Follow us on social

ukraine war

Diplomacy Watch: Russia dumps on Trump team’s deal ideas

Moscow says it is less than enamored by NATO moratoriums and peacekeeper plans

Analysis | QiOSK

President-elect Donald Trump has made Ukraine peace talks a focus of his foreign policy, previously saying he’ll get a Ukraine deal “within 24 hours” and readying his envoy Keith Kellogg for a fact finding/listening tour of Ukraine and European capitals first thing after inauguration.

But Russian officials don’t appear all together convinced by ideas that Trump and his team have been putting out in circulation, suggesting a steep hill to climb regarding Ukraine negotiations.

Namely, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov posits that some of these proposals, if implemented, will simply pass the war effort on to Europeans while failing to address the conflict’s root causes.

“Judging from numerous leaks and Donald Trump’s interview with Time magazine on December 12, [the Trump team’s] idea is to suspend hostilities along the line of contact and transfer responsibility for confrontation with Russia to the Europeans,” Lavrov said in an interview with Russian News Agency TASS.

“We are not happy, of course, with the proposals made by members of the Trump team to postpone Ukraine's admission to NATO for 20 years and to station British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.”

The idea of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine has reportedly been floated several times among the Trump team and European officials in recent months. “As long as Ukraine is not in NATO, this aspect can be considered,” Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky had said, while emphasizing NATO membership was the only way to ensure Ukraine’s security against future attacks from Russia.

According to Lavrov, Russia instead wants agreements “that would eliminate the root causes of the conflict and seal a mechanism precluding the possibility of their violation." Lavrov also said Russia is open to restoring relations, but the U.S. must make the first move since it cut them off at the start of the war.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is only shelling out more Ukraine aid on its way out, announcing $5.9 billion in military assistance and budget support on December 30. This includes HAWK air defense munitions, Munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS), Stinger missiles, and various ammunition packages.

“I’ve directed my Administration to continue surging as much assistance to Ukraine as quickly as possible,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “At my direction, the United States will continue to work relentlessly to strengthen Ukraine’s position in this war over the remainder of my time in office.”

In other Ukraine war news this week:

As of January 1, Russia’s state-owned energy company Gazprom has halted gas supplies to Moldova amid a debt dispute between the two countries. Russia says Moldova owes $709 million; Moldova claims it owes $8.6 million, with former Energy Minister Victor Parlicov charging that "the Kremlin's real goal here is to destabilise Moldova and plunge it into chaos.” According to AP, Moldovans are bracing for possible energy shortages; the country has declared a state of emergency.

More broadly, Ukraine has halted Russian gas exports to Europe by refusing to renew relevant transit agreements, according to the New York Times. Ending an era of Russian dominance in the European gas market, Zelensky hailed the halt as “one of Moscow’s greatest defeats” on X. The European Commission says the EU is prepared for the expected change, yet European gas prices are already soaring in light of the halt. Hungary and Slovakia, which had relied on the now-closed route for nearly two-thirds of 2023’s gas demand, are likely to be among the most impacted by the change.

An Azerbaijan passenger plane crashed in Kazakhstan on Christmas day after rerouting from its original destination, Grozny in Chechnya, Russia, where it apparently came under fire from the ground. The crash killed the majority of passengers. In days since, how the plane was downed has become a source of controversy. Sources told Reuters that Russian air defenses downed the plane, with U.S. officials telling NBC the defense systems may have misidentified the plane amid a then-ongoing Ukrainian drone attack on the Grozny airport. Russia subsequently apologized for the incident taking place in Russian air space, but has not taken responsibility for it, angering Azerbaijani officials. Investigations by multiple countries are ongoing.


Diplomacy Watch: Trump's 'gotta make a deal' on Ukraine
Diplomacy Watch: Trump's 'gotta make a deal' on Ukraine
Analysis | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.