Épisodes

  • Talks to end the Ukraine war keep hitting the same wall

    Talks to end the Ukraine war keep hitting the same wall
    Jan 27 2026
    The first official and direct three-way talks between the United States, Russia and Ukraine since the beginning of Moscow’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 had been a rare sign of progress in an otherwise bleak start to the new year. But they ended without a breakthrough on January 24, with follow-up discussions before too long likely, but not certain. It is hardly surprising that a peace agreement continues to elude the negotiators and mediators.The fundamental disagreement between Moscow and Kyiv over the status of territory remains. Russia formally annexed four regions of Ukraine in September 2022 — in addition to the Crimean peninsula which it has occupied illegally since 2014 — but still does not fully control them after nearly four years of fighting. Russian President Vladimir Putin appears convinced that his troops will eventually be able to capture the remaining Kyiv-controlled parts of the Donetsk region — some 5,000 square kilometres — just as they have done with almost all of the neighbouring region of Luhansk. At the current rate of Russia’s military progress, this could easily take another year; so Mr Putin would likely prefer to get his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to withdraw his forces. Mr Zelenskyy rejects the idea of giving up any territory that Russia has not been able to take by force — not least because there is no guarantee that the Kremlin would stop there. Ukrainian public opinion is largely behind him on this. In addition, the Ukrainian president cannot simply give away territory on his own. The Ukrainian constitution requires that any such deal be approved in a referendum.More important still are strategic considerations. Those areas in the Donbas that Ukrainian forces still hold are part of the country’s best developed defensive lines, including several so-called fortress cities. Handing these over would leave Kyiv much more exposed in the future and give Moscow an improved staging ground for renewed offensives.This makes an agreement on post-war security guarantees all the more crucial for Ukraine. After meeting with his American counterpart, Donald Trump, at the World Economic Forum in Davos just a day before the talks in Abu Dhabi, Mr Zelenskyy said that an agreement on security guarantees from the United States had been finalised. That may be so, but it has not been officially signed as yet, making any Ukrainian concessions even more risky.As a result of their respective calculations, neither side appears to be willing to budge.All of this should be fairly obvious to any mediator, and it is hard to see how the American team, led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, can be blind to these facts.If they were hoping to apply pressure on either or both sides to make concessions, their strategy has not, for now, worked.Even in the chaotic foreign policy process of the current administration in the White House, it seems clear that American pressure on Russia is unlikely to be forthcoming in any meaningful way — and the Kremlin appears acutely aware of this.Mr Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, made it very plain before the start of the trilateral discussions in Abu Dhabi on Friday that Russia’s demand for full control of the Donbas remained in place. Overnight, Russia then carried out another devastating strike against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which is already teetering on the brink of collapse.In addition, Russia continues to frame its current ‘offer’ to freeze the frontlines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in exchange for full control of Donetsk as the “Anchorage formula”, a term the Kremlin uses to refer to the agreement that Mr Putin and Mr Trump apparently struck at their summit in Alaska last August. By couching its territorial demands in terms of the “Anchorage formula”, Moscow tries to establish a fait accompli that gives the impression of a properly negotiated deal, and crucially one agreed by the American president. It flatters the dealmaker in Mr Trump, presents a potentially significant win for Mr Putin, and casts Mr Zelenskyy in the light of the unreasonable spoiler if he rejects an ‘agreement’ he had no part in negotiating.These are not the signals of good-faith negotiations.After more than a year of so far fruitless efforts, Mr Trump’s team also still does not seem to understand that pressure on Kyiv alone is not going to get them, or anyone else, closer to a deal. US support remains important for Ukraine and gives Washington leverage over Mr Zelenskyy, but it is no longer the only game in town.Mr Zelenskyy’s European partners remain steadfast in their backing and are picking up their game, albeit only slowly. The fact that Europe stayed united and faced Mr Trump down over his threats to annex Greenland — if need be, by force — will also weigh positively in Mr Zelenskyy’s calculations. With an even deeper rupture in the transatlantic alliance avoided for now, Europe will be both less ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    7 min
  • Trump's performance at Davos underscored America's diminishing trustworthiness and dependability

