Connect with us

Europe

Peace in Ukraine looks further away after Trump’s call with Putin

Published

on



CNN
 — 

So much for Donald Trump’s “force of personality” forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin to prove he wants to end the war in Ukraine.

The president’s hyped-up phone call with his Russian counterpart on Monday mostly served to highlight how far away any such breakthrough may be.

And more importantly, looking ahead, it raised new questions about how involved Trump really wants to be and widened transatlantic divisions on ending the war.

Ukraine and its European partners are pushing for a 30-day ceasefire to allow time for talks on a permanent peace agreement to start. Moscow has refused, insisting on talks now on a final deal. Since this process could take months, it looks like a ruse to allow Russia to press ahead with its offensives that are killing innocent civilians.

By announcing after his call with Putin that Ukraine and Russia would now hold talks “as only they can” on a ceasefire and ultimately an end to the war while the fighting rages, Trump sided with his friend in the Kremlin.

Trump also added new ambiguity to an increasingly toothless peace effort on Monday. He did nothing to quell an earlier suggestion by Vice President JD Vance that the US might simply wash its hands if there’s no progress. “I tell you, big egos involved, but I think something’s going to happen. And if it doesn’t, I just back away and they’re going to have to keep going,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office after the call.

Threatening to walk away is a classic dealmaker’s gambit. But given the administration’s extreme skepticism of aiding Ukraine, this might not be a bluff.

US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on Monday.

Trump also left the impression that the US would play a less direct role while Russia and Ukraine talked. He launched a vague trial balloon that the Vatican and the new American Pope Leo might get involved. Most observers believe that there will be no peace unless America exerts maximum leverage.

“It feels to me that the president maybe didn’t really try to pressure Putin at all. It’s good that they had a two-hour conversation but coming out of that what do we have?” asked Beth Sanner, a former deputy director of national intelligence.

“We have Putin continuing very maximalist demands … an agreement to talk about a framework for talking about a future peace deal and possibly a ceasefire that would come after agreements for many things,” Sanner told CNN’s Boris Sanchez.

“This is a call that I think it’s really hard to see this in any other way than Putin seemed to get exactly what he wanted.”

As ever, there was mystery about the full extent of Trump’s conversation with Putin, to whom he has often shown great deference.

Outsiders know only what the Kremlin and the White House want them to know about how it went. But Russian officials offered a few tantalizing hints of the atmosphere of the call. “I will tell you that conversations of such duration are rare when both presidents … neither of them wanted to end the conversation and hang up,” Kremlin presidential aide Yury Ushakov said Monday in comments that will do little to stem concerns among Trump critics that he’s an easy mark for Putin.

Before it took place, Monday’s call looked like it might mark a pivot point in the so-far fruitless US effort to end the war. After all, Trump told Fox News in an interview during his Middle East tour last week it was “turkey time,” raising expectations that he’d get tough with Putin.

And on Sunday, the president’s envoy Steve Witkoff said on ABC News that “the president has a force of personality that is unmatched.” Witkoff added, “He’s got to get on the phone with President Putin, and that is going to clear up some of the logjam and get us to the place that we need to get to. And I think it’s going to be a very successful call.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin makes a statement after his telephone call with US President Donald Trump at the Sirius Education Center For Talented Children in Sirius, Russia, on Monday.

But Trump won’t use the leverage that the US does have – for instance, it could toughen sanctions against Russia or send more arms and ammunition to Ukraine.

Asked by reporters in the Oval Office why he wouldn’t impose new sanctions, Trump replied, “Because I think there’s a chance of getting something done, and if you do that, you could also make it much worse.” He cautioned, “But there could be a time where that’s going to happen.”

Absent a deadline or more specificity, however, Trump’s threat comes without steel. It looks rather like a line designed to ease pressure on himself rather than to get Putin’s attention.

