Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch Donald Trump Putin Zelensky

Diplomacy Watch: Trump changes tune, music to Zelensky’s ears

The president’s views on Putin shifted dramatically this week

Reporting | QiOSK

After recently deciding to withhold the shipment of certain weapons to Ukraine and opposing new sanctions on Russia, the Trump administration is seemingly reversing course following weeks of unproductive peace talks and multiple large-scale Russian bombardments on Ukraine.

On Tuesday, President Trump expressed deep frustration with President Putin following a lengthy phone call between the two.

“I’m not happy with Putin, I can tell you that much right now, because he’s killing a lot of people,” Trump said. “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin. You want to know the truth? He is very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”

Trump also said that Putin was “not treating human beings right,” and that Washington would be “sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, and I’ve approved that.”

This dissatisfaction also comes as Russia has been pummeling Ukraine with some of its most intense attacks to date. In addition to starting its summer offensive in Ukraine, the Russian military launched 537 aerial weapons last Friday night and over 700 on Wednesday, with each attack resulting in civilian casualties.

The decision is a reversal in policy from earlier in the month when American stockpiles were running low. According to White House Spokesperson Anna Kelley, the decision to halt some shipments “was made to put America’s interests first following a review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe.”

“The Department of Defense is sending additional defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace,” said Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell. Significantly, the administration is weighing sending a Patriot Air Defense system as part of the weapons package. This would be the first Patriot system provided to Ukraine under the Trump administration and the fourth that Kyiv has received from Washington overall.

In addition to approving further weapons shipments to Ukraine, the Trump administration has reportedly given its approval to a measure proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), which would place wide-reaching sanctions on Russian officials and additional tariffs on countries that do business with the Kremlin.

Graham and his co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said in a press release, “the dominating view in the United States Senate is that Russia is the aggressor, and that this horrific war and Putin’s aggression must end now and be deterred in the future.”

The bipartisan bill, which would impose 500% tariffs on certain nations, is gaining momentum and is expected to come to a vote in the Senate later this month, according to Senate leadership.

“The Senate will move soon on a tough sanctions bill – not only against Russia – but also against countries like China and India that buy Russian energy products that finance Putin’s war machine, Sen. Graham posted on X. “The Senate bill has a presidential waiver to give President Trump maximum leverage.

The bill isn't without its opponents, though. “The country that will be harmed the most under this legislation will be the United States, both economically and strategically,” wrote Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in a piece for Responsible Statecraft. “If implemented, these tariffs would make U.S. trade with most of the world untenable, raise prices for American consumers, and risk further weakening the dollar.”

In other Ukraine War news this week:

The Wall Street Journal reports that France and the United Kingdom will begin to coordinate the usage of their nuclear weapons in defense of Europe. “Any adversary threatening the vital interests of Britain or France could be confronted by the strength of the nuclear forces of both nations,” said the French Ministry of Defense.

While in Malaysia for an ASEAN foreign ministers' meeting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. There, Lavrov presented new ideas regarding a peace deal to the United States. According to The Washington Post, Rubio expressed frustration in Moscow’s unwillingness to be flexible, but that the recent proposal was a “new and a different approach.”

Rubio didn’t offer any further details and cautioned that the deal wouldn’t necessarily “guarantee a peace.”

From this week’s State Department briefing:

Spokesperson Tammy Bruce fielded a question concerning Trump’s policy toward weapons shipments to Ukraine and the conflict in general, and confirmed Washington’s policy of supporting Ukraine. “We care about those people,” she said. “We care about making sure that they have what they need.” Bruce added that “the president feels obviously very passionate and determined regarding the ability of Ukraine to defend itself.”


Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)
Diplomacy Watch: Did Israel’s war on Iran help Russia?
Reporting | QiOSK
Gaza starvation children
Top photo credit: Palestinian children suffering from malnutrition receive medical care at Al-Rantisi Children's Hospital, July 24, 2025, Gaza. Photo by Omar Ashtawy apaimages Gaza city Gaza Strip Palestinian Territory 240725_Gaza_OSH_0014 Copyright: xapaimagesxOmarxAshtawyxxapaimagesx

This isn't a 'war' — Israel is destroying a population

Middle East

The prospects for negotiating a ceasefire and an end to the humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip appear as dim as ever. Israeli and U.S. representatives walked out of talks with Hamas in Qatar that had been mediated by the Qataris and Egyptians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is talking about “alternative” means of achieving Israel’s goals in the territory.

President Donald Trump, echoing Netanyahu’s levying of blame on Hamas, asserted that “Hamas didn’t really want to make a deal. I think they want to die.” Trump went on to mention a need to “finish the job,” evidently referring to Israel’s continued devastating assault on the Strip and its residents.

keep readingShow less
Rafael Groosi , Abbas Araghchi , badr Abdelatty
Top photo credit: Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty meets with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi in Cairo, Egypt, June 2, 2025. REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany

Are Iran and Egypt relations on the cusp of a 'seismic shift'?

Middle East

In the heart of old Cairo last month, one of the Middle East’s longest-running rifts was being publicly laid to rest.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, flanked by Egyptian officials, walked through Cairo’s historic Khan el-Khalili bazaar, prayed at the Al-Hussein Mosque, and dined with former Egyptian foreign ministers at the storied Naguib Mahfouz restaurant. Araghchi was unequivocal when he posted during his trip that Egyptian-Iranian relations had “entered a new phase.”

This visit was more than routine diplomacy, but a signal of a potentially seismic shift between two Middle Eastern powers, drawn together by the pull of shared crises.

The rupture began in 1979, when Iran’s revolutionary leaders severed diplomatic relations after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Accords with Israel — a betrayal in Tehran’s eyes. The schism deepened when Cairo granted asylum to the deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was just overthrown by a popular revolution which birthed a new Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. He died and was buried in Egypt in 1980.

During the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), Egypt’s material support for Saddam Hussein’s regime cemented Tehran’s view of Cairo as an antagonist. For decades thereafter, diplomatic relations remained frozen, with only intermittent and largely fruitless attempts at dialogue.

keep readingShow less
David Ellison, Bari Weiss Free Press CBS
Top photo credit: David Ellison, CBS News (Photo By Sthanlee B. Mirador/Sipa USA) and Bari Weiss, Free Press (REUTERS/Mike Blake)
Bari Weiss + CBS: Shoddy, pro-Israel journalism wins the day

How much is shoddy, pro-Israel journalism worth? Ask Bari Weiss.

Media

A thought experiment: would anyone who referred to the killing of 50 Jewish people, many of them “entirely innocent non-combatants, including children,” as “one of the unavoidable burdens of political power, of Palestinian liberation’s dream turned into the reality of self-determination,” ever be hired by a major television news network?

Would their news outlet ever be potentially offered more than $200 million to merge with that major news network?

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.