Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump is pushing Zelenskyy to the negotiating table in ways Biden never did

Published

on

Trump is pushing Zelenskyy to the negotiating table in ways Biden never did

Whether out of an overwhelming sense of humanity or his ongoing desire to secure a Nobel Peace PrizePresident Donald Trump is working hard to resolve the war in Ukraine with a diplomatic settlement as soon as possible. And it appears he’s willing to levy an extraordinary amount of pressure to get there. The Trump administration’s change in approach has gotten European leaders nervous at best and downright distraught at worst. On Thursday, nearly a week after Trump shouted over Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in their televised Oval Office meetingEuropean leaders held an emergency summit to cope with the fallout.

Trump’s objective is less about ending it in a “just peace” as Kyiv and Washington’s European allies frequently proclaim and more about ending it, period.

“It’s time to stop this madness,” Trump told lawmakers Tuesday in his first speech to Congress since getting his election. “It’s time to halt the killing. It’s time to end the senseless war.” Who can argue with the sentiment? The conflict in Ukraine, which entered its fourth year last month, killed tens of thousands of people and resulted in more than $500 billion worthof damage. The pace of the fighting isn’t getting any less intense over time. The Ukrainian army is holding its own but remains under severe pressure from a larger adversary whose leader, Vladimir Putin, has elevated the warabove all other priorities.

Trump, however, is receiving strong pushback over the tactics he’s using to bring the war to a close. Unlike his predecessor, Joe Biden, Trump’s objective is less about ending it in a “just peace” as Kyiv and Washington’s European allies frequently proclaim and more about ending it, period. And unlike Biden, Trump is not afraid to use the stick to get the combatants to cooperate. Since Washington ultimately has more leverage over Kyiv than Moscow — the U.S. has provided Ukraine $120 billionin assistance, including $67 billion in military aid, since the war began — Trump has chosen to use the tools he has to bring Zelenskyy into compliance with a diplomatic process he clearly wants to succeed. The Trump administration has paused not only military supportto Ukraine but also intelligence cooperationalthough national security adviser Mike Waltz and CIA Director John Ratcliffe suggested the next morningthat the pause could be lifted if the Ukrainians formally enter peace talks.

Some foreign policy analysts and Democratic lawmakersare aghast. Others have compared Trump’s about-face on the war to the U.S. switching sides during World War II. Alexander Vindman, a former National Security Council aide, even claimedthat Trump was now pursuing a Russia First policy.

But amid all the hyperbole, it’s important to consider several key points.

First and foremost, the Trump administration is absolutely correct to strive for a diplomatic settlement to this war. Although the Russians have made their fair share of mistakes during the course of three years of combat, the facts on the ground and the trends on the battlefield remain at Kyiv’s disadvantage. The Ukrainians are still licking their wounds from a 2023 counteroffensive in the east, which stalled outin short order and produced little in the way of tangible territorial gains. Outside of an incursion into Russia’s Kursk province last summer — Russia has reportedly retaken about half of the landthe Ukrainians originally captured — the Ukrainian army has been on the defensive for well over a year.

All of this is exacerbating Ukraine’s systemic manpower issues. Vice President JD Vance was overly obnoxious about it during his argument with Zelenskyy last week, but he wasn’t wrong: The Ukrainians are hurting for personnel and have resorted to extraordinary measures, like plucking draft-age men off the streets, to fill in the ranks. Ukrainian troops at the front haven’t had a decent rest since the first bombs were dropped in February 2022, a consequence of Ukrainian politicians remaining highly resistant to a nationwide mobilization, which would involve drafting younger men into the army.

The Russians have their problems, too. According to one assessment, more than 780,000 Russianshave been killed or injured in the war to date. The difference, however, is that Russia is still recruiting enough replacementsevery month to account for the casualties. Kyiv, therefore, must engage in some serious introspection and ask itself whether it serves Ukraine’s interests to let the war continue, or whether it’s better to cut a deal now before the hole becomes too deep to climb out of. In the end, this is a decision only Zelenskyy, not Trump, can make.

Second, the collective freak-out over Trump’s latest Ukraine moves glosses over a key point: Continuing the Biden administration’s policy on the war would have effectively meant signing the U.S. up to a failed approach. Yes, Biden and his advisers did an admirable job assembling a multinational coalition on Ukraine’s behalf in short order. Without the tens of billions of dollars in U.S. military assistance, from air defense to medium-range ballistic missiles, Ukraine’s position would be worse than it is today.

The weapons deliveries and international support, however, were supposed to be a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The end Biden should have striven for was a diplomatic settlement to end the war on terms acceptable to the combatants. At the very least, Biden could have started the process. Instead, he outsourced U.S. policy on the war to Zelenskyy, who remained steadfast in his belief that Ukraine could win the conflict militarily. Talk from U.S. officials about supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” combined with Biden’s opposition to dragging Kyiv into a peace discussion it didn’t want to have, ultimately proved counterproductive because it allowed Zelenskyy to defer talks indefinitely. Why think about concessions to your enemy when you have a superpower pledging total, unconditional support?

Finally, it’s vital to recognize that U.S. and Ukrainian interests aren’t identical. Even Biden recognized this; while he was committed to defeating Russia’s invasion just as Zelenskyy was, he was also rightly concerned about escalation dynamics and sought to balance support for Ukraine’s war effort with conflict-avoidance between NATO and Russia. Ultimately, Ukraine is in a fight for its survival and wants to win the war — or at least negotiate a peace on its terms. The U.S., though, has bigger fish to fry than Ukraine, and one of them is to ensure that Washington and Moscow, the world’s two largest nuclear weapons powers, don’t stupidly find themselves in a scenario where direct conflict is plausible. Biden recognized this, to the frustration of the Ukrainians; Trump, however, wears it like a badge of honor.

Look at how Trump has conducted himself over the last week. Yelling at another head of state in the Oval Office, particularly when it’s in front of TV cameras and the man on the receiving end is in the middle of an existential conflict, is bad optics. But if the U.S. objective is to settle the war immediately, then using the power at your disposal to move in that direction is a logical extension of the policy. And love them or hate them, the tactics may be effective: Zelenskyy is more amenable to a negotiation today than he was even a few days earlier, and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff said the U.S. was planning a sit-down with Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia next week.

Whether all of this results in a peace deal is a separate question.

Daniel R. DePetris

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

The Dictatorship

Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm

Published

on

Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm
  • New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’

    10:42

  • ‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister

    08:37

  • Now Playing

  • UP NEXT

    ‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears

    05:47

  • The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’

    04:59

  • Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war

    03:53

  • Ukraine didn’t agree to ceasefire, they bent the knee to extortion, says House member

    07:26

  • Dumbest war the U.S. has ever fought: House member slams Trump’s tariffs

    03:09

  • ‘Mock him’: Why Democrats are failing when it comes to protesting Trump

    09:39

  • Musk calls Sen. Mark Kelly a ‘traitor’ over his social media posts in support of Ukraine

    04:00

  • Richard Engel: Today, Ukrainians ‘quite satisfied’ with temporary ceasefire

    04:16

  • ‘Serious and dangerous’ for the economy: Trump’s messaging scares some of his own advisers

    08:57

  • Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports take effect, Europe retaliates

    09:11

  • Joe Scarborough’s powerful 9/11 tribute song ‘Reason to Believe’ (2011)

    03:45

  • Joe’s decade-long warnings on EU immigration and the rise of Europe’s far-right

    03:28

  • What really happens before Morning Joe goes live? ‘Blue Dawn’ tells all (2019 Promo)

    04:15

  • The Morning Joe crew gets moving to ‘Dance to the Music’ (2015 Promo)

    03:00

  • We have underestimated Putin as an ideological leader: Amb. McFaul

    08:58

  • Molly Jong-Fast: Trump’s empty promises are catching up to him

    03:09

  • Joe: Elon Musk said we have to eliminate Social Security and Medicare

    10:56

  • New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’

    10:42

  • ‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister

    08:37

  • Now Playing

    Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm

    03:49

  • UP NEXT

    ‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears

    05:47

  • The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’

    04:59

  • Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war

    03:53

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Published

on

Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly said of President Donald Trump“What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”

Trudeau’s accusation was extraordinary and unprecedented. Here was the leader of Canada, one of America’s closest and longest-standing allies, accusing the U.S. president of engaging in economic warfare. More and more, however, it seems Trudeau wasn’t making this argument up. The evidence is piling up that Trump has declared economic war on Canada for the express purpose of making our Northern neighbor the 51st state.

Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.

Trump first referred to Canada as the 51st state in a December 2024 meeting with Trudeau. At the time, the Canadian Prime Minister assumed Trump was joking. But then, in January, he said it again publicly, this time threatening the use of “economic force” to pursue annexation. In addition, he began referring to Trudeau as “Governor” rather than “Prime Minister.”

By this point, one could easily chalk this up to Trumpian bluster. He couldn’t possibly be serious about annexing Canada? Could he?

But, two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, a private call between him and Trudeau, which was supposed to be about tariffs, took an odd turn. According to The New York Times, Trump told “Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary.” He also mentioned revisiting long-standing treaties between the U.S. and Canada regarding the sharing of lakes and rivers.

Even the Canadians were taken aback by Trump’s statement — and it slowly began to dawn on them that perhaps the president was serious (or as serious as one can be about an insane notion like the U.S. annexing Canada).

Publicly, Trump wouldn’t let the matter die. In an interview broadcast before the Super Bowlon February 9, Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier his plans to annex Canada were a “real thing.” And to magnify Canada’s economic vulnerability, Trump told reporters that Canada was “not viable as a country” without U.S. trade.

The problem for Canada is that Trump isn’t wrong on this front. Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.

In the current context of the emerging trade war between the U.S. and Canada, it seems more than reasonable to believe that this is precisely Trump’s intention.

Consider for a moment how this trade war has unfolded. When Trump first declared his intention to slap tariffs on Canada, he used the smuggling of fentanyl across the Canadian border as a justification (never mind that 19 kilograms of fentanyl came across the Canadian border last year, compared to 9,600 kilograms that crossed the U.S.-Mexico border). After Trudeau reminded Trump of Canada’s plan for slowing the smuggling of fentanyl, which was introduced late last year, he backed down.

But then last week, Trump returned to the trade spat with Canada, but this time blamed Canada because of its protectionist trade policies on dairy, lumber and banking. After Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, announced a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, Minnesota and New York, in response, Trump upped the ante announcing a new 25% tariff on Canada’s exports of steel and aluminum (which is in addition to already planned tariffs on steel and aluminum).

How can Canadians end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?

In announcing the new tariffs, Trump didn’t mention fentanyl as a justification, but instead wrote on TruthSocial that “the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” In a follow-up post, he wondered why the U.S. “allow(s) another Country to supply us with electricity, even for a small area?”

Trump’s zigzagging has left markets and the business community flummoxed. For Canadians, the confusion is even worse. How can they end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?

But perhaps the obvious answer is staring us in the face, and we’re all too dumbfounded to acknowledge it. Trump has been remarkably consistent in stating that Canada should become America’s 51st state — he has said this repeatedly for months now. Moreover, he has openly espoused using U.S. economic power to achieve that goal — and is doing precisely that.

Just so we’re clear, this is not a Trump-only phenomenon. Yesterday, when asked if the U.S. still considers Canada a “close ally,” White House press secretary Katherine Leavitt said that Canada would “benefit greatly” from joining the United States and pointed to its high cost of living as a reason for surrendering sovereignty.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick sounded a similar theme, noting that “Canada is gonna have to work with us to really integrate their economy, and as the president said, they should consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state.”

In recent days, the Trump administration has further imposed its will on Canada by requiring Canadians who visit the country for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government.

The first 51 days of Trump’s presidency have been, for lack of a better word, an odyssey. Crazy has been dropped on top of more crazy. But  in the year 2025, an American president, with no pushback from his Cabinet or Congress, has declared economic war on our closest neighbor to annex its land (which is larger than America’s) and wants to make its 40 million citizens part of the United States. This is the craziest notion of all.

Michael A. Cohen

Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

Published

on

The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

On Tuesday, House Republicans voted to hand a blank check over to a White House that is already stealing from our families and communities to fund the largest possible tax cut for billionaires and the biggest corporations.

The continuing resolution passed by the House gives Elon Musk and President Donald Trump even more flexibility to steal from the middle class, from seniors, from veterans, from working people, from small businesses and from farmers, all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.

The administration’s slash-and-burn approach has already left a trail of destruction in our communities. From our national parks to Social Security officesVA medical centers to food banks, Americans are seeing the direct results of the administration’s illegitimate, ill-informed and illegal campaign to tear apart our institutions.

This CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government.

Article I of the Constitution clearly spells out Congress’s authority to determine spending. It reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” To carry out this authority, the House and Senate Appropriations committees engage in tough negotiations that result in bipartisan legislation to fund the government and all of the agencies, programs and services that are provided to the American people.

As recently as early March, we were on the cusp of such an agreement. The “four corners” of the Appropriations committees — Tom Cole and me in the House and Susan Collins and Patty Murray in the Senate — were inches away from securing a deal on the funding topline, which would have allowed us to begin the roughly monthlong process of writing full-year bills.

This process is critically important: It ensures that final funding bills are the results of broad compromise among the people’s elected representatives. Nobody ever gets everything they want, but instead, the interests of Americans from coast to coast are considered and accounted for.

But House Speaker Mike Johnson, at the behest of Musk and President Trump, pulled the rug out from under us and set the House on a track to hand Congress’ authorities over government funding to Musk and Trump. Several of my House colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who by their own admission never vote in favor of government funding bills, enthusiastically voted for this CR, completely ending the appropriations process.

As Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districts, the American people are wise to their abandonment of duty.

Why? Because this CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government and destroy the services that help Americans get by, and because they believe the president will continue to unilaterally freeze and deny funding for programs and services that do not serve his interests.

House Republicans would rather let an unchecked billionaire and President Trump seize taxpayer funds intended for families and businesses.

But as Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districtsthe American people are wise to their abandonment of duty and of responsibility. Their constituents are so furious that the party’s political consultants are telling lawmakers to stop holding town halls altogether and just hide.

President Trump was elected because the American people wanted help with the cost of living. But the cost of living is nowhere to be found among the president’s concerns since he took office. Rather, he has set off on an agenda of vengeance and destruction, threatening the stability of our economy and the legitimacy of our government. He declared a trade war on our neighbors and closest alliesraising costs on American households, businesses and farmers and weakening our international relationships.

And the Trump administration continues to steal from the American people to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Elon Musk, an unelected, unaccountable billionaire with immense conflicts of interest, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency have been allowed to illegally freeze payments, tear down our institutions, fire career civil servants who are loyal to the Constitution rather than to President Trump and rip apart hard-fought labor agreements that protect working-class Americans. They even have Social Security in their sights.

My phone has been ringing off the hook with constituents telling me how Musk’s and President Trump’s cuts have affected them, and I know the same is happening in my Republican colleagues’ offices.

Kris, a student at Common Ground High School in my district and an intern at Haven’s Harvest, a volunteer organization that reduces food waste, contacted me after 71 student workers across New Haven were laid off because of the funding freeze. Kris’ internship was part of the Green Jobs Corps, funded by a grant since canceled by the Environmental Protection Agency.

I’ve also heard from CitySeed, which connects dozens of farmers across Connecticut with residents who need access to fresh, local food, through farmers markets, culinary programs and entrepreneurship opportunities. The organization has had funding that helps cover its administrative costs frozen, as well.

And Monica, a senior citizen in my district with a low income who relies on Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP benefits, told me she is not just worried about paying her bills or filling the freezer — she is worried that she will not be able to survive if the Trump administration’s cuts go through.

Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder.

I was at Bradley Airport in Connecticut this week when two Transportation Security Administration officers found out they had been let go. One of them told me they began working for the TSA immediately after its creation in the wake of Sept. 11. I must have missed when the American people asked for fewer TSA agents and longer wait times at checkpoints.

This is wrong, cruel and completely unnecessary. The funding freeze must end, and these draconian cuts must be stopped. But instead of standing up for their constituents and for Congress’s constitutional powers, the CR that passed the House lets Musk and President Trump freeze, cancel and repurpose taxpayer dollars as they see fit.

If this CR becomes law, Musk and President Trump will be able to fire thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration. That will result in office closures, longer wait times and unacceptable backlogs for Americans who are trying to access their earned benefits.

Under this bill, Army Corps of Engineers construction projects to manage our waterways and mitigate flood risks will be cut by $1.4 billion, or 44%. And President Trump, not Congress, would determine all project funding levels and who gets the funding.

Instead of helping our communities address sky-high housing costs, the CR cuts rent subsidies by more than $700 million, leaving landlords to foot the bill or evict more than 32,000 households. And there is not enough funding for disaster relief, abandoning American families who have had their lives turned upside down by extreme weather.

I voted against this CR, and several of my Republican colleagues voted in favor of a CR for the first time, for the same reason: We do not expect the president to actually follow the law.

Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder. This Congress must decide: Do we have the authority to control spending, as is laid out in Article I of the Constitution?

So long as House Republicans are unwilling to defend the powers of the offices they were elected to hold, all of our constituents will continue to pay the price.

Regrettably, the House has already offered to forfeit its authority to the White House. I implore our colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the American people and our Constitution, reject this CR and put a freeze on this blank check.

Rep. Rose

Rep. Rosa DeLauro serves as ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. She represents Connecticut’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending