President Donald Trump ordered U.S. nuclear submarines to be positioned in “the appropriate regions” after former Russian President Dimitri Medvedev reminded Trump of Moscow’s nuclear capabilities ad told him to watch the apocalyptic series “The Walking Dead.”
The war of words started over Trump’s threats to impose sanctions if Russia doesn’t comply with ceasefire in 10 days.
Both Medvedev's remarks and Trump's response are pure theatrics. Having refrained from the use of nuclear weapons over the past three years, Russia is obviously not going to launch them in response to a new round of U.S. sanctions — especially since it has successfully overcome several previous rounds.
Trump is right to ask of his new sanctions, "I don't know if sanctions bother him (Putin)." This almost amounts to admitting that the new sanctions are pointless in terms of putting pressure on Russia and are really intended to defend Trump against domestic criticism.
Trump's announced — or alleged — "deployment" of U.S. nuclear submarines is also completely empty. The U.S. has nuclear submarines capable of striking Russia on permanent deployment.
Medvedev and Trump are both trying to look tough for domestic audiences. The rest of us are not however required to applaud this theatre. At the same time, Trump is right to say that words matter, and there should be no place for empty theatrics in a matter as serious as the threat of nuclear war. President Putin should silence his increasingly erratic and provocative subordinate. Trump should take heed of his own words and moderate his own often overblown language and threats.
Putin for his part is correct to say that "in order to approach the issue (and end to the Ukraine war) peacefully, we need to have detailed conversations, and not in public." This would require the Trump administration to prepare a detailed plan for peace and develop a confidential "back channel" through which to present it to the Russian government.
However, if such confidential discussions were to have any chance of success, it would also be necessary for the Russian government greatly to moderate its present conditions for a peace settlement.
Anatol Lieven is Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and in the War Studies Department of King’s College London.
Top photo credit: Dimitri Medvedev (Anton Veselov/Shutterstock) and Donald Trump (Lev Radin/Shutterstock)
Top photo credit: The Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, is standing third from the left in the front row, alongside the Minister of Culture of Qatar, Abdulrahman bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani, who is at the center, and the Minister of Culture, Sports and Youth of Oman, Sayyid Theyazin bin Haitham Al Said, who is second from the right in Doha, Qatar, on May 9, 2024. (Photo by Noushad Thekkayil/NurPhoto)
On Tuesday, Israel bombed Doha, killing at least five Hamas staffers and a member of Qatari security. Israeli officials initially claimed the US green-lit the operation, despite Qatar hosting the largest U.S. military in the region.
The White House has since contradicted that version of events, saying the White House was given notice “just before” the bombing and claiming the strike was an “unfortunate" attack that "could serve as an opportunity for peace.”
The fallout from the bombing is still unclear, but the U.S. decision to merely chalk up Israel’s attack on a major non-NATO ally to an “unfortunate” attack should at least put to rest one persistent myth: that the Qatar lobby holds more sway over the U.S. than the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
The “Qatar lobby” is oftentimes invoked as an epithet by pro-Israel hawks to explain away why Americans are suddenly skeptical about Washington's support for Israel. In an August interview, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Qatar has “spent billions on American universities, vilifying, vilifying Israel, vilifying Jews, and also, frankly, vilifying the United States.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently blamed Qatar for what he claimed was an increase in antisemitism among the American conservative commentariat. They “spent billions on American universities, vilifying, vilifying Israel, vilifying Jews, and also, frankly, vilifying the United States…and all that was left to accumulate primarily in academia, you know, and from there, it sort of distributes itself elsewhere,” Netanyahu argued.
In this, Netanyahu was parroting a trope spread by pro-Israel — and some Israeli government funded — organizations that shifts the blame for nationwide pro-Palestine protests away from the Israeli military’s civilian slaughter and forced starvation in Gaza to Qatar, which allegedly has pushed U.S. college students down a path of raging antisemitism.
The problem with this story is that, while Qatar has spent billions of dollars on American universities, nearly all of that money has gone to American universities within Qatar. In fact, more than 90% of Qatar’s more than $6 billion in higher education funding has explicitly been earmarked to fund higher education in Qatar, where American college students are a distinct minority at schools overwhelmingly filled with Qatari’s and expats living in the country.
Undeterred by this simple fact, Netanyahu and pro-Israel groups have continued to spread the tale that Qatar’s higher education spending is driving students on U.S. college campuses down an antisemitic road. Perhaps no organization has done this more often than the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism (ISGAP). The institute’s scholars have repeatedly testified to Congress about Qatari funding causing antisemitism, despite ampleevidence that their research on this topic is, at best, flawed.
Just as importantly, the organization has not publicly disclosed that it had been funded by the Israeli government as recently as 2020.
This exemplifies the inherent contradiction of Qatar’s influence in America: While the Middle East monarchy does have enormous influence in America its alleged omnipresence is often wildly exaggerated by Qatar’s critics.
Nick Cleveland-Stout and I sought to demystify Qatar’s influence in America in our just-released Quincy Institute brief, “Qatar’s Influence in America.” We found that in just eight years — after being nearly invaded by then rivals Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — Qatar has transformed from something of an afterthought in the influence game to one of the biggest players around.
Just consider the highlights of this massive operation that we document in the brief:
Qatar currently has more than two dozen Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) registered lobbying and public relations firms working for them.
Scores of revolving door all-stars have been lobbying for the Qatari’s, headlined by former representatives Tom Davis (R-Va.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).
No country’s lobbyists report more in-person meetings with policymakers than Qatar.
Qatar is the third most generous foreign donor to think tanks in the U.S.
Multiple Trump administration officials have previously worked for Qatar, including Lee Zeldin, the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency and Kash Patel the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Patel’s boss–Attorney General Pam Bondi–was a registered foreign agent for Qatar until 2021.
Trump’s family and companies have also inked billions of dollars in deals with the Qatari’s. And, of course, Qatar gifted the President a luxury jumbo-jet dubbed “the Palace in the Sky.”
At the same time, Qatar has been doing a lot of things that are quite beneficial for U.S. interests, most notably serving as a mediator for conflicts around the world, including in Afghanistan, Congo, Darfur, Lebanon, Yemen, and, of course, Gaza. All of this led The Guardian to dub Qatar “The global capital of diplomacy.” Our analysis of all FARA reported political activities conducted by Qatar’s lobbyists since the Israel-Gaza war began revealed that Qatar’s lobbyists spend much of their time touting Qatar’s mediator prowess and sending a clear, yet unspoken, message: while Israel is dragging the U.S. into wars, Qatar is trying to end them.
For instance, a one-pager distributed to media contacts by GRV Strategies, on behalf of Qatar, states that “Over the past year, Qatar has worked tirelessly with the United States, Egypt, and other international partners to de-escalate the crisis in Gaza, mediating between Israel and Hamas to try to end the bloodshed, ensure humanitarian aid reaches innocent Palestinian civilians, and secure the release of hostages.” Another Qatari firm, Lumen8 Advisors, facilitated Qatar’s Prime Minister appearing on Tucker Carlson in a segment entitled, “War With Iran? The Prime Minister of Qatar Is Being Attacked in the Media for Wanting to Stop It.”
Carlson was far from the first conservative commentator Qatar’s lobbyists and public relations firms have courted. As early as 2017, Qatar’s agents have been targeting MAGA influencers, with one of the architects of Qatar’s influencer campaign explaining to the Wall Street Journal that, “We want to create a campaign where we are getting into his [Trump’s] head as much as possible.” This is at least partially why Netanyahu’s disdain for Qatari influence overlaps with his aggressive attacks on any conservative that doesn’t recommend unflinching U.S. support for Israel.
Despite Netanyahu and pro-Israel groups’ attacks, however, more and more conservatives are publicly speaking out against Israel’s war on Gaza and questioning how Israel fits into the “America First” mantra. Just last week, for example, at a National Conservatism Conference panel, Curt Mills, editor of The American Conservative, argued, “Why are these our wars? Why are Israel's endless problems America's liabilities?...Why should we accept America First — asterisk Israel? And the answer is, we shouldn't.”
Yet, while there’s currently significant alignment between U.S. interests and Qatar’s interests — namely peace and stability (i.e. not letting Israel pull the U.S. into wars) — this isn’t cause for ignoring Qatar’s influence in the U.S. As we write in the brief, “Qatar’s unprecedented access to and influence of Trump, at the very least, presents a risk of the President putting personal gain over national gain when it comes to Qatar.” While their efforts did not help stave off an attack from the more influential Israel, that is no reason not to keep a watchful eye on Qatari influence in America.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Kaja Kallas, Member of the European Parliament, Patron to Creative Business Cup Estonia (Flikr
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has consistently demonstrated a reductive and simplistic approach to geopolitics that betrays a serious lack of strategic depth and historical knowledge for such a critical role. Her failure is symptomatic of a broader decline of European statecraft.
Reacting to the recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the military parade in Beijing dedicated to the victory over fascism in World War II, attended by dozens of leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kallas expressed that it was "news" to her that China and Russia were among the victors who defeated Nazism and fascism
This is not a minor gaffe; it is a shocking lack of historical literacy. The Soviet Union (whose primary successor state is Russia) suffered over 20 million casualties in the Great Patriotic War, a sacrifice that, in alliance with the United States and Britain, fundamentally broke the back of the Nazi war machine. China, for its part, endured immense suffering in a brutal conflict with Japan that was a crucial, though often overlooked in the West, theater of World War II. China puts its death toll at 20 million. To be unaware of this is to be ignorant of the foundational architecture of the entire post-war order.
To compound this, in a bizarre caricature, she characterized the Chinese as “very good at technology but not that good in social sciences, while the Russians are super good in social sciences but bad at technology." It surely must be alarming that the EU's top diplomat would present this juvenile dichotomy as a legitimate lens through which to view two of the most complex and serious strategic challenges facing the continent.
Kallas’ statements were so egregious that they prompted an uncharacteristically direct and harsh rebuke from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, a move that signals a worrisome degradation of the EU’s diplomatic standing.
This primitive understanding is now being operationalized into a dangerously rigid foreign policy. Under the leadership of Kallas's European External Action Service (EEAS) and Ursula von der Leyen's European Commission, the EU has systematically severed every channel of communication with Russia. In Brussels, there are no behind-the-scenes diplomatic dialogues, no backchannel explorations, and not even engagement at the think-tank level behind closed doors. The official position is an absolutist moral stance: we do not talk to Putin, a war criminal.
This policy is not just strategically naive; it is laughably inconsistent. The same institutions maintain deep, continuous engagement with Israel, whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is under indictment by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes. The EU's floundering response to the war in Gaza laid bare this incoherence: aside from principled stands taken by Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, the bloc has failed to impose any meaningful costs on Israel.
The selective application of the moral principles by the EU masks a strategy of total disengagement with Russia. By refusing all contact, the EU voluntarily blinds and deafens itself, ceding all initiative and forfeiting any ability to probe for weaknesses, explore off-ramps, or even accurately gauge the adversary’s disposition. This is not statecraft; it is self-imposed paralysis.
The EU’s strategic abdication stands in stark contrast to the complex reality of modern global diplomacy. What we witnessed in Beijing was not a formation of some sort of a Chinese-led anti-Western bloc, but a convergence of interests among non-Western powers on two key fronts: minimizing the impact of U.S. secondary sanctions and building independence from the dollar-dominated financial system. For countries like China, India, and Russia, this is not primarily about opposing the West, but rather asserting sovereignty and creating strategic autonomy. They are resisting Washington's ability to unilaterally dictate global economic terms, a concern that resonates far beyond any single alliance.
This is a strategy of multi-vectorism, not monolithic opposition. Nations like Turkey (a member of NATO but cooperating with Russia) and India (balancing ties with the West, China, and Russia) are skillfully playing this game. Even China itself practices it, supporting Russia economically while simultaneously attempting to strengthen ties with Europe.
Russia, largely isolated from the West due to its war in Ukraine, is forced to lean into its Eastern vector, as evidenced by new energy agreements with China. However, this is a pragmatic adaptation, not an ideological marriage. The Kremlin would likely reactivate the Western pivot if offered sufficient economic incentives and political concessions, such as acquiescing to Moscow’s core war aims in Ukraine (namely, recognizing de facto its territorial gains and securing Ukraine’s neutrality, i.e. non-membership in NATO) and lifting all sanctions.
It is currently politically untenable for the West to extend such concessions. Even so, Putin went to meet with Donald Trump in Alaska, which shows his willingness to at least partially restore the Western vector through working bilaterally with Washington. Hence, his visit to Beijing was not any more “anti-American” than his visit to Alaska was “anti-Chinese.”
This pragmatic, multi-vector strategy is not confined to non-Western powers. In fact, it presents a profound internal contradiction for the EU itself, where member states Hungary and Slovakia stand as rare examples of attempting this approach within the bloc. Prime Ministers Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico have consistently advocated for — and practiced — a foreign policy that seeks to maintain open channels with Moscow and Beijing, arguing for diplomacy over perpetual confrontation and emphasizing the severe economic costs of decoupling for European economies.
Yet, rather than engaging with this strategic perspective, the dominant EU narrative simply dismisses them as Putin sympathizers. This refusal leaves the bloc with a foreign policy that is neither coherently values-driven nor pragmatically effective. It is stuck in a moralizing limbo, exemplified by the likes of Kallas and von der Leyen.
Alarmingly, as the rest of the world hedges, the EU is not only refusing to do so but is rather actively increasing its strategic dependence on a single, increasingly disinterested, partner: the United States. Examples abound: the one-sided trade deal; the humiliating supplication to Trump on Ukraine; the detached-from-reality discussions on the “coalition of the willing” providing "security guarantees" to Ukraine that the EU and UK are utterly incapable of fulfilling without American military might; the U.S.-backed snapback of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, an act that directly contravenes European economic and security interests by increasing the likelihood of a new war between Israel and Iran and pushing Tehran further into the arms of the Russia and China.
This lack of strategic autonomy is all the more damning as even the United States, despite its rhetoric, is undergoing a pragmatic reassessment of its global positioning.
If Europe is to navigate the treacherous waters of the 21st century, its leaders must show they possess some basic understanding of the great powers with which they must contend rather than the kind of cartoonish mindset propagated by Kallas and her ilk. The unbearable lightness of the current approach will leave Europe not as a protagonist in the shaping an emergent global order, but rather as its helpless, disoriented, and increasingly irrelevant spectator.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: F-35A Lightning II's from the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, land at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, April 15, 2017. The aircraft arrival marks the first F-35A fighter training deployment to the U.S. European Command area of responsibility or any overseas location as a flying training deployment. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Matthew Plew)
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report has found that Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney, the primary contractors working on the F-35, made product deliveries 238 days late on average in 2024 — despite the program paying them hundreds of millions in performance incentive fees, which encourage completing tasks on-time.
By comparison, the same deliveries were 61 days late on average in 2023. But even then, the contractors’ lateness was chronic, if not absolute. Lockheed Martin delivered 110 aircraft in 2024 to the program — all late.
The report also found that Pratt & Whitney, which makes engines for the F-35, delivered 80 of 82 engines late for F-35 production during 2021 through 2022. All 89 engines were late in the 2022-2023 production period, as were all 66 delivered for 2023-2024.
Stunningly, Pratt & Whitney still earned 56%, 78% and 37% of the program’s performance incentive fees, which were offered to encourage on-time engine deliveries, for those production lots respectively. The DoD even financially penalized Pratt & Whitney for being late; the incentive fees it accrued offset that penalty.
The GAO also reported that the program's ongoing modernization effort, which would improve the fighter jets’ targeting, navigation, communications, and electronic warfare systems, is $6 billion over budget, and will be completed in 2031 — 5 years past its initial due date.
Ultimately, the GAO’s latest warnings of F-35 bloat are on par for the program’s course. The most expensive DoD project to date, the F-35’s repeated cost increasespreviously triggered a critical DoD review back in 2012, forcing the Pentagon to confirm the F-35 project was essential to national security, viable, and cost-effective for it to continue.
The program survived that review, but the new report shows that problems persist. The new GAO report recommends that DoD consider whether its production schedules for F-35, and its incentive fees given to contractors for it, are practical. And it asks the DoD to evaluate whether Lockheed Martin, in particular, can realistically deliver F-35 products in a timely manner.
Will the gravy train finally wreck?
Having monitored the F-35 program for over two decades, the GAO maintains the F-35 has specific capabilities, including its stealth technologies and sensor networking systems, that make it critical for the DoD’s tactical air portfolio, and thus for U.S. national security.
Contractor antics aside, however, other experts believe the gargantuan program has little to offer, essentially because the F-35 will never truly be mission-capable — despite being in service for a decade.
“The latest GAO report underscores once again that the F-35 is not now, and will never be, fully ready for combat,” William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told RS. “The program, which was touted at the outset as representing a ‘revolution in military procurement,’ was doomed from day one because its variants were meant to carry out a huge range of potential missions. It has done none of them well.”
To Hartung’s point, the GAO found in 2023 that the F-35 was only mission capable slightly over half the time.
“It’s time for the Pentagon to cut its losses and phase out the program now, before we waste billions of additional taxpayer dollars on a flawed plane that spends almost half its time in the hangar getting repaired,” Hartung told RS.
Ultimately, compounding concerns about the F-35 program’s chronic financial waste and overall viability have yet to blunt Washington’s interest in it. As matters stand, the Pentagon will continue to increase F-35 production until 2032. And while the president’s budget requested 47 F-35s for FY2026, significantly fewer than the FY2025 request for 68 F-35s, the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2026 still authorized 10 more.
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.