Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch Donald Trump Putin Zelensky

Diplomacy Watch: Is there a 'next' for Ukraine peace talks?

All is quiet after the Alaska and Washington summits promised big things

Analysis | QiOSK

One of the top headlines that emerged from the Alaska summit earlier this month was that, according to President Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would soon meet face-to-face to find a way to end the war in Ukraine, which has dragged on for more than three years. The president, however, expressed skepticism this week that it would happen anytime soon.

“I don’t know that they’ll meet — maybe they will, maybe they won’t,” he said in the Oval Office on Monday during a meeting with South Korean President Lee Jae-myung. He added that if Putin and Zelensky don’t meet, “there could be very big consequences, but we’ll see what happens. There might be very big consequences because this is something that has to end.”

Indeed, the president followed through this week on his promise to double tariffs on Indian goods to 50% as punishment for New Delhi continuing to import Russian oil, which he views as helping Moscow finance its war on Ukraine.

But whether a Putin-Zelensky meeting is still on offer is up in the air. Some are speculating that Trump and his top advisers perhaps misunderstood what Putin agreed to in Alaska. And Russian Foreign Secretary Sergey Lavrov said on Sunday that Putin would not meet with Zelensky until there’s a set agenda in place. “And this agenda is not ready at all,” he said.

For his part, Zelensky said shortly after the Alaska summit that he was willing to meet with Putin. But this week he accused Russia of “doing everything it can” to prevent that from happening while reiterating his demand that to end the war, he needs strong security guarantees — a concept that remains a major sticking point as the Ukrainians, Europe and the United States have struggled to agree on an outline to a framework that would also satisfy Russian demands.

Zelensky this week reiterated his desire to meet with Putin, floating Turkey, Gulf states or some European nations as possible hosts. He is also sending two senior advisers — chief of staff Andriy Yermak and Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov — to Washington this week for meetings with Trump’s senior envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss the security guarantee issue and a possible future Putin-Zelensky meeting.

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance said on Sunday that the United States “has a lot of cards left to play to apply pressure to try to bring this conflict to a close.” Two days later, the president followed up with a slightly upgraded commitment, promising an “economic war” if the two sides can’t end the conflict. “It’s going to be bad for Russia, and I don’t want that,” he said.

In other Ukraine war news this week: 

Russia stepped up attacks on Ukraine this week, striking the city center in Kyiv that killed at least 21 people and wounded dozens more, according to the Associated Press, which noted that “[t]he bombardment of drones and missiles was the first major Russian attack on Kyiv in weeks.”

The Trump administration has reversed a Biden administration decision that allowed Ukraine to use long-range American supplied missiles to strike targets inside Russia, the Wall Street Journal reported. “The U.S. veto of long-range strikes has restricted Ukraine’s military operations as the White House has sought to woo the Kremlin into beginning peace talks,” the Journal said.

While there has been much discussion about the possibility of European troops being deployed to Ukraine as part of a possible peace settlement, European leaders, the Wall Street Journal reports, “are contending with the inconvenient fact that many voters are opposed to any deployment that places troops in harm’s way.”

From the State Department

There were no State Department press briefings this week.


Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)
Analysis | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.