Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2023-05-22-at-4.21.35-pm

Lula walks away from G7 less interested in ending war in Ukraine

Brazil's president claims Zelensky stood him up at the summit in a he-said, he-said tit-for-tat, making his role as peacemaker more elusive.

Analysis | Europe

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had an eventful few days at last weekend’s G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, with one clear takeaway: relations between Brazil and Ukraine are colder now than they were last week. Indeed, one might even conclude that the Brazilian president is now giving up on the prospect of contributing to a formal peace between Russia and Ukraine.

Since before taking office in January, Lula has insisted that both Russia and Ukraine should stop fighting and begin discussing peace terms. He has argued for convening a small group of countries — including Brazil, Latin America’s largest nation and the world’s fourth-largest democracy — with no direct involvement in the conflict to mediate negotiations.

This position has been criticized widely for equating Russian and Ukrainian culpability in the ongoing conflagration and indicating a tacit endorsement of Russia’s position that the war resulted from years of NATO-led provocations on its Western flank.

Some have called Lula either hopelessly naïve or deeply cynical. The reality, however, is that Lula’s position is rational considering his nation’s interests. As Oliver Stuenkel, an associate professor of international relations at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo, wrote in a recent piece, “while it is tempting to dismiss Lula’s quest for peace in Ukraine as quixotic, Brazil’s assertiveness reveals broader misgivings across the global south about the inclusiveness of the supposedly liberal international order.”

With this stance clearly expressed, Celso Amorim, Lula’s former foreign minister and closest adviser on international affairs, visited Ukraine earlier this month after having previously traveled to Russia. While Ukraine’s deputy minister of foreign affairs tweeted: “We are slowly changing the mood between Ukraine and Brazil” (he included a wink emoji, signaling either confidence or irony), Brazil hasn’t appeared to change its position in the days after that trip. The Ukrainians invited Lula to visit but he has yet to accept the offer and there has been very little reported communication between Brazilian and Ukrainian officials. This is why President Volodymyr Zelensky’s sudden arrival at the G7 summit on Saturday — a visit "decided in haste and kept secret until the last moment,” according to Le Mondewas such an intriguing diplomatic development. Would he and Lula finally sit down together?

Ultimately, they would not. As Zelensky entered the room where heads of state were gathered on Sunday, footage shows several leaders approaching to greet him. Lula, eyes fixed on a piece of paper in his hand, did not get up. Many on social media and beyond interpreted this as a slight, but it is not out of character for Lula.

During a visit to the G8 summit in 2003, his first as president, Lula remained seated while others stood as President George W. Bush entered the room. “Nobody got up when I walked in,” he later recalled, “so I wouldn't stand for anyone else.” Zelensky would go on to hold private meetings with most of the assembled heads of state. He apparently got no firm response from the Brazilians for hours. Finally, Lula scheduled a talk for Sunday at 3:15 p.m., but when the time came, he claims Zelensky stood him up. When asked afterward if he was disappointed that he didn’t meet with Lula, Zelensky replied tersely, a wry smirk crossing his face: “I think he was disappointed.”

For his part, Lula insisted that his team had set the meeting but was told at the agreed upon time that Zelensky would be late. Lula then met with the Vietnamese president for an hour during which, he said, the Ukrainian never showed. “That's what happened. That is, if he had a more serious problem, a more important meeting, I don’t know.”

Responding to Zelensky’s quip about him being disappointed, Lula said he was not disappointed but upset at the missed opportunity. “But look,” he concluded, “Zelensky is over-age. He knows what he's doing.”

The broader dynamics that Lula has been criticizing for months remain unchanged, as he noted, with neither Zelensky nor Putin serious about an immediate ceasefire. Biden, Lula said, “doesn't talk about peace,” insisting instead on unilateral Russian surrender, an approach that “doesn’t help” end the conflict. The Brazilian president reiterated his condemnation of Russian’s invasion of Ukraine’s sovereignty and his recognition that Ukraine has the right to defend itself but wondered, "how long will this go?"

Overall, the G7’s attempts to more prominently feature major players from beyond the richest democratic nations produced little substance. As Max Lawson, head of Inequality Policy at Oxfam, put it, “if the G7 really want closer ties to the developing countries and greater backing from them for the war in Ukraine, then asking Global South leaders to fly across the world for a couple of hours is not going to cut it,” adding that “they need to cancel debts and do what it takes to end hunger.”

With no clear breakthrough, Lula said he is happy to visit Ukraine if it means traveling to Russia shortly thereafter to talk peace. That prospect is unfortunately not in the offing, as Lula surely knows. Neither, it seems, is Brazilian mediation to help end the war. It is a sad day in global geopolitics when personal squabbles color momentous decisions of life and death.


Photos: Marcelo Chello and Review News via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Europe
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

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.