ReportWire

Tag: Sanction

  • Iranians brace for U.S. strike while some dare to hope for regime change

    TEHRAN — Iranians — battered by a government crackdown whose dead have yet to be fully tallied, still reeling from the 12-day conflict with Israel last year and fed up with endemic economic malaise born of sanctions and corruption — now face the prospect of another war with emotions ranging from anger to anticipation, but above all, exhaustion.

    “Again and again, this routine of anxiety and worries,” said Ali, a barber in Tehran who like most of those interviewed did not give his last name for fear of harassment.

    “All this feels like a pre-written scenario that has taken this long to unfold,” Ali said. “It’s not a pleasant feeling at all.”

    A ticking clock hangs over Washington and Tehran’s latest diplomatic roundelay.

    As the two sides continue Oman-brokered negotiations in Geneva, the U.S has amassed the largest military force in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

    On Friday, President Trump said he was considering a limited military strike to force the Islamic Republic into a deal about its nuclear program and other issues.

    “I guess I can say I am considering that,” he said to reporters at the White House.

    Naval units from Iran and Russia carry out a simulation of a rescue from a hijacked vessel during the joint naval drills held Thursday at the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas along the Strait of Hormuz.

    (Iranian army)

    Such comments are contributing to the sense of unease felt throughout Iran. It’s shared by Hoda, 27, an art school graduate whose fellowship to Lisbon, Portugal, was derailed when the Portuguese Embassy closed during the 12-day war.

    That conflict, when Israel launched a campaign targeting Iran’s top military echelons, as well as its nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure, showed Hoda “that daily life for ordinary people suffers, even if you only target military sites,” and that preparations “often prove to be pointless.”

    That’s why she hasn’t bothered stocking up on supplies, and maintains hope — admittedly slim — that negotiations will bring about a deal.

    “This war has no winners, and even the chance for improvement would be ruined by any conflict,” she said.

    “Regardless of its outcome, it would be the worst possible scenario for ordinary people.”

    Speaking on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said a deal was “achievable” and that “there is no military solution” for curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran has repeatedly said it is developing nuclear power, not weapons.

    Earlier in the week, Araghchi said that there was “good progress” in the talks and that both sides agreed on a framework.

    But it’s clear that gaps remain.

    The U.S. demands involve dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, though it’s uncertain whether that means full suspension of enrichment of uranium and neutralizing its arsenal of missiles. The U.S. also wants Iran to end its support for paramilitary groups, such as Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis.

    Iran, however, insists that the talks strictly concern its nuclear program.

    “We are prepared for diplomacy, and we are prepared for negotiation as much as we are prepared for war,” Araghchi said. He added that previous U.S. administrations and the current one have tried war, sanctions and other measures against Tehran, “but none of them worked.”

    “If you talk with the Iranian people with the language of respect, we respond with the same language,” he said. “But if they talk to us with the language of force, we will reciprocate in the same language.”

    The U.S. forces arrayed off Iran’s shores — an armada comprising two carrier groups and dozens of warplanes — hint at a weeks-long campaign that could destroy much of Iran’s military capabilities.

    But whether that would make Tehran more pliant, let alone spur regime change, is questionable.

    People hold the unofficial Iranian Lion and Sun flags and signs of protest at a rally

    Demonstrators hold the unofficial Iranian Lion and Sun flags and signs of protest at a rally in support of regime change in Iran at Los Angeles City Hall on Feb. 14.

    (Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

    “I don’t think a war initiated by Trump will deliver a decisive blow capable of toppling the current ruling establishment,” said Nader Karimi, a pro-government journalist.

    Another fear is that if the government survives the onslaught, it would double down on its brutal smothering of dissent — just as it did in the wake of the 12-day war, when it detained hundreds and executed dozens on espionage charges.

    Some Iranians hope a limited strike would essentially repeat what happened in Venezuela, when U.S. troops nabbed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro while the rest of the government — now more pro-U.S. — stays in place.

    Once strategic targets and the command structure are destroyed, said Feriadoun Majlesi, a former Iranian diplomat, “remaining government officials will demand an end to the war and peaceful conditions.”

    Others see in a confrontation with the U.S. an opportunity.

    “Yes, I’m waiting and feeling anxious, but I try to reassure myself the future can be bright. I don’t think the Islamic Republic will survive this time,” said Ahmad, a 27-year-old barista who joined the January protests.

    “We’re ready to take to the streets again, once the time is right,” said Ahmad, who says he always keeps canned food, frozen meals and aid supplies at home.

    “I wish the war would last only a few weeks, and that only military targets and the Supreme Leader’s office would be hit. But who am I to decide which targets should be attacked?” he said. “Trump and his team know — or maybe even they do not.”

    Rahimi, a 74-year-old tailor, said he was looking forward to Trump toppling the government. The rest of his family agrees.

    “Why do we hope for war? Simply because we protesters are empty-handed, while the suppressors are fully armed, savagely cracking down and killing us,” he said.

    Estimates on the numbers of protesters killed at the hands of security forces in January vary widely.

    The government’s official figure is roughly 3,000, but other groups say it could be as much as 10 times more.

    The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency — which relies on a network of activists in Iran and has produced accurate death counts during previous rounds of unrest — put the toll at just over 7,000, but said almost 12,000 other cases remain under review.

    Whatever the number, “we cannot forgive them,” Rahimi said.

    “War will weaken the regime’s security and military forces. There is no other way.”

    Special correspondent Mostaghim reported from Tehran and Times staff writer Bulos from Beirut.

    Ramin Mostaghim, Nabih Bulos

    Source link

  • Contributor: A Senate war powers resolution on Venezuela actually could curb Trump

    President Trump seemed angry after the Senate voted last Thursday to pass a war powers resolution to the next stage, where lawmakers could approve the measure and seek to curb the president’s ability to wage war in Venezuela without congressional authorization.

    Trump said that day that five Republican senators who supported bringing the measure to a vote — Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Ky.), Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Todd Young (Ind.) — “should never be elected to office again.”

    Why should he get so riled up about this, to the point where he could put his own party’s control of the Senate at risk in November? Even if this resolution were to pass both houses of Congress, he could veto it and ultimately be unrestrained. He did this in 2019, when a war powers resolution mandating that the U.S. military cease its participation in the war in Yemen was passed in both the Senate and the House. Many people think that such legislation therefore can’t make a difference.

    But the president’s ire is telling. These political moves on the Hill can get results even before the resolution has a final vote, or if it is vetoed by the president.

    The Trump administration made significant concessions before the 2019 resolution was approved by Congress, in an attempt to prevent it from passing. For instance, months before it was approved, the U.S. military stopped refueling Saudi warplanes in midair. These concessions de-escalated the war and saved tens of thousands of lives.

    A war powers resolution is an act of Congress that is based on a 1973 law of the same name. That law spells out and reinforces the power that our Constitution has allocated to Congress, to decide when the U.S. military can be involved in hostilities.

    The U.S. military raid in Caracas that seized Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is illegal according to international law, the charters of the Organization of American States and the United Nations, as well as other treaties to which the United States is a signatory. According to our own Constitution, the government violates U.S. law when it violates treaties that our government has signed.

    None of that restrained the Trump administration, which has not demonstrated much respect for the rule of law. But the White House does care about the political power of Congress. If there is an expanded war in Venezuela or anywhere else that Trump has threatened to use the military, the fact that Congress took steps to oppose it will increase the political cost to the president.

    This is likely one of the main reasons that the Trump administration has at least promised to make concessions regarding military action in Latin America — and who knows, possibly he did make some compromises compared with what had been planned.

    On Nov. 5, the day before the Senate was to vote on a war powers resolution to halt and prevent hostilities within or against Venezuela by U.S. armed forces, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and White House counsel had a private briefing with senators.

    They assured lawmakers that they were not going to have a land war or airstrikes in Venezuela. According to news reports, the White House counsel stated that they did not have a legal justification for such a war. It is clear that blocking the resolution was very important to these top officials. The day after that meeting, the war powers resolution was blocked by two votes. Two Republicans had joined the Democrats and independents in support of the resolution: Murkowski and Paul. That added up to 49 votes — not quite the needed majority.

    But on Thursday, there were three additional Republicans who voted for the new resolution, so it will proceed to a final vote.

    The war powers resolution is not just a political fight, but a matter of life and death. The blockade involved in the seizure of oil tankers is, according to experts, an unlawful use of military force. This means that the blockade would be included as a participation in hostilities that would require authorization from Congress.

    Since 2015, the United States has imposed unilateral economic sanctions that destroyed Venezuela’s economy. From 2012 to 2020, Venezuela suffered the worst peacetime depression in world history. Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP, or income, fell by 74%. Think of the economic destruction of the U.S. Great Depression, multiplied by three times. Most of this was the result of the sanctions.

    This unprecedented devastation is generally attributed to Maduro in public discussion. But U.S. sanctions deliberately cut Venezuela off from international finance, as well as blocking most of its oil sales, which accounted for more than 90% of foreign exchange (mostly dollar) earnings. This devastated the economy.

    In the first year of Trump sanctions from 2017-18, Venezuela’s deaths increased by tens of thousands of people, at a time when oil prices were increasing. Sanctions were expanded even more the following year. About a quarter of the population, more than 7 million people, emigrated after 2015 — 750,000 of them to the United States.

    We know that the deadly impact of sanctions that target the civilian population is real. Research published in July by the Lancet Global Health, by my colleagues Francisco Rodriguez, Silvio Rendon and myself, estimated the global death toll from unilateral economic sanctions, as these are, at 564,000 per year over the past decade. This is comparable to the worldwide deaths from armed conflict. A majority of the victims over the 1970-2021 period were children.

    The Trump administration has, in the last few days, been moving in the direction of lifting some sanctions to allow for oil exports, according to the president’s stated plan to “run Venezuela.” This is ironic because Venezuela has for many years wanted more investment and trade, including in oil, with the United States, and it was U.S. sanctions that prohibited it.

    Such lifting of sanctions would be a big step forward, in terms of saving lives of people who are deprived of food, medicine and other necessities in Venezuela, as a result of these sanctions and the economic destruction that they cause.

    But to create the stability that Venezuela needs to recover, we will have to take the military and economic violence out of this campaign. There are members of Congress moving toward that goal, and they need all the help that they can get, before it’s too late.

    Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy.”

    Mark Weisbrot

    Source link

  • Here’s what to know about Venezuela’s oil industry in five charts

    President Donald Trump said Saturday the U.S. would tap into Venezuela’s oil reserves following President Nicolás Maduro’s capture. Trump wants U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela’s oil industry, which holds the largest crude oil reserves in the world. The country has about 303 billion barrels of crude, roughly a fifth of the world’s oil reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The Get the Facts Data Team compiled data to explain the state of Venezuela’s oil industry and what it means for the U.S. Which countries have the highest oil reserves?Oil reserves refer to estimates of crude oil underground that can be recovered in the future, according to the EIA. Behind Venezuela, Saudi Arabia has the second-highest amount of reserves at 267 billion, about 12% less than Venezuela. The U.S. has about 74 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, roughly 76% less than Venezuela.How much oil does the U.S. import from Venezuela? The U.S. doesn’t import as much oil from Venezuela as it did in prior decades. At its peak, the U.S. imported 61.7 million barrels of crude in Oct. 1997. That figure has since dropped to 4.2 million barrels, a decline of about 93%. Imports of Venezuelan crude oil fell sharply in 2019 after the U.S. imposed sanctions on the state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA. Those sanctions were later eased in Nov. 2022, when the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control granted waivers to Chevron, allowing it to resume exporting crude from its joint venture operations in Venezuela to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.The country accounts for about 1% of the crude oil the U.S. imports. Canada supplies 51% of the crude oil the U.S. imports, roughly 4.4 million barrels per day. Which countries import Venezuela oil?China imports the majority of Venezuela’s oil. In 2023, China accounted for 68% of imports. The U.S. imported the second highest at 23%. From 2019 to 2023, Venezuela exported more heavy-sour oil than any other type of oil. Heavy-sour oils contain high sulfur content, requiring more processing to remove the sulfur. Venezuela exported about 782,000 barrels per day of heavy-sour in 2019. In 2023, that number dropped to about 618,000 barrels per day.PHNjcmlwdCB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2phdmFzY3JpcHQiPiFmdW5jdGlvbigpeyJ1c2Ugc3RyaWN0Ijt3aW5kb3cuYWRkRXZlbnRMaXN0ZW5lcigibWVzc2FnZSIsKGZ1bmN0aW9uKGUpe2lmKHZvaWQgMCE9PWUuZGF0YVsiZGF0YXdyYXBwZXItaGVpZ2h0Il0pe3ZhciB0PWRvY3VtZW50LnF1ZXJ5U2VsZWN0b3JBbGwoImlmcmFtZSIpO2Zvcih2YXIgYSBpbiBlLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdKWZvcih2YXIgcj0wO3I8dC5sZW5ndGg7cisrKXtpZih0W3JdLmNvbnRlbnRXaW5kb3c9PT1lLnNvdXJjZSl0W3JdLnN0eWxlLmhlaWdodD1lLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdW2FdKyJweCJ9fX0pKX0oKTs8L3NjcmlwdD4=

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump said Saturday the U.S. would tap into Venezuela’s oil reserves following President Nicolás Maduro’s capture.

    Trump wants U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela’s oil industry, which holds the largest crude oil reserves in the world. The country has about 303 billion barrels of crude, roughly a fifth of the world’s oil reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

    The Get the Facts Data Team compiled data to explain the state of Venezuela’s oil industry and what it means for the U.S.

    Which countries have the highest oil reserves?

    Oil reserves refer to estimates of crude oil underground that can be recovered in the future, according to the EIA.

    Behind Venezuela, Saudi Arabia has the second-highest amount of reserves at 267 billion, about 12% less than Venezuela.

    The U.S. has about 74 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, roughly 76% less than Venezuela.

    How much oil does the U.S. import from Venezuela?

    The U.S. doesn’t import as much oil from Venezuela as it did in prior decades. At its peak, the U.S. imported 61.7 million barrels of crude in Oct. 1997. That figure has since dropped to 4.2 million barrels, a decline of about 93%.

    Imports of Venezuelan crude oil fell sharply in 2019 after the U.S. imposed sanctions on the state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA.

    Those sanctions were later eased in Nov. 2022, when the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control granted waivers to Chevron, allowing it to resume exporting crude from its joint venture operations in Venezuela to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

    The country accounts for about 1% of the crude oil the U.S. imports.

    Canada supplies 51% of the crude oil the U.S. imports, roughly 4.4 million barrels per day.

    Which countries import Venezuela oil?

    China imports the majority of Venezuela’s oil. In 2023, China accounted for 68% of imports. The U.S. imported the second highest at 23%.

    From 2019 to 2023, Venezuela exported more heavy-sour oil than any other type of oil. Heavy-sour oils contain high sulfur content, requiring more processing to remove the sulfur.

    Venezuela exported about 782,000 barrels per day of heavy-sour in 2019. In 2023, that number dropped to about 618,000 barrels per day.

    PHNjcmlwdCB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2phdmFzY3JpcHQiPiFmdW5jdGlvbigpeyJ1c2Ugc3RyaWN0Ijt3aW5kb3cuYWRkRXZlbnRMaXN0ZW5lcigibWVzc2FnZSIsKGZ1bmN0aW9uKGUpe2lmKHZvaWQgMCE9PWUuZGF0YVsiZGF0YXdyYXBwZXItaGVpZ2h0Il0pe3ZhciB0PWRvY3VtZW50LnF1ZXJ5U2VsZWN0b3JBbGwoImlmcmFtZSIpO2Zvcih2YXIgYSBpbiBlLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdKWZvcih2YXIgcj0wO3I8dC5sZW5ndGg7cisrKXtpZih0W3JdLmNvbnRlbnRXaW5kb3c9PT1lLnNvdXJjZSl0W3JdLnN0eWxlLmhlaWdodD1lLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdW2FdKyJweCJ9fX0pKX0oKTs8L3NjcmlwdD4=

    Source link

  • Iran hangs a man it accuses of spying for Israel

    Iran’s foreign minister has held *** telephone call with his counterparts in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom over their threat to potentially snap back sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. Now the snap back mechanism is part of Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal it struck with world powers that saw Tehran limit its enrichment of uranium. In exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions now in the deal, there was *** part of it that said that any of those members of the deal could go and declare Iran in noncompliance with it, setting forth the clock that ultimately would snap back those UN sanctions. Now Iran contends that these European nations can’t do that. They point to the fact. America unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018, setting up years of tensions over the program that saw Iran up its enrichment to about 60% purity, *** short step away from weapons grade levels. That enrichment and other issues saw Israel launch its unprecedented 12 day war on Iran back in June. Now as of right now, the European nations and Iran are both saying that there will be another round of talks next week, but the clock is ticking. The Europeans had said if Iran doesn’t reach an agreement by the end of the month, that it will start the snapback process, and that could mean more pressure on Iran’s ailing economy.

    Iran said Monday it hanged a man accused of spying for Israel, the latest as Tehran carries out its largest wave of executions in decades.Iran identified the executed man as Bahman Choobiasl, whose case wasn’t immediately known in Iranian media reports or to activists monitoring the death penalty in the Islamic Republic. However, the execution came after Iran vowed to confront its enemies after the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program this weekend.Video above: Iran confers with European nations on its nuclear program as sanctions deadline nearsIran accused Choobiasl of meeting with officials from the Israeli spy agency Mossad. Iran’s Mizan news agency, which is the judiciary’s official mouthpiece, said Choobiasl worked on “sensitive telecommunications projects“ and reported about the “paths of importing electronic devices.”Iran is known to have hanged nine people for espionage since its June war with Israel. Israel waged an air war with Iran, killing some 1,100 people, including many military commanders. Iran launched missile barrages targeting Israel in response.Earlier this month, Iran executed Babak Shahbazi, who it alleged spied for Israel. Activists disputed that, saying Shahbazi was tortured into a false confession after writing a letter to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offering to fight for Kyiv.Iran has faced multiple nationwide protests in recent years, fueled by anger over the economy, demands for women’s rights and calls for the country’s theocracy to change.In response to those protests and the June war, Iran has been putting prisoners to death at a pace unseen since 1988, when it executed thousands at the end of the Iran-Iraq war.The Oslo-based group Iran Human Rights and the Washington-based Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran put the number of people executed in 2025 at over 1,000, noting the number could be higher as Iran does not report on each execution.Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this report.

    DUBAI, Dubai —

    Iran said Monday it hanged a man accused of spying for Israel, the latest as Tehran carries out its largest wave of executions in decades.

    Iran identified the executed man as Bahman Choobiasl, whose case wasn’t immediately known in Iranian media reports or to activists monitoring the death penalty in the Islamic Republic. However, the execution came after Iran vowed to confront its enemies after the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program this weekend.

    Video above: Iran confers with European nations on its nuclear program as sanctions deadline nears

    Iran accused Choobiasl of meeting with officials from the Israeli spy agency Mossad. Iran’s Mizan news agency, which is the judiciary’s official mouthpiece, said Choobiasl worked on “sensitive telecommunications projects“ and reported about the “paths of importing electronic devices.”

    Iran is known to have hanged nine people for espionage since its June war with Israel. Israel waged an air war with Iran, killing some 1,100 people, including many military commanders. Iran launched missile barrages targeting Israel in response.

    Earlier this month, Iran executed Babak Shahbazi, who it alleged spied for Israel. Activists disputed that, saying Shahbazi was tortured into a false confession after writing a letter to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offering to fight for Kyiv.

    Iran has faced multiple nationwide protests in recent years, fueled by anger over the economy, demands for women’s rights and calls for the country’s theocracy to change.

    In response to those protests and the June war, Iran has been putting prisoners to death at a pace unseen since 1988, when it executed thousands at the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

    The Oslo-based group Iran Human Rights and the Washington-based Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran put the number of people executed in 2025 at over 1,000, noting the number could be higher as Iran does not report on each execution.

    Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Contributor: Russia wants what it cannot have

    Vladimir Putin is on a roll the past few weeks. First President Trump invited him to Anchorage. Then he got a three-way hug with China’s President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a summit in China. And an invitation to a grand military parade in Beijing.

    Since the 2014 annexation of Crimea, Putin had been shunted to the fringes of summit group photos. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, he had been treated as a pariah by the United States and Europe. Indicted by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, he could travel only to countries that wouldn’t arrest him. In short, Moscow was not being treated with the respect it believed it deserved.

    Trump thought that by literally rolling out the red carpet for Putin in Alaska — and clapping as the Russian loped down the red carpet — he could reset the bilateral relationship. And it did. But not the way Trump intended.

    The Alaskan summit convinced the Russians that the current administration is willing to throw the sources of American global power out the window.

    Trade partners, geopolitical allies and alliances — everything is on the table for Trump. The U.S. president believes this shows his power; the Russians see this as a low-cost opportunity to degrade American influence. Putin was trained by the KGB to recognize weakness and exploit it.

    There is no evidence that being friendly to Putin and agreeing with Russian positions are going to make Moscow more willing to stop fighting in Ukraine. Overlooking Russia’s intensifying hybrid attacks on Europe, in February, Vice President JD Vance warned Europe that it should be focusing instead on the threat to democracy “from within.” This followed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth‘s assurances that Ukraine would never join NATO. Trump has suggested that U.S. support for NATO and Europe is contingent on those countries paying up. In an event that sent Moscow pundits to pop the Champagne, Trump told Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office that he just didn’t “have the cards” and should stop trying to beat Russia.

    Did any of this bring Putin to the negotiating table? No.

    In fact, the Kremlin indicated a readiness to talk with Trump about the war only when Trump threatened “very, very powerful” sanctions in mid-July. This time, he seemed serious about it. The Alaska summit happened a month later. The tougher Trump is with Russia, the more likely he is to get any kind of traction in negotiations. It’s unfortunate that the president has now gone back to vague two-week deadlines for imposing sanctions that never materialize.

    Russia believes it will win the war. China has been a steady friend, willing to sell Russia cars and dual-use technology that ends up in drones that are attacking Ukrainian cities. It has also become Russia’s largest buyer of crude oil and coal. Western sanctions have not been biting the Russian economy, though they have nibbled away at state revenues. Europe and the United States have not been willing to apply the kind of economic pressure that would seriously dent Russia’s ability to carry on the war.

    Putin keeps saying that a resolution to the war requires that the West address the “root causes” of the war. These causes, for Russia, relate to the way it was treated after losing the Cold War. The three Baltic nations joined Europe as fast as they could. Central and Eastern European countries decided that they would rather be part of NATO than the Warsaw Pact. When Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine started asking for membership in the European Union and NATO, Russia realized it wouldn’t be able to convince them to stay with economic appeal or soft power. It had to use force. Unable to demonstrate the attraction of its suffocating embrace, or the value of its Eurasian Economic Union, Russia believed it had to use force to keep Ukraine by its side. It reminds one of a grotesque Russian expression: “If he beats you, it means he loves you.”

    The real “root cause” of the war in Ukraine is Russia’s inability to accept that centuries of empire do not confer the right to dominate former colonies forever. Mongolia learned this. As did the British. And the French. And the Ottomans. The Austro-Hungarians.

    Eventually this war will end. But not soon. Russia is insisting on maximalist demands that Ukraine cannot agree to, which include control over territory it hasn’t managed to occupy. Ukraine will not stop fighting until it is sure that Russia will not attack again. Achieving that degree of certainty with flimsy security guarantees is impossible.

    In the meantime, Ukrainian cities on the frontline will continue being wiped out, citizens in Kherson will continue being subjects of “human safari” for Russian drone operators, people across Ukraine will continue experiencing daily air raids that send them scurrying into shelters. Soldiers, volunteers, civilians and children will continue dying. Trump appears to care about the thousands of daily casualties. Most of these are Russian soldiers who have been sent to their death by a Russian state that doesn’t see their lives as worth preserving.

    Trump is understandably frustrated with his inability to “stop the killing” because he has assumed that satisfying Russian demands is the answer. The opposite is true: Only by showing — proving — to Russia that its demands are unattainable will the U.S. persuade the Kremlin to consider meaningful negotiations. Countries at war come to the negotiating table not because they are convinced to abandon their objectives. They sit down when they realize their goals are unattainable.

    Alexandra Vacroux is the vice president for strategic engagement at the Kyiv School of Economics.

    Insights

    L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

    Viewpoint
    This article generally aligns with a Center point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
    Perspectives

    The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

    Ideas expressed in the piece

    • Putin has successfully leveraged recent diplomatic engagements to break out of international isolation, using meetings with Xi Jinping and Modi, along with Trump’s invitation to Alaska, to demonstrate that Western attempts to sideline Russia have failed. These high-profile gatherings signal to the world that Russia remains a significant player on the global stage despite sanctions and international legal proceedings.

    • Trump’s accommodating approach toward Putin represents a fundamental misreading of Russian psychology and strategic thinking, as Putin was trained to recognize and exploit weakness rather than respond to friendship with reciprocal gestures. The president’s willingness to question support for NATO and suggest contingent relationships with allies signals to Moscow that American global influence can be degraded at low cost.

    • Russia only demonstrates willingness to engage in meaningful negotiations when faced with credible threats of severe consequences, as evidenced by the Kremlin’s indication of readiness to talk only after Trump threatened “very, very powerful” sanctions in July. Conversely, accommodating gestures and vague deadlines for sanctions that never materialize encourage Russian intransigence.

    • The fundamental driver of the conflict stems from Russia’s inability to accept the end of its imperial dominance over former territories, not the grievances about post-Cold War treatment that Moscow frequently cites. Russia’s resort to force against Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova reflects its failure to maintain influence through economic appeal or soft power, revealing an outdated imperial mindset that refuses to acknowledge former colonies’ right to self-determination.

    • Meaningful negotiations will only occur when Russia recognizes that its maximalist territorial and political demands are unattainable through military means, requiring sustained pressure rather than premature concessions. Current Russian demands for control over territory it hasn’t occupied and Ukraine’s complete capitulation demonstrate that Moscow still believes it can achieve total victory.

    Different views on the topic

    • The Russia-China partnership faces significant structural limitations that constrain the depth of their cooperation, despite public declarations of “no limits” friendship. While both nations conduct joint military exercises and maintain substantial trade relationships, their military collaboration remains “carefully managed and circumscribed by each nation’s broader strategic interests,” with no mutual defense agreements or deep operational integration between their armed forces[1].

    • India’s apparent warming toward China and Russia reflects strategic autonomy principles rather than genuine alignment toward an anti-Western axis, as fundamental tensions between New Delhi and Beijing persist over unresolved border disputes and strategic competition in the Indian Ocean region[2]. Recent diplomatic gestures may be tactical responses to trade tensions rather than indicators of a permanent realignment away from partnerships with Australia, Japan, the European Union, and other democratic allies[2].

    • The potential for wedging strategies between Russia and China remains viable due to underlying structural tensions and competing interests, particularly in Central Asia where both powers seek influence. American policymakers increasingly recognize that the “reverse Nixon” approach of driving wedges between Moscow and Beijing could exploit inherent limitations in their partnership, as their relationship represents neither unlimited friendship nor a completely stable alliance[4][5].

    • China’s military cooperation with Russia serves Beijing’s interests in testing tactics and equipment while maintaining careful distance from direct involvement in conflicts that could jeopardize its broader strategic goals[1]. Chinese support for Russian drone production and dual-use technology transfers reflects calculated assistance that stops short of full military alliance, suggesting Beijing prioritizes its own strategic flexibility over unconditional support for Russian objectives[3].

    Alexandra Vacroux

    Source link

  • Contributor: Trump’s Russia and Ukraine summits show he can push for peace

    By hosting an unprecedented short-notice summit with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and key European leaders on Monday, President Trump significantly raised the prospects for ending Russia’s three-and-a-half-year-long war against Ukraine. The vibe at the opening was affable and positive. The participants genuinely looked determined to work out compromises that only a few weeks ago appeared illusory. It was a good sign for long-term Euro-Atlantic security cooperation in the face of challenges that, in Trump’s words, we have not faced since World War II. Toward the end, Trump’s call to Moscow brought a follow-up U.S.-Ukraine-Russia summit within reach.

    But the rising expectations also reveal formidable obstacles on the path to peace. As the world’s leaders were heading to Washington, Putin’s forces unleashed 182 infantry assaults, 152 massive glide bombs, more than 5,100 artillery rounds and 5,000 kamikaze drones on Ukraine’s defenses and 140 long-range drones and four Iskander ballistic missiles on Ukraine’s cities. The attacks claimed at least 10 civilian lives, including a small child. This is how Russia attacks Ukraine daily, signaling disrespect for Trump’s diplomacy.

    The Monday summit also revealed that Putin’s ostensible concession at the Alaska summit to agree to international security guarantees for Ukraine is a poisoned chalice. On the surface, it seemed like a breakthrough toward compromise. The White House summit participants jumped on it and put the guarantees at the center of discussions.

    And yet there has been no agreement, and the world has more questions than answers. How could the Ukrainian armed forces be strengthened to deter Russia? Who would pay? How could Russia be prevented from rebuilding its Black Sea Fleet and blocking Ukrainian grain exports? What troop deployments would be needed? Who would put boots on the ground in Ukraine? What kind of guarantees should match what kind of territorial concessions?

    Such questions are fraught with complex debates. Between the U.S. and Europe. Within Europe. Within the Trump administration. Within Ukraine. And all of that even before having to negotiate the issue with the Kremlin. The net outcome of the past week’s diplomatic huddles will be Putin buying time for his aggression as Washington abstains from sanctions hoping for peace.

    Disingenuously, in exchange for this poisoned chalice of a concession, Putin demanded that Ukraine should cede not only lands currently under Russia’s illegal military occupation but also a large piece of the Donetsk province still under Kyiv’s control. That area is home to 300,000 people and is a major defense stronghold. Controlling it would give Russia a springboard to deeper attacks targeting big cities and threatening to bring Ukraine to its knees.

    Putin’s offer also threatens to tear apart Ukraine’s society. In my tracking poll with Ukraine’s Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology completed in early August, close to half of 567 respondents want Ukraine to reassert control over all of its internationally recognized territories, including the Crimean peninsula illegally annexed in 2014. Only 20% would be content with freezing the conflict along the current front lines. The option of ceding territories to Russia still under Kyiv control is so outrageous that it was not included in the survey. Eighty percent of Ukrainians continue to have faith in Ukraine’s victory and to see democracy and free speech — core values Putin would take away — as vital for Ukraine’s future.

    Getting Ukrainian society right is important for Trump’s peace effort to succeed. Discounting Ukrainians’ commitment to freedom and independence has a lot to do with where we are now. Putin launched the all-out invasion in February 2022 expecting Ukrainians to embrace Russian rule. Then-President Biden assessed that Ukrainians would fold quickly and delayed major military assistance to Kyiv.

    Misjudging Ukrainians now would most likely result in a rejection of peace proposals and possibly a political crisis there, inviting more aggression from Moscow while empowering more dogged resistance to the invasion, with a long, bloody war grinding on.

    Thankfully, Trump has the capacity to keep the peace process on track. First, he can amplify two critically important messages he articulated at the Monday summit: U.S. willingness to back up Ukraine’s security guarantees and to continue to sell weapons to Ukraine if no peace deal is reached. Second, he can use his superb skills at strategic ambiguity and pivot back to threats of leveraging our submarine power and of imposing secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia. Third, he can drop a hint he’d back up the Senate’s bipartisan Supporting Ukraine Act of 2025, which would provide military assistance to Ukraine over two years from confiscated Russian assets, the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal proceeds and investment in America’s military modernization.

    The Monday summit makes the urgency of these and similar moves glaringly clear.

    Mikhail Alexseev, a professor of international relations at San Diego State University, is the author of “Without Warning: Threat Assessment, Intelligence, and Global Struggle” and principal investigator of the multiyear “War, Democracy and Society” survey in Ukraine.

    Insights

    L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

    Viewpoint
    This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
    Perspectives

    The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

    Ideas expressed in the piece

    • The recent summit between Trump, Zelenskyy, and European leaders represents a significant breakthrough that has substantially raised the prospects for ending Russia’s prolonged war against Ukraine. The author emphasizes that participants appeared genuinely determined to work out compromises that seemed impossible just weeks earlier, marking a positive development for Euro-Atlantic security cooperation in the face of challenges not seen since World War II.

    • Putin’s offer of international security guarantees for Ukraine constitutes a deceptive “poisoned chalice” that appears promising on the surface but creates more problems than solutions. The author argues that this ostensible concession has generated complex debates about military strengthening, funding, territorial deployments, and guarantee structures without providing clear answers, ultimately allowing Putin to buy time for continued aggression while Washington abstains from sanctions.

    • Putin’s territorial demands are fundamentally outrageous and threaten Ukraine’s social fabric, as the author notes that surveys show nearly half of Ukrainians want complete territorial restoration while only 20% would accept freezing current front lines. The author contends that ceding additional territories currently under Kyiv’s control would provide Russia with strategic springboards for deeper attacks and potentially bring Ukraine to its knees.

    • Trump possesses the strategic capacity to maintain momentum in the peace process through amplifying U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s security guarantees, utilizing strategic ambiguity regarding military threats, and supporting bipartisan legislation that would provide sustained military assistance through confiscated Russian assets and defense modernization investments.

    Different views on the topic

    • Trump’s approach to Putin diplomacy has been criticized as counterproductive, with concerns that his warm reception of the Russian leader constituted a major public relations victory for the Kremlin dictator that was particularly painful for Ukrainians to witness[1]. Critics argue that Trump’s treatment gave Putin undeserved legitimacy on the international stage during ongoing aggression.

    • Analysis suggests that Trump’s negotiation strategy fundamentally misunderstands Putin’s objectives, with observers noting that while Trump appears to view peace negotiations as a geopolitical real estate transaction, Putin is not merely fighting for Ukrainian land but for Ukraine itself[1]. This perspective challenges the assumption that territorial concessions could satisfy Russian ambitions.

    • Military and diplomatic experts advocate for increased pressure on Russia rather than accommodation, arguing that Russian rejection of NATO troop deployments in Ukraine and resistance to agreed policy steps demonstrates the need to make Putin’s war more costly through additional sanctions on the Russian economy and advanced weapons supplies to Ukraine[1]. These voices contend that Putin’s opposition to current proposals underscores the necessity of making continued warfare harder for Russia to sustain.

    Mikhail Alexseev

    Source link

  • US sanctions crypto addresses tied to Russian drone developer

    US sanctions crypto addresses tied to Russian drone developer

    The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s OFAC has sanctioned a Russian one-way attack UAV developer, which solicited donations in crypto on Telegram.

    The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on May 1 sanctioned nearly 300 individuals and entities in a bid “to limit the Kremlin’s revenue and access to the materiel it needs to prosecute its illegal war against Ukraine.” In a press release, OFAC said the sanctioned entities have enabled Russia to acquire “desperately needed technology and equipment from abroad.”

    One of the sanctioned individuals appears to be a developer of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) called the OKO Design Bureau. According to a blockchain forensics firm Chainalysis, the Russian drone maker operated a Telegram channel where it solicited donations in crypto. OFAC has sanctioned three crypto addresses associated with the Saint Petersburg-registered firm:

    • BTC: 13fhnkmpBBWXUQucJd6efWvXdEj78DKavk.
    • ETH (including USDT): 0x19F8f2B0915Daa12a3f5C9CF01dF9E24D53794F7.
    • TRX (including USDT): TFdTr9C3BqQrzKBXqSxJfAZFTh8UwBAfSg.

    Researchers at Chainalysis say that the aforementioned addresses are listed underneath detailed descriptions and videos of OKO Design Bureau’s operations on Telegram, including testing with the Russian Ministry of Defense, and “usage of their UAVs against Ukraine.”

    One of the cases where OKO Design Bureau mentions crypto addresses for donations | Source: Chainalysis

    However, OKO Design Bureau “had limited success” in their Telegram crypto donation efforts, the researchers say, adding that the firm raised well under $1,000 in total collection. Although OKO Design Bureau’s total crypto activities were limited, Chainalysis notes this is not the first time Russian militia groups explicitly detailed their military operations while publicly soliciting crypto donations.

    According to the New York-headquartered blockchain firm, over 50 volunteer groups committed to crowdfunding Russian military purchases, “spreading disinformation, and creating pro-invasion propaganda.” The analysts say the organizations had received roughly $2.2 million in donations by July 2022, although it’s unclear whether that dynamic has grown or declined since then.

    Denis Omelchenko

    Source link