Trump also renewed his complaints about the cost of the war in Ukraine, making clear that he won’t emulate the military aid sent to Kyiv by the Biden administration, without which the effort to repel Russian forces will be severely constrained. “We gave a massive amount … It’s just a shame,” the president said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote on X after the talks that he had spoken with Trump twice on Monday – once before the US leader talked with Putin, and afterward for a joint briefing with European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Given the strategic necessity for Zelensky of avoiding new blowups with the president following their Oval Office argument in February, he was diplomatic. But in a long statement on X, Zelensky contradicted Trump’s formula. He called for stronger sanctions on Russia if it is unwilling to stop killing Ukrainians. He proposed direct negotiations with Russia at the Vatican, in Turkey or in Switzerland but said they must involve European and American representatives. And he warned, “It is crucial for all of us that the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace, because the only one who benefits from that is Putin.”

“This is a defining moment. The world can now see whether its leaders are truly capable of securing a ceasefire and achieving real, lasting peace,” Zelensky wrote, in a comment that could be read at face value or as a critique of Trump’s efforts.

Trump often says that he wants to devote his second term to peacemaking. And if he’s sincere, he could leave the world in better shape.

“My whole life is like deals – one big deal,” Trump said Monday.

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

But his efforts so far are desultory. If anything, combat in Ukraine and Gaza has intensified since he took office. Trump claimed a notable humanitarian win last week by securing the release of the last living US hostage in Gaza by agreeing to indirect talks with Hamas that bypassed Israel.

But Trump’s receding interest in ending the war launched after the October 7, 2023, attacks has led to a vacuum. Now Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has opened a new offensive aimed at controlling the entire enclave, where tens of thousands of Palestinians are starving. Their plight is an ill omen for Ukraine if Washington loses interest there, too.

Elsewhere, the president claimed credit for ending a terrifying escalation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir this month. But India – despite its close ties to the White House – disputed claims that the US intervention was decisive.

Such conflicts are brewed from decades of historical and nationalistic grievances. And each may be existential for the leaders concerned. So it’s hardly surprising that those involved are not being budged by Trump’s endeavors, which are superficial compared to the standards of historical peace US peace drives in places like the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia. Such wars run on generational clocks. Trump’s timetable is days and weeks.

Putin and Trump are both ‘tapping along’

“I believe Putin wants to do it … if I thought that President Putin did not want to get this over with, I wouldn’t even be talking about it,” Trump said in the Oval Office.

But it’s harder than ever to be optimistic that the Russian leader truly wants to end the war soon.

Of course, the conflict has been ruinous to Russia’s economy and has killed tens of thousands of young Russians. But in its readout, Russia said that Putin stressed that for the war to end, its “root causes” must be addressed. This includes specious claims that Ukraine needs to be “de-Nazified” (in other words, that Zelensky and democratic governance must be toppled), and severe restrictions must be imposed on the country’s sovereignty, political system and right to decide its own destiny.

Sure, Putin wants peace, but only on terms that it would be impossible for Ukraine to accept while remaining an independent nation.

A few weeks ago, Trump called for Russia to stop attacking civilians and wondered aloud whether Putin was “tapping me along.” By giving Russia what it wanted on Monday, it’s fair to ask whether Trump is less tapped against than tapping.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Europe

Russia and Ukraine resume peace talks in shadow of Kyiv’s audacious air raid

Published

on



CNN
 — 

Russian and Ukrainian delegates are meeting in Istanbul on Monday for their second set of direct peace talks, a day after Kyiv launched a shock drone attack on Russia’s nuclear-capable bombers, in an operation that President Volodymyr Zelensky said was a year and a half in the making.

After the initial round of discussions in the Turkish city last month – the first between the warring countries since soon after Russia’s full-scale invasion in early 2022 – both sides agreed to share their conditions for a full ceasefire and a potentially lasting peace. Zelensky said Sunday that Ukraine had presented Moscow with its “logical and realistic” demands, but said Russia had not yet shared its memorandum.

“We don’t have it,” Zelensky said. “The Turkish side doesn’t have it, and the American side doesn’t have the Russian document either. Despite this, we will attempt to achieve at least some progress on the path toward peace.”

It is not yet clear if Ukraine’s daring Sunday air raid will streamline that path or make it more thorny. Kyiv has long sought to impress upon the Kremlin that there are costs to prolonging its campaign, but some analysts have warned that the operation – which struck Russian airfields thousands of miles from Ukraine’s borders – will only replenish Moscow’s resolve.

The mission, codenamed “Spiderweb,” was one of the most significant blows that Ukraine has landed against Russia in more than three years of full-scale war. Ukraine’s security service, the SBU, said it had smuggled the drones into Russia, hiding them in wooden mobile homes latched onto trucks. The roofs were then remotely opened, and the drones deployed to launch their strikes on four Russian airfields across the vast country.

Vasul Malyuk, the head of the SBU, said the attack caused an estimated $7 billion in damage and had struck 34% of Russia’s strategic cruise missile carriers – a total of 41 aircraft. These targets were “completely legitimate,” Malyuk said, stressing that Russia had used the planes throughout the conflict to pummel Ukraine’s “peaceful cities.”

Smoke rises after a Ukrainian drone attack in Russia's northern Murmansk region, on Sunday.

The operation has provided a much-needed boost to morale in Ukraine, which has come under fierce Russian bombardment since peace talks began in mid-May, and is bracing for an expected summer offensive. Moscow launched a record 472 drones at Ukraine overnight into Sunday, only hours before the Ukrainian attack, according to Ukrainian officials.

At a summit in Lithuania on Monday, an upbeat Zelensky said the operation proved that Ukraine has “stronger tactical solutions” than Russia.

“This is a special moment – on the one hand, Russia has launched its summer offensive, but on the other hand, they are being forced to engage in diplomacy,” Zelensky said.

The talks in Istanbul are a test of how genuine that engagement is. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed holding “direct talks” with Ukraine in Turkey, but didn’t show up, despite Zelensky agreeing to meet. In the end, Moscow sent a low-level delegation to negotiate instead.

In the latest sign of his frustration that the war he pledged to end in a day is showing little sign of stopping, US President Donald Trump said last week that Putin had gone “absolutely crazy,” after Moscow launched the largest aerial attack of the war.

Trump has repeatedly told Russia and Ukraine there will be consequences if they don’t engage in his peace process, although he has so far resisted growing calls from lawmakers in his Republican Party to use sanctions to pressure Putin into winding down his war.

Speaking in Lithuania, Zelensky said that if Monday’s meeting “brings nothing, that clearly means strong new sanctions are urgently, urgently needed.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

Ukraine’s drone attack the latest in a series of daring David versus Goliath hits against Russian targets

Published

on



CNN
 — 

Ukraine’s large-scale drone attack on Russian air bases thousands of miles behind the front lines is the latest in a long line of daring missions by Ukraine’s forces against its giant neighbor.

The operation, more than a year and a half in the making, involved drones being smuggled into Russian territory and hidden in wooden mobile houses atop trucks, according to a source in the SBU, Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency.

The strikes caused an estimated $7 billion in damages and hit 34% of Russia’s strategic cruise missile carriers at its main air bases, the source said. The assault also showed that Ukraine still has the ability to pressure Russia even as Moscow ramps up its own attacks and offensive operations.

Here’s a look at some of the Ukrainian force’s most significant hits during the war:

Analysts have called Ukraine’s Sunday drone attack on the bomber bases the most significant by Kyiv since the beginning of the war.

More than 40 aircraft were known to have been hit in the operation, according to an SBU security source, including TU-95 and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers and one of Russia’s few remaining A-50 surveillance planes.

The Tu-22M3 is Russia’s long-range missile strike platform that can perform stand-off attacks, launching missiles from Russian airspace well behind the front lines to stay out of range of Ukrainian anti-aircraft fire.

Russia had 55 Tu-22M3 jets and 57 Tu-95s in its fleet at the beginning of the year, according to the “Military Balance 2025” from the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.

Smoke rises following what local authorities called a Ukrainian drone attack in Olenegorsk of the Murmansk region, Russia, in this still image from social media video released on June 1, 2025.

The Tu-95 joined the Soviet Union air force in the 1950s, and Russia has modified them to launch cruise missiles like the Tu-22.

Military aviation expert Peter Layton said the loss of the bombers, which could carry the heaviest and most powerful cruise missiles, mean Russia will need to rely more on drones for future attacks on Ukraine.

Outside the immediate air war, the attack on the air bases will be a major distraction for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Carl Schuster, a former director of operations at the US Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Center, now a military analyst in Hawaii.

“Putin will direct more resources to internal security after such a domestic security failure,” Schuster said.

“Ukraine was able to deploy dozens of containers with drones to within line of sight of major Russian strategic bases and launch massive air strikes. Can you imagine explaining that one to Putin?”

One of Ukraine’s first major wins was the sinking of the cruiser Moskva, the pride of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, in the early months of war.

The Moskva was one of the Russian Navy’s most important warships and its sinking represented a massive blow to Moscow’s military, which at the time was struggling against Ukrainian resistance 50 days into Putin’s invasion.

In April, 2022, Ukraine’s Operational Command South claimed the Moskva had begun to sink after it was hit by Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship missiles.

The Russian guided missile cruiser Moskva is seen April 7, in Sevastopol, Crimea in this satellite image.

Russia, meanwhile said a fire broke out on the guided-missile cruiser, causing munitions aboard to explode, inflicting serious damage to the vessel, and forcing the crew of the warship to be evacuated.

Analysts said its loss struck hard at the heart of the Russian navy as well as national pride, comparable to the US Navy losing a battleship during World War II or an aircraft carrier today.

What followed was a string of naval defeats for Moscow’s Black Sea Fleet.

In early 2024, six sea drones, powered by jet skis, felled a Russian guided missile ship, the Ivanovets. Night-time footage released by the Ukrainians showed Russians firing at the drones as they raced toward the Ivanovets, before at least two drones struck the side of the ship, disabling it and causing massive explosions.

npw ukraine bridge drone pov

Exclusive: See Ukraine use experimental drone to attack Russian bridge

02:37

Built following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, the 12-mile Kerch bridge was a vital supply line for Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine and a personal project for Putin, embodying his objective to bind the peninsula to Russia.

Russia built the bridge at a cost of around $3.7 billion

In July, 2023, Ukrainian security services claimed to have blown up the bridge using an experimental sea drone. The attack caused damage to the road lanes of the bridge, and, according to Russian officials, killed two civilians.

The head of the SBU, Vasyl Maliuk, told CNN at the time that the Kerch attack was a joint operation with the Ukrainian navy.

The bridge is a critical artery for supplying Crimea with both its daily needs and supplies for the military.

A number of high profile Russian military figures have been killed inside the country over the past year. Crucially, Ukraine has never claimed the killings but it is notable that many of those killed played prominent roles in Moscow’s .

Last month, Russian deputy mayor and prominent veteran of the war, Zaur Aleksandrovich Gurtsiev, was killed in an explosion in southern Russia. Russian authorities said they were investigating all options into the killing, “including the organization of a terrorist attack” involving Ukraine.

Gurtsiev had been involved in the Russian attacks on the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol, which destroyed about 90% of residential buildings, according to United Nations estimates.

Gurtsiev had “introduced his developments in the technology of targeting missiles, which allowed them to increase their accuracy and effectiveness many times over,” according to the “Time of Heroes” program.

In April, Russian authorities charged a “Ukrainian special services agent” with terrorism, after he was detained in connection with a car explosion that killed Russian General Yaroslav Moskalik, the deputy head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

And in February Armen Sarkisyan, the founder of a pro-Russian militia group in eastern Ukraine – described by authorities in Kyiv as a “criminal mastermind” – died following a bombing in central Moscow. The bombing took place in an upmarket residential complex in the capital city, Russian state media outlet TASS reported at the time.

Ukraine has never claimed the killings but it is notable that high-profile figures have been assassinated in Russian territory.



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

Asian painters were ‘othered’ in Paris a century ago. Now, the art world is taking note

Published

on


Singapore
CNN
 — 

Before the ravages of World War II, Paris was the center of the art world. The city’s salons, schools and cafes attracted painters from around the globe, with Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall, Piet Mondrian and Salvador Dalí among the many émigrés gravitating to France’s capital during the 1920s and ‘30s.

Artists arriving from Asia, however, faced a very different set of expectations than their European counterparts. Paris may have been a melting pot of foreign cultures (by the standards of the day, at least), but it was also the heart of a colonial empire with a fascination for all things exotic.

“It seems that oil is a medium that is too heavy for their hands,” French art critic Henri Lormian wrote dismissively of the Vietnamese painters on show at a modern art exhibition in Paris in 1933. Instead, they were “habituated to light strokes of the brush,” he argued, adding: “It is the memories of the arts of the Far East which seduce, much more than a laboriously acquired Western technique.”

In other words, their art was not “Asian” enough, nor their attempts to embrace European art good enough, for his liking.

Amid marginalization and disinterest, a generation of little-known artists from Japan, China, French Indochina and elsewhere in Asia nonetheless made their mark on Paris in the interwar period. Many were compelled to balance the influence of their cosmopolitan surroundings with the exoticized tastes of potential customers.

Now, a century later, some of the era’s pioneers — aided by Asian collectors’ growing purchasing power — are belatedly earning the kind of recognition bestowed on their Western contemporaries.

Take Le Pho, a Vietnamese artist whom the critic Lormian had once disparaged over a nude painting he deemed “too occidental” — too Western. His paintings now fetch sums exceeding the million-dollar threshold, making him one of Southeast Asia’s most bankable names. His “La famille dans le jardin,” a leisurely scene evoking French Impressionism but delicately painted on silk, sold for 18.6 million Hong Kong dollars ($2.3 million) in 2023, an auction record for his work.

Then there’s Sanyu, a painter whose signature nudes — their flat perspective and flowing calligraphic lines informed as much by his Chinese art education as French modernism — now attract astronomical sums. He achieved little commercial success after moving to Paris from his native Sichuan in 1921 and died in poverty four decades later. Today, however, he is hailed as the “Chinese Matisse,” with the 2020 sale of a rare group portrait, “Quatre Nus,” for 258 million Hong Kong dollars ($33 million) confirming his status as one of contemporary art’s most coveted names.

The experience of Asian artists in Europe is also attracting renewed academic interest thanks, in part, to a new exhibition at Singapore’s National Gallery. Almost 10 years in the making, “City of Others: Asian Artists in Paris, 1920s-1940s” brings together more than 200 works from the period, many on loan from French institutions and private Asian collections.

Le Pho and Sanyu feature prominently, as do Japanese artist Tsuguharu Foujita and two of Singapore’s best-known painters, Liu Kang and Georgette Chen. The show spotlights how they grappled with their identities through searching self-portraits, landscapes depicting their adopted homeland and street scenes showing Paris through outsiders’ eyes. References to major Western art movements like Cubism and Surrealism are meanwhile limited, eschewing the conventional lens through which the era is usually viewed.

Liu Kang's 1931 painting

“We thought, ‘Well, if our story is about Asian artists in Paris, we should map their concerns, not try to map the concerns of Eurocentric art history onto them,’” the exhibition’s lead curator Phoebe Scott told CNN at the preview, adding: “Otherwise, we’re just reiterating the significance of Paris without giving something new from our region.”

The artists’ dual identities are often expressed through the combination of Eastern and Western techniques. Foujita’s “Self-Portrait with Cat,” which depicts the artist surrounded by paint brushes and supplies in his studio, nods both to European and Japanese traditions, its fine lines informed by “sumi-e” ink paintings. Elsewhere, works present various Asian sensibilities, from compositions evoking ancestral portraits to the use of unusually thin canvases reminiscent of paper or silk.

Other paintings demonstrate the artists overlooked mastery of styles like Impressionism. A selection of Chen’s rural landscapes, produced on a trip to Provence, ooze with the warmth of Paul Cézanne; Japanese painter Itakura Kanae’s striking portrait of his wife, “Woman in Red Dress,” reflects the classical tendencies of “rappel à l’ordre” (or “Return to Order”), a French movement that responded to the upheavals of World War I by rejecting the avant-garde.

Paris-based Japanese artist Itakura Kanae's portrait of his wife on show at National Gallery Singapore.

As well as absorbing influences, Asian artists in turn shaped European art, said Scott. The Paris scene had a “hybridizing aesthetic,” she added, citing the influence of African art on Picasso’s oeuvre as an example. And the presence of Asian painters added to the cultural mix, tapping into the longstanding interest in orientalist aesthetics evident in the “Japonisme” of the late 19th century, when a fervor for Japanese art, furniture and artifacts swept Europe.

“It’s difficult to say that any individual modern Asian artist who came (to Paris) influenced French art,” Scott said. “But was there an Asian impact, in general, on French art? Absolutely.”

For France’s more established Asian artists, life often revolved around the multicultural Montparnasse district, home of the so-called School of Paris.

They shopped for supplies in the neighborhood’s art stores and networked in its bohemian cafes. It was here that Sanyu refined his observational skills by attending open life drawing sessions at the Académie de la Grande Chaumière (which, to this day, welcomes the public to its walk-in life drawing classes for a modest fee).

Foujita Tsuguharu's

Foujita, meanwhile, was a prominent figure in the Montparnasse scene and a friend of the celebrated Italian painter Amedeo Modigliani, among others. The community there comprised “people of over 50 nationalities, including those from countries so obscure their names are barely known,” Foujita wrote in 1936. “It is no wonder this environment fosters unconventional ideas and creativity.”

There was a commercial imperative, too: Showing at the district’s commercial galleries and salons could help artists sell work or meet potential buyers. A local market for their art existed, and some were “very financially successful” at the time, Scott said, adding: “But Paris was a crowded market for attention. Even if you got a commercial show, it didn’t necessarily mean that you could make money.”

Forging a social circle like Foujita’s was a “key factor” determining their success, said Scott. “Some (Asian) artists had a very good network of connections in Paris that could support them — people they knew, or art critics who would champion their work.”

Singaporean artist Liu Kang (front right) pictured with the Chinese translator and critic Fu Lei (back right) and other friends in Paris in 1930.

Yet, solo exhibitions and patronage were out of reach for the vast majority of migrant artists. In recognition of this, a section of the Singapore exhibition is dedicated to the artisans who worked in France’s decorative arts workshops, playing an important — but largely anonymous — role in the Art Deco movement. An estimated one-quarter of Indochinese workers living in Paris were lacquerers, and a selection of their jewelry and objects d’art are displayed as testament to this uncredited role.

The exhibition ends — like some of the international artists’ time in France — with World War II. Those who returned home (or were drafted by their countries) often faced difficulties returning. Among them was Foujita, whose place in art history is complicated by his role in Japan’s war effort: He dedicated his wartime practice to glorifying the efforts and bravery of the Imperial Army, severely hampering his reputation upon his return to France in 1950.

The reputation of Paris changed, too. Although promising Asian creatives continued to arrive in the post-war period (among them were Wu Guanzhong and the abstract painter Zao Wou-ki, now two of the art market’s biggest-selling names), the city was no longer the epicenter of the art world. New York was increasingly the destination of choice for budding young migrants, but the industry was also, the exhibition argues, becoming more fragmented, a precursor to today.

“New sites and hubs gained in significance with the energy of decolonization, asserting their independence and cultural identity,” the exhibition notes read. “The post-war period marked the beginnings of a less hierarchical global art world.”

“City of Others: Asian Artists in Paris, 1920s-1940s” is showing at National Gallery Singapore until Aug. 17, 2025.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending