Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts

JUST IN

Progress for peace or stalling tactic? On Tuesday, after a ninety-minute phone call with US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to refrain from attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure for thirty days. However, Putin did not commit to a full, unconditional thirty-day cease-fire, which Washington and Kyiv agreed to last week. He also repeated his earlier demand that Ukraine must stop receiving foreign military aid. What does the phone call mean for the war? And what are the next steps in US talks with Russia and Ukraine? Our experts make their calls below.

TODAY’S EXPERT REACTION BROUGHT TO YOU BY

• John E. Herbst (@JohnEdHerbst): Senior director of the Eurasia Center and former US ambassador to Ukraine
• Olga Khakova (@OlgaKhakova): Deputy director for European energy security at the Global Energy Center
• Alexander “Sandy” Vershbow (@ARVershbow): Distinguished fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and the Eurasia Center, and a former US ambassador to NATO and Russia
• Justina Budginaite-Froehly (@JustBudginaite): Nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center’s Transatlantic Security Initiative and the Europe Center, as well as a former official in the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense

What Putin agreed to

• “It is a good day for President Trump,” John tells us, “because this is the first time that Moscow has offered a concrete concession in response to his peace initiative.” It may be “a small step forward toward ending the Kremlin’s aggression in Ukraine.” At the same time, John notes that the deal “may already be moot,” as within an hour of the announcement a Russian bomb reportedly took out the power in the Ukrainian city of Slovyansk.
• If the thirty-day limited cease-fire nonetheless holds, it “could provide a much needed reprieve for the battered energy sector in Ukraine,” Olga explains, as Russia has already destroyed “more than half of Ukraine’s generation capacity and half of its natural gas production capabilities.” But it’s also unclear what this deal might mean for the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and it cannot replace the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in 2023.
• Putin likely made the deal with Russian energy infrastructure front of mind. “This is the one area where a cease-fire would benefit Russia more than Ukraine, given Kyiv’s expanding capacity for long-range drone attacks on Russian energy targets,” says Sandy.

Sign up to receive rapid insight in your inbox from Atlantic Council experts on global events as they unfold.

Russia negotiations 101

• “Putin is in no hurry to reach a longer-term cease-fire, much less a permanent peace agreement,” says Sandy. The Russian president has repeatedly underscored that any agreement must address the “root causes” of the conflict—by which he means NATO—and the readout from the meeting is packed with “conditions, caveats, and poison pills for cease-fire negotiations that Ukraine is certain to reject,” he adds.
• “Any curtailment in Russia’s brutal aggression is a step in the right direction—but this development takes place against Russia’s continued missile attacks on Ukrainian civilians and on hospitals,” Olga adds.
• Meanwhile, Justina notes, front-line countries are not convinced that Putin is stopping anytime soon: The defense ministers of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia today announced their plan to pull out of the Ottawa Convention preventing the use of anti-personnel landmines. “With this decision, they are signaling their readiness to defend their territories from potential Russian aggression by all means,” she says.

A real cease-fire?

• Next, Putin and Trump agreed to seek a cease-fire in the Black Sea. “This is another area where a cease-fire—still to be worked out—is not a disadvantage to the Kremlin,” John points out. “Ukraine’s ingenious naval drone operations drove Russia’s vaunted Black Sea fleet out of Crimea over a year ago to refuge in the eastern Black Sea.”
• Even as talks proceed, Washington will need to watch for violations of the existing agreement. If Russia does attack Ukrainian energy infrastructure, then “the United States must showcase strength by forcing Russia to the table through additional export controls and sanctions on Russia’s oil and gas and on its financial system,” Olga says.
• Throughout this process, Russia’s foot-dragging and incremental approach will pose a challenge for US negotiators. “The danger lies in the United States becoming increasingly entangled in Putin’s strategy, ultimately finding it difficult to adhere to its original plan for inclusive peace negotiations,” Justina says.
• “Putin evidently doesn’t want to say ‘no’ to Donald Trump, but his demands are the Russian leader’s way of rejecting the proposal without saying so,” Sandy tells us. “Hopefully, Trump will not accept ‘no’ for an answer and will continue to insist that Russia agree to a full cease-fire as originally proposed—on the Black Sea, on land, and in the air.”

The post The real meaning of Putin’s 30-day ‘energy cease-fire’ in Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has accepted a US proposal for a partial ceasefire in the war against Ukraine following a lengthy phone call with US President Donald Trump. If Ukraine now agrees to the terms of the partial ceasefire, both countries will pause attacks on energy infrastructure for a thirty-day period. During the high stakes call, Putin also committed to begin negotiations over a possible maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea.

The White House readout following the Trump-Putin call was fairly upbeat, but in truth the outcomes fell far short of expectations. One week earlier, Ukraine had unconditionally backed a United States initiative for a complete thirty-day ceasefire in a move that was widely hailed as a breakthrough toward a potential peace deal. So far, Russia has refused to reciprocate. Instead, Putin has sought to insert a series of conditions that indicate an unwillingness to compromise on the key issues driving the Russia invasion of Ukraine.

Today’s telephone conversation appears to have been no different. While Putin offered some minor concessions, he also made clear that he has not abandoned his maximalist goal of subjugating Ukraine. Crucially, the Kremlin statement following the call stressed that Russia’s key condition for any progress toward peace is “the complete cessation of foreign military aid and sharing intelligence with Kyiv.” In other words, Putin continues to insist that peace will only be possible once Ukraine has been disarmed and left at his mercy. It does not require much imagination to anticipate the kind of peace Putin has in mind.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin insistence on an end to all Western military support for Ukraine is not new. Since the very first days of the invasion, he has been warning the West not to arm Ukraine. He has also consistently identified the complete demilitarization of Ukraine as one of his primary war aims.

During failed peace talks in spring 2022, Russian negotiators demanded an approximately 95 percent reduction in the size of Ukraine’s army, which was to become a skeleton force of just fifty thousand troops. For the past three years, the Kremlin has repeated these calls for a drastic reduction in the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including severe restrictions on the categories of weapons Ukraine can possess.

Russian officials have also frequently pressed Ukraine’s Western allies to end all military assistance, while boasting to domestic audiences that this would soon force Kyiv to capitulate. Speaking in October 2023 at the annual Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Putin predicted that Ukraine would have “a week left to live” if the country’s Western partners ended weapons deliveries. “Imagine if supplies stopped tomorrow. They would have a week left to live until ammunition was exhausted,” he stated.

The Kremlin has been similarly insistent on the need to isolate Ukraine internationally and deprive the country of potential allies. In addition to a ban on all Western arms supplies, Moscow demands that Ukraine must voluntarily abandon its NATO ambitions and accept enforced neutrality. Putin claims this is necessary as NATO expansion poses a military threat to Russia. However, he himself said Russia had “no problem” when neighboring Finland announced plans to join the alliance in 2022.

Most recently, Russia has firmly rejected the idea of deploying peacekeepers from NATO member countries to Ukraine in order to monitor any future ceasefire agreement. This rejection is particularly revealing, given the fact that the same NATO troops are already present in six countries bordering Russia without sparking World War III. It would certainly seem that Putin’s real problem is with Ukraine rather than NATO.

Putin told Trump today that he wants a lasting peace, but his negotiating position suggests otherwise. The Kremlin dictator’s preferred peace terms envision a disarmed and defenseless Ukraine with virtually no army of its own and no chance of receiving any meaningful military aid from the international community. If he achieves this goal, it is surely only a matter of time before Putin renews his invasion and completes the conquest of Ukraine.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The post Putin backs Trump’s partial ceasefire but insists Ukraine must be disarmed appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The results of the phone negotiations between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin suggest the Kremlin’s intent to demonstrate Washington’s inability to impose its agenda or achieve its desired outcomes in discussions with Russia. The Kremlin maintains a stance in which Trump appears as a petitioner.

Following the talks, Moscow launched another wave of airstrikes using drones and ballistic missiles, prompting air raid warnings across most of Ukraine. This act is evidently a sign of disrespect toward President Trump from the Russian side.

The Kremlin’s current objective is to highlight Trump’s inability to exert influence over Russia, hinder his efforts to advance U.S. interests, and expose his failure to fulfill campaign promises, particularly regarding the cessation of the war.

There is strong belief that Moscow is stalling for time and will ultimately sabotage the proposed 30-day ceasefire agreement. This suspicion is further supported by Russia’s ongoing psychological operations (psyOps) accusing Ukraine of invading the Belgorod region and continuing its attempts to breach Ukraine’s Sumy region. Such actions directly contradict any genuine willingness for a peace deal.

By dragging out the negotiation process, Russia aims to undermine international assistance to Ukraine’s defense forces, specifically the supply of weapons. Simultaneously, Russia leverages these talks to maintain its appearance of involvement in global geopolitical processes, particularly regarding Middle Eastern security issues.

It appears that Donald Trump overestimated his ability to pressure Putin into accepting peace.

In a year marked by rising authoritarianism, financial secrecy and threats to press freedom, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists exposed corruption at the highest levels, revealing the hidden forces that shape our world.

Released today, ICIJ’s 2024 annual report, Pipeline of Secrets: Corruption’s Global Reach, highlights groundbreaking investigations that traced the flow of money and power across borders. Caspian Cabals uncovered corporate influence in Kazakhstan’s oil industry. Swazi Secrets exposed financial networks enabling corruption in Eswatini. And our Inside the IRS series examined systemic weaknesses that enable the ultra-wealthy to avoid taxes.

“This report reflects the determination of our journalists and partners to uncover the truth, no matter the obstacles,” said ICIJ Executive Director Gerard Ryle.

Beyond these new investigations, the report showcases how ICIJ’s journalism fuels lasting change. Governments continue to recoup hundreds of millions in tax revenue nine years after the Panama Papers, while its 2018 reporting on medical device safety continues to drive regulatory reforms worldwide. 

ICIJ also strengthened its network, technology and training programs in 2024, building capacity for future investigations. 

“Corruption doesn’t stand still. It evolves and finds new ways to evade scrutiny, and we are evolving, too,” Ryle said. “We’re sharpening our investigative methods, deepening our collaborations and expanding our ability to follow complex financial trails across borders so that those who abuse power cannot hide in the shadows.”

Read the full report here:

The overthrow of Syria’s former President Bashar al-Assad, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)-backed coalition and interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa, marked a major regional shift and a significant blow to Iran.  

Following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s subsequent military responses in Gaza and Lebanon, Iran’s regional influence suffered further setbacks. While the Iran-led axis of resistance still holds sway in parts of the region, losing Syria as a strategic ally has forced Tehran to reconsider its regional strategy.  

Syria had long been a critical part of Iran’s network, providing a vital link to Lebanon and serving as a support base for Hezbollah. Since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, Iran invested between $30 and $50 billion to sustain Assad’s regime. Now, with Assad’s fall and Iran’s reduced influence, Iran faces logistical challenges and mounting opposition from Israel, making a return to its former position in Syria increasingly difficult. 

Iran’s capacity to reassert its influence in Syria remains uncertain. The new Syrian government has shown reluctance to engage with Iran, with regional and international stakeholders pressuring Damascus to limit Iranian involvement.   

Domestically, Iranian perspectives on Syria vary. Hardliners view the new Syrian leadership as a Turkish-backed terrorist threat, while others see disengagement from Syria as a necessary step to reduce financial burdens. Meanwhile, Iran continues to advocate for Syria’s sovereignty and condemns Israeli actions in the region.  

In the aftermath of Assad’s downfall, sectarian violence has surged, particularly targeting Alawite and Shiite communities. Pro-Assad fighters have clashed with interim government forces, resulting in over 1,000 deaths, primarily among Alawites. Despite accusations of Iranian involvement, there is no substantial evidence to support claims of Tehran’s participation in the violence.  

As Iran’s influence diminishes, Turkey has emerged as a dominant player in Syria, supporting Islamist factions and expanding its regional presence. Recent agreements between Damascus and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) further complicate the regional landscape. While Turkey gains traction, Iran must decide whether to engage diplomatically with Syria’s new leadership or attempt to destabilize the region to regain leverage.  

Iran’s long-term interests in Syria may involve seeking entry points for economic engagement or leveraging instability to rebuild influence. However, with growing international scrutiny and limited options, Tehran’s capacity to regain a significant foothold in Syria remains in question.  In this evolving landscape, the trajectory of Iran-Syria relations will likely depend on

The Vatican press office is changing the frequency of the pope’s health updates

Leaders from Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada met virtually to discuss a proposed ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia

The two have been stuck in space for nine months