U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping had a phone conversation on Tuesday, the first time the two leaders have spoken since their in-person meeting in November.
As has happened following previous conversations, there is a considerable difference between the Chinese and U.S. readouts of the conversation. While both sides stressed the importance of maintaining open lines of communication, the official White House readout as usual placed a high stress on cautioning China against a variety of actions while saying virtually nothing about the clear need to undertake constructive actions to address common problems, such as those regarding climate change and pandemics.
Equally important, as in past such readouts on conversations held between U.S. and Chinese officials, Beijing listed a set of assurances that Biden has supposedly made several times to Xi regarding Taiwan, U.S. alliances, and other critical security issues. And yet the U.S. side, as in the past, again failed to mention such assurances in its official readout of the conversation.
Why is it that Washington will not confirm, clearly and unambiguously, that Biden either has or has not made all such assurances to the Chinese side? Various lower-level officials have at times made some of these assurances. But to my knowledge no U.S. official has made all of them. And Biden has not personally confirmed that he has made all such assurances.
The failure to clear up this apparent disparity in messaging on these crucial issues could eventually produce Chinese expectations and perhaps even pressure on the U.S. that Washington pushes back against, thus creating a crisis in relations. Washington needs to do more to build constructive relations with Beijing on both sides' vital interests, and clarify its stance regarding Biden’s supposed assurances. This is particularly necessary with regard to the administration’s policies regarding Taiwan. See my recent brief on what the White House needs to say and what Beijing needs to do on that critical issue.
Michael D. Swaine is a Senior Research Fellow on East Asia at the Quincy Institute and is one of the most prominent American scholars of Chinese security studies.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit in Bali, Indonesia, November 14, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit in Bali, Indonesia, November 14, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
Europeans are surprised and frustrated by President Trump’s decision to call Russian President Putin without consulting Ukrainian President Zelenskyy or other European leadership.
The president made good on his promise to begin negotiations with Russia by having a phone call with President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, which he described as “lengthy and highly productive” and indicated that further negotiations would begin “immediately.”
“We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s nations,” Trump posted on social media. “We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy of Ukraine to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now.”
The president subsequently had a call with the Ukrainian president, during which they discussed opportunities to achieve peace, the U.S.’s readiness to work together at the team level, and Ukraine's technological capabilities -- including drones and other “advanced industries,” according to Zelenskyy.
Many European leaders saw Trump’s call with Putin as a betrayal. The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said that the Americans were giving Russia “everything that they want even before the negotiations” and that any agreement made without the Europeans “will simply not work.”
“This is not how others do foreign policy, but this is now the reality,” said German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock. She insisted negotiations should not “go over the heads of the Ukrainians.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended President Trump’s call with Putin, saying that “there is no betrayal there,” but a “recognition that the whole world and the United States is invested and interested in peace, a negotiated peace.” He also softened his comments on Ukrainian NATO membership, saying that “everything is on the table in his (Trump’s) conversations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.”
Trump said he and Putin may meet for an initial discussion at an undetermined date in Saudi Arabia because “we know the crown prince, and I think it’d be a very good place to be.” Vice President JD Vance will meet with Zeleskyy today on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.
On Thursday, after the call, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said that the “position of the current (U.S.) administration is much more appealing.” For his part, Zelenskyy noted that he was not pleased that Trump chose to speak with Putin before himself and made it clear that Ukraine “cannot accept it, as an independent country, any agreements (made) without us.” However, he told reporters that he and Trump were “charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace. As President Trump said, ‘Let’s get it done.’”
“The Trump-Putin call and Defense Secretary Hegseth's subsequent statement signals a long overdue willingness by Washington not only to engage the Russians in wide-ranging, impactful discussions but to countenance the concessions necessary to make a deal stick,” the Quincy Institute's Mark Episkopos told RS. “The hard work of squaring U.S., European, Ukrainian, and Russian positions is still ahead, and all sides should be prepared for what will be a winding, tortuous road to a negotiated settlement.”
He added, “still, the administration has just taken a colossal leap forward not just to resolve the Ukraine war but to stake out a new, more propitious architecture of European security and to reap all of the long-term geopolitical rewards therefrom.”
According to The Washington Post, Russian authorities released an American prisoner, Marc Fogel, after being imprisoned for three and a half years on drug charges. Trump said that a Russian prisoner would be released to Moscow as part of a deal with the Kremlin and added that the exchange “could be a big, important part in getting the war over."
Ukraine may be open to giving the United States access to its mineral industry in exchange for continued financial assistance. In an interview with the Associated Press, Zelenskyy's chief of staff, Andrii Yermak, remarked, “we really have this big potential in the territory which we control." He continued, “we are interested to work, to develop, with our partners, first of all, with the United States.” Trump showed support for such a plan earlier this month.
China has said it is ready to play a significant role in the Ukraine-Russia negotiation process. The Wall Street Journalreported that “the offer, however, is being met with skepticism in the U.S. and Europe, given deep concerns over the increasingly close ties between Beijing and Moscow.” The Journal speculates that this offer could be a vehicle for Xi to increase contact with President Trump as he seeks to negotiate away from the aggressive economic measures promised by the Trump administration.
There were no Department of State press briefings this week.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump greets Marc Fogel at the White House after his release from a Russian prison, Tuesday, February 11, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
In less than 3 weeks, President Trump secured a ceasefire in Gaza, spoke directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, and kickstarted diplomacy to end the Ukraine war. At the same time, he has also put forward some idiotic ideas, such as pushing Palestinians out of Gaza and making Canada the 51st state.
But it raises important questions: Why didn't the Biden administration choose to push for an end to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine? Why didn't the majority of the Democrats demand it? Instead, they went down the path of putting Liz Cheney on a pedestal and having Kamala Harris brag about having the most lethal military in the world while Trump positioned himself as a peace candidate — justifiably or not.
Undoubtedly, Trump's plans in Gaza may make matters worse and his diplomacy with Putin may fail. But that isn't the point.
The point is: Why did Trump choose to pursue diplomacy and seek an end to the wars, and why did the Democrats under Biden choose to transform the party into one that embraced war and glorified warmongers like Cheney, while protecting and enabling a genocide?
What happened that caused the party to vilify its own voices for peace — such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — while embracing some of the architects of the Iraq war?
And all of this, of course, in complete defiance of where the party base was (throughout the Gaza war, the base supported a ceasefire with 70% majority, for instance).
A profound reckoning is needed within the Democratic Party to save it from slipping into becoming neocon by default.
And with the pace at which Trump is moving, that reckoning needs to come fast. It will, for instance, be a severe mistake if the party positions itself to the right of Trump and reflexively opposes him on every foreign policy issue instead of basing the party's positions on solid principles, such as centering diplomacy, military restraint, and peace. Trump currently speaks more about peace than the Democrats do.
A senior Democratic lawmaker asked me rhetorically last week if I knew anyone who was happy with the foreign policy of Biden and voted for Harris on that basis.
I was happy to hear that the question was being asked. That's a good first step.
keep readingShow less
FILE PHOTO: Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro and U.S. President Donald Trump's envoy Richard Grenell shake hands at the Miraflores Palace, in Caracas, Venezuela January 31, 2025. Miraflores Palace/Handout via REUTERS
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s five-country tour of Central American allies last week — the first time in a century the U.S.’s top diplomat has made their inaugural foreign trip to Latin America — was aimed at curtailing China’s growing regional influence, stemming the flow of migrants and drugs to the U.S. and identifying “safe third countries” that will temporarily hold thousands of Trump’s deportees.
Yet the administration’s first stop in the region was not, in fact, to a close friend but rather to an adversary: Venezuela’s embattled socialist leader Nicolás Maduro, whom presidential envoy Richard Grenell rewarded with a surprise visit to Miraflores Palace on January 31.
Grenell, who referred to Maduro as the country’s president and said Trump wanted a “different relationship” with the country, was on a laser-focused mission to bring back detained Americans and secure a commitment from Maduro to receive deported Tren de Aragua gang members, according to a pre-trip call with reporters held by the State Department’s Latin America envoy Mauricio Claver-Carone.
Yet the questions surrounding Grenell’s visit only a day before Rubio’s trip are just the tip of the iceberg in a series of emerging contradictions in President Trump’s incipient Latin America policy — notably between hardline hawks focused on rewarding allies and punishing enemies (represented by Rubio and his fellow Cuban-American ally Claver-Carone), and White House officials like Grenell whose realpolitik and strategic engagement with adversaries to advance national interests could prevail.
As a result, some Republican lawmakers have found themselves in the uncomfortable position of trying to reconcile Trump’s transactionalism toward the region’s illiberal regimes with Rubio’s maximalist hardline, complicated by their razor-thin majority in Congress.
As expected, Rubio’s tour to Panama, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic notched some high-profile wins for Trump’s “America First” strategy in the region, namely Panama’s decision to let its Belt and Road Initiative membership expire, El Salvador’s offer to incarcerate U.S. convicts in its supermax prison, and the seizure of a Venezuelan presidential plane in the Dominican Republic due to sanctions violations.
These outcomes are consistent with Claver-Carone’s remarks that Rubio’s trip would kick off the “re-Americanization of the Panama Canal,” a return to a “golden age” of U.S. dominance in the region, and the inevitability that the 21st century would be an American one — not Chinese..
But at the same time, Grenell’s concurrent Venezuela mission confounded veteran GOP Latin America hands like Elliot Abrams and Carrie Filipetti, who ran Trump's “maximum pressure” Venezuela policy from the State Department in his first term. They, like Rubio and Claver-Carone, consider the Biden-era OFAC licenses allowing Chevron to operate in Venezuela — which were automatically renewed the day after Grenell’s visit — to be counterproductive, keeping Maduro afloat after his widely contested re-election in July.
While Grenell said after his trip that Trump’s first-term maximum pressure sanctions “didn’t work,” Rubio continues to pursue the same strategy.
Shortly after taking the helm at Foggy Bottom, Rubio met on Zoom with Venezuelan opposition leader Edmundo González, whom he called the country’s “rightful president.” Rubio then met with González in Panama on his first stop on his Central American tour. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) invited González to attend Trump’s inauguration, though Trump rebuffed a meeting with the leader, who weeks earlier met with President Biden in the Oval office.
Like Scott, Rubio and Claver-Carone's Cuban-American allies in Congress, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), are struggling to keep their maximalist hard-line toward Maduro relevant among the more pragmatic positions staked out by other GOP figures, including the one at the top, President Trump.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump regards the González-led opposition challenging Maduro’s claim to power as "losers" who "failed" despite giving them significant support during his first term. There's "no way he's going back down that road again," a source close to Trump said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), said in January that "Trump will work with Maduro because he's the one who will take office,” while Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem revoked temporary protected status for 600,000 Venezuelans because Venezuela had “made improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime” — just a day before Rubio called the country an “enemy of humanity.”
Trump’s need to fulfill his promises on mass deportations seems to be undermining the South Florida delegation's illusion of regime change in Caracas.
Its members are now lobbying Trump officials to make exceptions for their Venezuelan and Cuban constituents not to be deported, knowing these actions could drastically undermine their base of electoral support.
Rubio and Claver-Carone assure that Grenell’s face-to-face with Maduro won’t change the administration’s commitment to Venezuela’s opposition, but U.S. interests like stemming migration to the U.S.-Mexico border and lowering gas prices — which the reimposition of oil sanctions would complicate — have, for now, taken precedence over support for an opposition whose exorbitant and seemingly ineffective USAID awards during Trump’s first term have attracted more scrutiny amid the agency's unraveling.
What remains to be seen is whether Trump officials’ overtures to regional adversaries will be limited to Venezuela or whether it will extend to countries like Cuba, also the target of “maximum pressure” during Trump’s first term in office. While Rubio has already announced a return to a “tough Cuba policy,” Trump confidantes Elon Musk and Sergio Gor have both traveled to the island, where Trump has registered his trademarks and his executives have long eyed prime beachfront property.
Rubio may have been received with open arms by U.S. allied countries on his Central America tour, but leaders of many of the region’s economic powerhouses like Colombia, Mexico and Brazil, all led by center-left presidents not particularly amenable to Rubio, have been resistant to the administration’s heavy-handed impositions and ultimata, notably on the treatment of their deportees.
Unless Rubio is able to extract the sort of concessions from ideological adversaries that Grenell could in just one afternoon, some within the administration could begin to question Rubio’s ability to deliver for President Trump — setting up a potential clash that may lead to his early, albeit undesired, departure from Foggy Bottom.
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.