subject to various intimidations from within our industry” and “legally via organised bodies such as UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI),” read a social media post by the band Massive Attack, a version of which has been shared by Kneecap and Fontaines D.C., as well as musician and producer Brian Eno.

The musicians said they are aware of “aggressive, vexatious campaigns operated by UKLFI and of multiple individual incidences of intimidation within the music industry itself” designed to censor and silence artists.

CNN has reached out to UKLFI for comment.

The posts come after Northern Irish rappers Kneecap and the British rap-punk duo Bob Vylan drew criticism for their pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel rhetoric. Both are facing police investigations for their performances at Glastonbury music festival, following reports by UKLFI.

UKLFI said it reported a singer in Bob Vylan to the police for chanting “Death to the IDF” during their Glastonbury set, referring to the Israeli military. It also reported UK public broadcaster the BBC for showing the set. The BBC later called Bob Vylan’s performance “antisemitic” and said it should not have been broadcast.

A member of Kneecap, which has been a vocal critic of Israel and the war in Gaza, was charged with a terrorism offense last month for allegedly displaying a flag “in support of Hezbollah,” according to London police, following a report by UKLFI.

UK counterterrorism police said they were investigating the group after videos emerged allegedly showing the band calling for British politicians to be killed and shouting “up Hamas, up Hezbollah,” in apparent support for the militant groups from Gaza and Lebanon, respectively, both enemies of Israel.

Kneecap has previously said it has never supported Hamas or Hezbollah and that the footage circulating online has been “deliberately taken out of all context” as part of a “smear campaign” following their criticism of Israel and the United States over the former’s 20-month war in Gaza.

Both Bob Vylan and Kneecap have faced widespread gig cancellations.

UKLFI said it had written to the UK venues where Kneecap was due to perform this summer and warned them “of the risks of allowing them to perform.”

The US State Department banned Bob Vylan from performing in the US.

In their joint social media posts, the musicians in the newly-formed alliance encouraged other artists who wish to speak up but are afraid of repercussions to contact them.

“The scenes in Gaza have moved beyond description,” said the post announcing the formation of the syndicate, which calls for a ceasefire; the “immediate, unfettered access” of aid to Gaza; the end of UK arms sales to Israel; and other measures.

“Having withstood these campaigns of attempted censorship, we won’t stand by and allow other artists – particularly those at earlier stages of their careers or in other positions of professional vulnerability – to be threatened into silence or career cancellation.”

The English singer Paloma Faith lent her support on the post shared by Kneecap.

“Keep going everyone it’s going to eventually change! Hang in there,” she wrote in a comment via her verified account on Instagram.



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

Analysis: China was on the sidelines of the Iran-Israel war. That’s just where it wanted to be

Published

on


Hong Kong
CNN
 — 

Weeks after his country was battered by waves of Israeli strikes and the US bombed three of its prized nuclear facilities, Iran’s foreign minister came to a gathering of regional diplomats in China this week with a simple ask.

Their group, the Beijing and Moscow-backed Shanghai Cooperation Organization, should have a way to coordinate response to military aggression and play a “central role” in addressing such threats, Abbas Araghchi said, according to Iranian state media.

Along with Iran, fellow SCO members China and Russia are key members of what lawmakers in Washington have dubbed an “axis” of authoritarian nations or a growing anti-American alignment of Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.

But Iran’s proposal didn’t seem to get the direct endorsement of the group, a regional security body whose 10 members include close partners China and Russia, but also rivals India and Pakistan.

And contained in Araghchi’s message was a public hint of Iran’s disappointment: that in its time of need last month – when Israeli and US forces struck at will at top military and technological targets – its powerful friends in Beijing and Moscow appeared to sit on the sidelines.

Even still, in a meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in China’s Tianjin on Wednesday, Araghchi “thanked China for its valuable support to Iran,” according to a Chinese readout.

Earlier this month at a summit of BRICS, another China- and Russia-backed grouping of major emerging economies, member state Iran got little more than a statement of “serious concern over deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities.”

The declaration “condemned” the strikes but did not name Israel or the US.

China’s public response – to explicitly condemn the attacks, but not take an evident direct role in peacemaking – however, was widely seen as a sign of the limits to its power in the Middle East, despite its bid in recent years to ramp up its economic and diplomat clout in the region.

Beijing has instead focused on using the conflict to play up another message: that China does not want to be a global leader that uses power in the same way as the US.

Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi mets Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting on July 15 in Tianjin, China.

The propaganda machine of China’s ruling Communist Party has long decried America’s “hegemony” and its “wanton use” of force as its rolls out examples of US’ involvement in multiple conflicts of recent decades.

Frictions with Washington over trade and tech make selling that messaging more important for Beijing, as it needs friends now more than ever. And it sees US President Donald Trump’s brash “America First” foreign policy as creating an opening there.

Over the past decade, Chinese aggression to enforce its disputed claims in the South China Sea, its military intimidation of Taiwan, and the growing reach of its expanded navy, whose aircraft carrier strike groups recently conducted drills further from home shores and in greater strength than ever before, have raised alarm among its neighbors – and fueled Washington’s urgent warnings to its allies against dealing too closely with China.

Beijing has cried “hypocrisy” and, in 2022, Chinese leader Xi Jinping unveiled his own vision for global security architecture – short on detail, but clear that it opposed the US-led alliance system and military intervention.

That vision has brought together Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose shared mistrust for NATO – and view that it’s a provocative actor – is a key point of alignment, and a subtext for why Beijing has never condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Experts say China’s apparent lack of a role even in mediating the conflict between Israel and Iran, a country with which Beijing has deep historic and economic ties, shows the limits of its influence in the region.

But they also say Beijing has little interest in wading into the region’s security as a power player.

“In terms of providing mediation, (China) has offered and is more than willing … but it has little capacity to project military power in the Middle East, and even less political will to be openly and directly involved,” said William Figueroa, an expert of China-Iran relations and an assistant professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

Unlike the US, which maintains substantial military assets to back its allies and interests in the region, China’s on the ground military presence is limited to a naval base in the Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti. Indeed, Beijing’s only military alliance is a historic one with neighboring and fellow one-party communist state North Korea.

Beijing also shied away from joining international efforts last winter to protect key shipping lanes under attack from Houthi rebels in Yemen following Israel’s war on Gaza.

The attacks put China’s commercial interests at risk even though the Houthis said they won’t target Chinese or Russian vessels. And when it comes to efforts to push for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, China has again been on the sidelines, despite positioning itself as leading international voice calling for a ceasefire and criticizing Israel’s war.

Some experts have argued that if China had more global military might then it may throw around that weight more outside its own region.

But in the Israel-Iran conflict, Beijing’s focus was instead on “presenting its support for international law as a superior alternative to what it portrays as the West’s militaristic, unlawful interventions,” according to Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“While this narrative has limited traction among Middle Eastern states, it plays well in the Global South—where it serves to burnish China’s image and reinforce its strategic competition with Washington at the global level,” Zhao added.

Iran's Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh (second from left) joins SCO counterparts in a meeting in China's Qingdao a day after the Israel-Iran ceasefire last month.

Even if Beijing’s reaction was not surprising to Tehran, going to China and “acting like everything’s great” may have a been “a bitter pill to swallow” for Araghchi and Iran’s Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh as both traveled to China in recent weeks, according to Jonathan Fulton, a senior fellow for the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.

Beijing and Tehran have no mutual defense treaty, and the relationship has largely been an economic one. China takes more than 90% of Iran’s oil trade, imported through intermediaries, which totaled some $40 billion in profits for Iran last year, according to Muyu Xu, a senior oil analyst at trade intelligence firm Kpler.

Even when it comes to China’s closest international partner, Russia, Beijing has tread carefully: stopping short of large-scale supply of military goods for Moscow’s war in Ukraine, instead buying up Russian fuel and supplying it with dual-use goods that can power its defense industrial base.

That support, and more direct military backing from Iran and North Korea for Russia’s war, has raised alarm in the West about emerging coordination among members into a so-called anti-American “axis.”

But the latest stress-test of the “axis” appeared to show its weaknesses: as Israeli and US bombs rained down on Iran, Russia and China looked more focused on their own interests and rhetoric, analysts say, rather than backing Iran materially or using their weight to push Israel or the US to stop the fighting. Xi and Putin did, however, use the conflict to stress their own united front.

That said, when it comes to ties with Iran, the real test is likely what’s next.

“This is a good example (that) there are limitations to what China’s going to do in terms of direct intervention in a military conflict,” Brian Hart, a fellow of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank, said during a recent talk held by the Washington-based center. But “it’s too soon to count China’s support for Iran out.”

China’s model for Russia of “largely walking right up to that line of not providing overt military support,” could become a dynamic that develops here, Hart said, as Beijing looks to help the regime in Tehran say in power. Dual-use Chinese-made chemicals needed to produce missile fuel were delivered to Iran earlier this year, CNN reporting shows.

Even still, Beijing may be looking more skeptically at Iran as a powerful partner in the region in light of the country’s “inability to project power to defend its airspace” against Israel last month, according to Atlantic Council’s Fulton.

And when it comes to how the latest events may impact any coordination between the so-called “axis” countries, the fundamentals have not changed, he said.

Far from being an alliance or a bloc like those in the West, China, Iran, Russia and North Korea have an “alignment of grievances” against the West, but “very different ideas” of how to reshape global rules to address that, Fulton said.

And for Beijing, “what it needs in the Middle East is economically motivated – it needs a stable region, and Iran doesn’t really support that. Iran causes as many problems as it solves for Beijing.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

UK to lower national voting age to 16 under government proposals

Published

on



CNN
 — 

The United Kingdom could become one of the first European countries to lower the voting age to 16 in all national elections, in what the government is calling a landmark effort to “future-proof” its democracy.

If passed by the parliament, the proposed reforms, unveiled Thursday, would bring national votes in line with elections in Scotland, Wales and the Channel Islands, where younger voters already cast ballots.

“Young people deserve to have a stake and to have a say in the future of our democracy,” said Rushanara Ali, parliamentary under-secretary for local government in the House of Commons on Thursday.

“When we came into power just over a year ago, the government committed through its manifesto to bring forward measures to strengthen our precious democracy and uphold the integrity of our elections.”

The UK’s move, which could be in place for the next general election, follows a growing global trend toward younger enfranchisement.

Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, welcomed the proposed reforms, telling CNN that lowering the voting age would “help more young people to cast that all-important, habit-forming vote at a point when they can be supported with civic education.”

“Participation is a vital sign of the health of our democracy. If fewer people vote, our democracy becomes weaker,” he added.

In 2008, Austria became the first European country to lower its national voting age to 16, with Malta adopting the change a decade later. In South America, countries including Brazil, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Argentina have permitted voting from age 16 for years.

Across much of the world, however, 18 remains the standard minimum voting age. In Asia, countries such as Indonesia and East Timor have set the threshold at 17, while Singapore, Lebanon, and Oman require citizens to wait until 21 to cast a ballot.

Within the UK, the government’s intentions have drawn scrutiny.

James Yucel, head of campaigns at the center-right thinktank Onward, told CNN that the proposal was “not some noble push for democracy” but instead “political engineering aimed at boosting (Labour’s) support.”

In both opinion polls and votes, younger voters tend to skew more heavily towards Labour than the main opposition Conservatives.

The proposed reforms drew criticism from the Conservative Party on Thursday, with lawmaker and shadow cabinet member Paul Holmes saying in the House of Commons: “Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote, but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they are voting in?”

The reforms would also expand acceptable voter ID to include digital formats of existing IDs, such as driving licenses and armed forces’ veterans’ cards. UK-issued bank cards would also be accepted.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending