Follow us on social

google cta
Diplomacy Watch: Trump turns the screws on Moscow

Diplomacy Watch: Trump turns the screws on Moscow

In a sudden about-face, the president went from meeting with Putin to issuing sanctions on Russia’s top oil producers

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

President Donald Trump announced new sanctions on Russia’s leading oil producers in a move aimed at turning the screws on Moscow — and countries that continue to buy Russian oil, like India and Turkey.

The decision surprised many Ukraine war observers, who have struggled to discern the logic behind Trump’s approach to the conflict in recent weeks. Just days before the sanctions announcement, Trump had held a seemingly cordial phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, after which the U.S. leader had started to lean hard on Ukraine to make concessions. Trump had even suggested an imminent, in-person meeting in Budapest, where he and Putin were expected to make progress toward a peace deal.

But now Trump appears to have grown frustrated with the Russian leader. “Every time I speak to Vladimir, I have good conversations and then they don't go anywhere,” he lamented, adding that he cancelled the in-person meeting with Putin because “it just didn’t feel right to me.” (Secretary of State Marco Rubio later clarified that the U.S. would “still like to meet with the Russians.”)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed Trump’s shift, saying that “we have to pressure Putin to stop this war.” The Kremlin, for its part, played down the potential impact of the sanctions, with a foreign ministry spokesperson saying Russia has developed “a strong immunity to Western restrictions.”

It is difficult to estimate the exact impact that the sanctions will have on Russia’s economy. The Kremlin collects roughly a quarter of its budget from oil and gas revenue, but most of that cash comes from taxes on output rather than exports, meaning that the Russian government can still fill its coffers even if foreign sales of oil flag.

Still, the sanctions have already started to damage Russian oil companies’ relationships with foreign partners. As Reuters reported Thursday, Indian refineries are largely planning to cancel their purchases of Russian oil in order to avoid drawing scrutiny from the U.S. (India imported 88 million metric tons of Russian crude in 2024, a sharp jump from 2021, when it only imported 0.42 million metric tons.)

Chinese refineries may be able to pick up some of the slack, in part due to recent European and British sanctions that will prevent some Chinese oil companies from buying Middle Eastern and Canadian oil. Regardless, the sanctions will inject significant uncertainty into the future earnings of Russian oil giants Rosneft and Lukoil, two of Russia’s three largest companies.

Looming over this discussion is the question of whether Trump will be steadfast in this new, more hawkish posture toward Russia. If recent history is any guide, then the smartest bet would be to expect further shifts from the White House in the coming weeks.

In other news related to the war in Ukraine:

—In a joint statement, Zelensky and many European leaders called for an immediate ceasefire followed by talks, with the current frontlines as the “starting point for negotiations.” (The letter goes on to affirm that “international borders must not be changed by force,” raising questions about whether Ukraine would be willing to make any concessions at the negotiating table.) As Politico noted, the statement appeared to be a response to reports over the weekend saying Trump was pushing Zelensky to accept a peace deal with Russia that would involve some swaps of land currently controlled by each side.

—After a White House meeting, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte lauded Trump for “his enormous success in Gaza,” adding that, under Trump, NATO “has been renewed, reinvigorated.” Rutte later told CNN that he endorsed the president’s decision to withhold long-range Tomahawk missiles from Ukraine despite increasing pressure from Zelensky. “It takes months for anyone other than American soldiers to be trained on them,” the NATO leader said. “So it is not that if you decide today, Ukrainians can use them tomorrow.”

—The U.S. quietly allowed Ukraine to start using American targeting data to hit targets in Russia using European medium-range missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported. The move has already helped Ukrainian forces hit targets within Russia, including one attack on a Russian military plant on Tuesday. Zelensky has argued that such strikes are key to forcing Putin to negotiate.

U.S. State Department news:

The State Department did not hold a press briefing this week.


Top Photo: Trump, Zelensky, and Putin with Ukraine graphic. Credit, Khody Akhavi
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

keep readingShow less
Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London
Top image credit: London, UK - 3rd May 2025: Protestors gather outside the Royal Mint to demonstrate against plans to relocate China's embassy to the site. (Monkey Butler Images/Shutterstock)

Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London

Europe

A group of Russian nuns were recently sighted selling holy trinkets in Swedish churches. Soon, Swedish newspapers were awash with headlines about pro-Putin spies engaged in “funding the Putin war machine.” Russian Orthodox priests had also allegedly infiltrated Swedish churches located suspiciously close to military bases and airports.

Michael Ojermo, the rector of Täby, a suburb of Stockholm, tried to quell the alarm. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical espionage, he said, and “a few trinkets cannot fund a war.”

keep readingShow less
world powers
Top photo credit: (Ben_Je/Shutterstock)

US-China symposium: Spheres of influence for me, not for thee?

Asia-Pacific

In the new National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, the Trump team charges that the Monroe Doctrine has been "ignored" by previous administrations and that the primary goal now is to reassert control over its economic and security interests in the Western Hemisphere.

"We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland," states the NDS. The U.S. will work with neighbors to protect "our shared interests," but "where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.