Follow us on social

||

Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine losing ground as it awaits US aid

'We have to face the truth and recognize that Russia is more effective in its war effort,' than the West, says Ukrainian FM

Reporting | QiOSK

Despite the initial optimism that accompanied the passage of billions of dollars in aid for Ukraine in April, there is a growing sentiment among analysts and American officials that it will serve an important defensive function — but might not be a game changer.

And while Ukraine waits for the latest tranche of American assistance to arrive, the situation on the battlefield is becoming increasingly grim. Over last weekend, Ukrainian forces retreated from three villages in the east of the country as it struggles to push back against Moscow’s latest offensive.

In an interview with Foreign Policy on Wednesday, Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba did not present a particularly optimistic picture of what the new aid may accomplish. While he expressed gratitude for the aid, Kuleba lamented the slow process and urged Kyiv’s Western allies to do more.

“There is a time gap between the announcement of the package and the moment when a Ukrainian artilleryman has more shells to fire back at the Russian invaders,” Kuleba told FP’s editor-in-chief Ravi Agrawal during the Q&A. “And that moment has not come yet, because everything that was announced—we are grateful and we appreciate it—is still on its way. And therefore, in this time gap, bad things may happen, such as the advance of Russian forces on the ground.”

“Unfortunately, I have to admit that Ukraine’s allies are behind schedule, despite their efforts. Some of them are making a great effort. But when I look at what Russia achieved in restoring the production of its defenders’ industrial base and what the entire West has achieved so far, we have to face the truth and recognize that Russia is more effective in its war effort,” he continued. “And this raises a more fundamental question to the West. If it cannot be efficient enough in this particular war effort, then how efficient can it be if other wars and crises of the same scale break out?”

But Ukraine is also confronting a significant manpower problem. The Washington Post reported last week that some in the country believe that President Zelensky’s announcement that 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since 2022 is a significant underestimate.

Nonetheless, Kuleba pushed back against the argument — notably made by Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), among others — that Kyiv faced a “math” problem.

“If the war was only about math, you and I wouldn’t be talking today because the position of the minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine would not exist anymore; we would have lost the war already,” the foreign minister said.

Foreign Policy also asked about the prospect of diplomacy with Russia, wondering why Ukraine had so far neglected to invite one of the two warring parties to a series of “peace summits,” including one forthcoming meeting in Switzerland.

“Your point is valid if you address the war that Russia launched against Ukraine with textbook diplomacy, because all textbooks that we learned from tell us that you need two parties to sit down and negotiate,” Kuleba said. “Our approach comes from reality, and from the experience that we gained between 2014 and 2022, because the aggression against Ukraine started in 2014. Between 2014 and 2022, we had almost 200 rounds of talks with Russia in different formats, with mediators and bilaterally. But nothing worked. It ended up in the large-scale invasion [of 2022]. So we know that it doesn’t make sense to have Russia at the table if you cannot ensure that they act in good faith.”

He elaborated that the only ways to get Russia to negotiate in “good faith” are either to win on the battlefield or to build a global coalition of countries that can agree on shared principles and force Russia to agree.

“After that, communication with Russia may take place and Russia can be part of the talks,” Kuleba acknowledged. “Because you are right: In the end, you cannot put the war to an end without both parties.”

Moscow, for its part, has said that the peace conference in Switzerland is not a serious proposal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday that it is “completely impossible” that a summit without Russia will yield any meaningful results.

In other diplomatic news:

— Chinese President Xi Jinping will travel to Europe next week for the first time in five years. The trip is seemingly part of an ongoing effort from Beijing to present itself as a global peacemaker. Xi wants to play a “larger role in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that has upended global political and economic security,” according to The Associated Press. Earlier reporting said that one of Xi’s goals during his visit will be to convince European leaders to invite Russia to participate in future peace talks.

— Zelensky says that Kyiv and Washington are working toward a long-term bilateral security agreement.

“Also, our teams, Ukraine and the United States, are currently working on a bilateral security agreement, and we are already working on a specific text,” he said during an address this week. “Our goal is to make this agreement the strongest of all. We are discussing the specific foundations of our security and cooperation. We are also working on fixing specific levels of support for this year and for the next ten years, including armed support, financial, political, and joint arms production.”

— The Ukrainian president also said that he expects his country to join NATO only after the end of the war with Russia. "In my personal opinion, we will only join NATO after we have won,” he said during a joint press conference with NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg. “For Ukraine to be accepted into the alliance politically, it needs victory.”

— The U.S. State Department formally accused Russia of using chemical weapons during its war in Ukraine on Wednesday. “The US conclusion tallies with testimony from Ukrainian troops who say they have faced increased encounters with gas and other irritant chemicals on parts of their frontline with Russia’s forces in recent months,” according to CNN. The Kremlin quickly denied the accusation, saying that they were “absolutely groundless, not supported by anything.”

U.S. State Department News:

In a Tuesday press briefing, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel denied reports that the U.S. was easing sanctions on certain Russian banks.

“I’m not sure what reports you’re referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred,” Patel said. “And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable.”


Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace
Reporting | QiOSK
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

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.