“He’s insisting on one-on-one talks with China’s leader, Xi Jinping — and this has stifled other diplomatic efforts to halt the worsening trade war between the two global powers.
The president won’t authorize White House delegates to engage with Chinese officials in Beijing about a detente, according to two former senior State Department officials and an industry official, who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive ongoing discussions. The Senate has yet to confirm an ambassador to China; Trump has not appointed anyone else to lead talks with Beijing; and the White House isn’t reaching out to the Chinese embassy to begin discussions.
The absence of any substantial outreach has frozen meaningful communications between the two countries and threatened the likelihood of a near-term solution.”
“If an African government wants strong relations with Washington, including future development assistance, it must pay up in other ways — ranging from giving access to minerals to accepting deportees, Trump backers told me.”
…
“Trump and his team are fast-tracking efforts to achieve a goal that other U.S. presidents, including his four immediate Democratic and Republican predecessors, articulated to varying degrees — to shift the nature of the U.S. relationship with Africa. Each saw some progress, but none was willing to slash aid so deeply and suddenly.
The overwhelming sense among African officials is that they need to pony up what they can to effectively buy Trump’s love — the transactionalism for which he’s well known.
The Democratic Republic of Congo is offering access to critical minerals in exchange for U.S. help battling rebel forces; Massad Boulos, the father-in-law of Trump’s daughter Tiffany, was named recently to a role looking into such potential deals in the DRC and other African countries. And Somalia has offered the U.S. operational control over certain ports.
Angola will likely keep U.S. backing for the Lobito Corridor, a rail project that can help the U.S. access minerals. Togo, which is touting its track record in quietly mediating some African conflicts, could also see continued U.S. support, according to a former U.S. official familiar with African diplomatic circles. (A Togo official did not respond to questions about the mediation pitch.)
Some African nations will have an easier time staying on the U.S. radar simply because of their political sway on the continent (hey there, Kenya and Ethiopia), importance to energy markets (Nigeria) or other one-off reasons. Some are more financially and politically able to absorb the shock of losing U.S. aid than others. But some will have little to offer for Washington’s benefit, and they may choose to side with U.S. adversaries on the global stage — whether at the United Nations or in a war.
At least one, South Africa, is likely to be in the cold for a long time under Trump. The president’s team is infuriated by South Africa’s foreign policy choices, especially its diplomatic attacks on Israel, and accuses South Africa’s government of persecuting white Afrikaners. Trump has recently kicked out South Africa’s ambassador in Washington and set up a refugee program for white Afrikaners. South African officials insist Trump is misrepresenting them, especially on the Afrikaner issue.”
…
“Africans are already dying because of the U.S. aid cuts, and there’s been an outcry, mainly among Democrats, over the scaling down of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — aka PEPFAR, the George W. Bush-era health initiative that has funded HIV/AIDS treatments on the African continent.
Still, people in Trump’s orbit are not moved by such anecdotes or data, seeing them as parts of tired arguments that have prevented a needed, radical change in U.S. ties with Africa. One person pointed out that the “E” in PEPFAR stands for “emergency.” Yet the program is now more than two decades old.”
“sanctions have never made the clerical regime abandon its nuclear ambitions. During Trump’s first term, his “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign did real damage to Iran’s economy. Iran didn’t, however, concede its atomic assets.”
…
” Obama’s more friendly outreach only made progress after Washington made a key concession — Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium. The Americans also made a second key concession: allowing Iran to retain a substantial nuclear infrastructure, which could ramp back up at any time. Ali Salehi, the MIT-educated nuclear engineer who was probably the mastermind behind Iran’s dual-use import network, loved the Obama agreement because it would guarantee the Islamic Republic a more advanced, better-financed atomic program that it could grow in the open. It was Obama’s permissive terms much more than the promised financial relief that induced the theocracy to sign the 2015 accord.”
…
” Along the way, the clerical regime might agree to dilute its stock of 60 percent-enriched uranium, which is near weapons-grade, or even cap enrichment at a lower level. It would be a flashy concession that won’t fundamentally affect the complexion or the trajectory of Tehran’s nuclear program. The mullahs know that what matters most are protecting its new generation of centrifuges. With much greater efficiency and speed, these machines can enrich uranium to bomb-grade and can be housed in small facilities that are harder to detect.”
…
“Even a stringent inspection regime, unless supported by a well-placed human-intelligence network, would find locating these centrifuges an excruciatingly difficult task.”
“Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and Gen. Mazloum Abdi make an odd couple. Abdi is a Kurdish rebel leader whose secular army boasts all-women units and fights alongside the U.S. military. Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Golani, is a former franchisee of Al Qaeda who runs the new Islamist government in Damascus.
