Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch: A flurry of meetings, but little momentum for peace

Diplomacy Watch: A flurry of meetings, but little momentum for peace

After a week of high-level meetings in Europe the message from the West is clear: The war in Ukraine is not ending anytime soon.

Analysis | Europe

Over the last week, the U.S. joined its closest allies in two major international forums: the G7 meeting and the NATO summit. But diplomacy aimed at ending the war in Ukraine was not the order of the day at either event. Instead, Western leaders came together to condemn Russia’s war in Ukraine, reaffirm their commitments to Kyiv’s defense, and insist that the decision of when to end the war lies entirely in the hands of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Nonetheless, there were a few glimmers of hope for those who hope to see this war end as soon as possible — or at least some clearer indications of how the West thinks this war could end. So we’ll shine a light on those in this edition of Diplomacy Watch, your weekly round-up of diplomatic efforts aimed at ending Russia’s war in Ukraine (or at least heading in that direction).

Al Jazeera reported Wednesday that Ukraine and Russia engaged in the largest prisoner swap since the war began, with each side turning over more than 140 enemy fighters. Of the soldiers returned to Ukraine, 95 had fought in the Mariupol steel plant siege and 43 were members of the Azov regiment, a controversial militia-turned-National Guard unit with far-right sympathies, according to Al Jazeera. On the other side, Ukraine turned over a mix of Russian soldiers and fighters affiliated with the ​​self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. Russia has not commented on the swap.

— During a Wednesday Atlantic Council event, Secretary of State Antony Blinken dismissed the idea that Putin is interested in ending the war through diplomacy. “We have not seen any interest on the part of Vladimir Putin in engaging in any kind of meaningful diplomatic initiative,” Blinken said.

— At last weekend’s G7 summit, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned French President Emmanuel Macron that “any attempt to settle the conflict now will only cause enduring instability” by giving Russian President Vladimir Putin permission to manipulate states and global markets “in perpetuity,” according to a British readout of their conversation. (France disputed this version of events, saying Johnson didn’t “warn” Macron about anything.) The only unified statement about how to end the war came on Monday, when the G7 declared that it is “up to Ukraine to decide on a future peace settlement, free from external pressure or influence.”

— On Wednesday, Zelensky asked NATO for “security guarantees” and implied that he wanted to join the alliance, walking back his earlier position of openness to keeping Ukraine out of the pact, according to Forbes. In other news, NATO changed its mission statement for the first time in more than a decade, adding among other things that Russia poses “the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”

— Russia decamped from a “strategic Black Sea outpost” known as Snake Island on Thursday, according toReuters. Ukraine says Russian troops were forced to withdraw after Ukrainian forces spent a day shelling Moscow’s outposts on the Island. The Russian defense ministry had a different take, saying the decision was meant as a “gesture of goodwill” to show Russia’s willingness to help open shipping lanes for grain in the Black Sea.

— In related news, the Financial Times reported that Ukraine’s head negotiator has cast doubts on whether Turkey-led talks will be able to restart shipments of grain from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. “If there are talks, we will participate. But that doesn’t mean we will agree to any option that is on the table,” the negotiator said. “Any attempts to base a food security solution on the goodwill or grace of Russia will not work or be trusted.”

U.S. State Department news:

No briefing was held this week.


Analysis | Europe
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.