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
Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Russia Vladimir Putin, during the World Cup Champion Trophy Award Ceremony in 2018 (shutterstock/A.RICARDO)

Why Putin is winning

Europe

After a furious week of diplomacy in Alaska and Washington D.C., U.S. President Donald Trump signaled on Friday that he would be pausing his intensive push to end war in Ukraine. His frustration was obvious. “I’m not happy about anything about that war. Nothing. Not happy at all,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

To be sure, Trump’s high-profile engagements fell short of his own promises. But almost two weeks after Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and European leaders in Washington, it is clear that there were real winners and losers from Trump’s back-to-back summits, and while neither meeting resolved the conflict, they offered important insights into where things may be headed in the months ahead.

keep readingShow less
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

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.