Yet the two men, both of whom traded in their military fatigues for ill-fitting suits, were shaking hands and grinning for the camera on Monday. They had an agreement—at least in principle—for Abdi’s Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to merge into the government in exchange for Sharaa recognizing Kurds’ hard-won rights. The exact details would be hammered out by the end of 2025 by a newly formed committee.”
…
“President Donald Trump has long wanted to pull U.S. troops out of Syria. But his previous attempt to do so, in October 2019, was a violent catastrophe. Turkey took Trump’s withdrawal announcement as a green light to attack the SDF, and hawks in the administration played what they openly called “shell games” to keep U.S. forces in the country anyway.
A deal between the SDF and the central government might be the best opportunity for a graceful U.S. exit. In fact, Syria TV claims that the deal between Abdi and Sharaa was inked as a direct response to Trump telling his generals to pull U.S. troops out of Syria.”
“The United States said Russia had agreed to an energy and infrastructure ceasefire. After Moscow and Kyiv agree to stop hitting each other’s power plants and electric grids, negotiators would move on to a potential halt in fighting on the Black Sea − and then to a full ceasefire and peace agreement in the 3-year-old Ukraine war, a White House statement said.
Trump said on social media the talk ended “with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine.”
…
“Ukraine backers immediately slammed the scaled-back agreement as one that would primarily benefit Russia.
The agreement would keep Ukraine from striking Russia’s oil refineries”
…
“Putin was likely to pull back from attacks on energy infrastructure in warmer weather anyway, said Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute.
“Recognizing the need to offer something to stay in President Trump’s good graces, he delivered only the bare minimum,” said Coffey, who was senior adviser Britain’s defense ministry.”
“Putin, meanwhile, has had the measure of his Washington opponents — and on Thursday, he demonstrated he understands Trump’s psychology. Praise the man while deflecting him; pat him on the head — something Ukraine’s passionate President Volodymyr Zelenskyy almost fatally forgot to do in his Oval Office meeting last month, prompting a hasty ejection from the White House.
There was no firm Russian nyet to stoke the U.S. leader’s anger, rather a teacher’s applause for Trump’s idea and effort.
The temporary truce was “correct” and “we support it,” the Russian leader said, but, alas, there were many sticking points. Ukrainian units had nearly been encircled in a salient in Russia’s Kursk region and could be forced to “surrender or die,” he explained. Why should they just be let go? “If we stop hostilities for 30 days, what does that mean? That everyone who is there will go out without a fight?”
During the pause in hostilities, will Ukraine be able to mobilize fresh troops and receive weapons from the West? “How will supervision be organized? These are all serious questions.” He then added: “I think we need to talk to our American colleagues … Maybe have a phone call with President Trump and discuss this with him.”
It was all drawn from the playbook that he and his lugubrious Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have used time and again: Obfuscate, delay, muddle, throw in some whataboutism, be sorrowfully unctuous, but make sure to dangle a carrot.”
…
““Trump is much more concerned about this deal than about Ukraine,” Bondarev said. “That gives Putin leverage.””
“After more than three years of war, Ukraine has agreed to a U.S. proposal for an immediate ceasefire. The 30-day truce will come into effect if Russia signs up to the same terms, according to a joint statement from the Ukrainian and American governments.”
…
“Trump’s team say they will now take the plan for a 30-day ceasefire to Moscow. “The ball is now in their court,” said Rubio. Russia has been delighted by Trump’s attitude so far, and the ceasefire does not impose any pre-conditions on the Kremlin, as far as is known, other than a pause in the fighting.
Under the outline ceasefire plan, the pause in the fighting would allow humanitarian steps, including the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of detained civilians “and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children,” the joint statement said.”
…
“After taking the radical step of cutting off the supply of military kit and intelligence to Kyiv, the U.S. has now agreed to resume sharing its secret information. It will also restart “security assistance.””
…
“The terms of the proposal are for a temporary truce that can be extended if both sides agree. Once fighting is paused, negotiations will begin immediately on the terms of a permanent peace. Both the U.S. and Ukraine have promised to name their negotiating teams as soon as possible.”
…
“Ahead of the talks, Rubio warned Kyiv that it would need to make concessions, including on territory. But during the eight hours of discussions in Jeddah on Tuesday, the topic of ceding territory did not even come up, according to a Ukrainian official. The point is certain to be brought up, however, if substantive negotiations begin on a permanent settlement.”
…
“The U.S. president has made clear that he is not inclined to guarantee “very much” by way of Ukraine’s future security, seeing this as a job for Europe, not America. Nothing in Tuesday’s joint statement suggests that has changed.”
“Was that expecting too much from Zelenskyy — to sit and smile while signing away a portion of his nation’s mineral wealth without getting security guarantees in return?”