    Trump's performance at Davos underscored America's diminishing trustworthiness and dependability
    Jan 26 2026
    The week that marked the first anniversary of Donald Trump’s return to the White House for a second term as US president was particularly turbulent, even by his standards and especially for the transatlantic alliance. If there was even a hint of Trump being capable of self-reflection, one could add that it was a rather embarrassing week for him — on at least three counts.First, after much bluster about Greenland, including hints that if push came to shove he would authorise a military operation to get his hands on territory of long-standing Nato ally Denmark, Trump made a first climb-down and ruled out the use of force in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday. He also dropped the threat of imposing tariffs on the eight European Nato members who dispatched a small number of military personnel to Greenland in a highly symbolic show of support.Second, and contrary to earlier pronouncements that the American security guarantee for Europe was conditional on allies’ financial contributions to Nato, he insisted that the US would always be there for its Nato allies. But, as is usually the case with Trump, it was one step forward, two steps back as he cast doubt on them reciprocating in an American hour of need.Worse still, in a subsequent interview with Fox News, he denigrated the sacrifices of allied servicemen and women in Afghanistan, prompting a chorus of justified outrage from across the alliance. After a phone call with the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, on Saturday, and an expression of concern in a message conveyed “through backchannels” from King Charles III, Trump changed his tune. He did not exactly apologise, but he used his TruthSocial platform to praise the bravery and sacrifices of British soldiers in Afghanistan. No other Nato ally has received even that acknowledgement yet.Third, by the end of the week we were also reminded that progress on one of Trump’s flagship projects — making peace between Russia and Ukraine — is as elusive as ever. The US president appeared to have had a constructive meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, in Davos. But a much-touted agreement on US security guarantees has not been officially signed yet. And no progress has been made either on a deal for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.Two rounds of talks between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators in Abu Dhabi over the weekend failed to produce any concrete results apart from an agreement to meet again the following weekend. While Trump’s mediators tried, unsuccessfully, to push Moscow and Kyiv to compromise over the future of Ukrainian territory claimed but not controlled by Russia, the Kremlin’s relentless air and ground campaigns continued unabated — to bomb Ukraine into submission now and increase the costs for its post-war reconstruction later.Contrary to how swiftly he threatened the imposition of tariffs on supposed allies for sending a few dozen soldiers to Greenland, Trump failed, yet again, to get tough on Putin. There is still no sign of a vote on a bipartisan sanctions bill which Trump allegedly greenlit in early January. The bill, in the making since the spring, aims to cripple Russia’s ability to finance its war against Ukraine and “to provide sustainable levels of security assistance to Ukraine to provide a credible defensive and deterrent capability.”One could, therefore, argue that it was a bad week for Trump and a much better week for the rest of the western alliance. After all, Nato is still intact. Europe seems to have discovered more of a backbone and, perhaps more importantly, that pushing back against Trump is not futile. The US president has neither abandoned Zelensky nor walked away from mediating between Russia and Ukraine. And Trump might soon get distracted by plans for regime change in Cuba or Iran, preventing him from wreaking any more havoc in Europe.But such a view underestimates both the damage already done to relations with the US and that yet to come. Consider the issue of Greenland. Trump’s concession to renounce the use of force was, at best, only a partial climb-down. Throughout his speech, Trump reiterated several times that he still wants “right, title and ownership” of Greenland. And as it’s not at all clear what his framework deal actually entails, his closing comments on Greenland included an unambiguous warning to other Nato members that they can “say ‘yes‘ and we will be very appreciative, or ... ‘no’ and we will remember.” There is already, it seems, some advance remembering happening in Trump’s renamed Department of War, which released its new national defence strategy on Friday night. According to the document, the Pentagon will provide Trump “with credible options to guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain from the Arctic to South America, especially Greenland, the Gulf of America, and the Panama Canal.”On Nato, Trump’s ambivalence towards the ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    7 min
  • Europe's push-back over Greenland forced a Trump climb-down — for now.

    Europe's push-back over Greenland forced a Trump climb-down — for now.
    Jan 25 2026
    Even before marking the first anniversary of his return to the White House, United States President Donald Trump doubled down on his controversial and highly damaging bid to take over Greenland, warning on January 19 that being snubbed for the Nobel peace prize last year has made him no longer obliged to think “purely of peace”. Three days later, during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mr Trump backed down — somewhat — and ruled out the use of force in his pursuit of the world’s largest island. It was a climbdown of sorts, even perhaps mildly embarrassing for the US president, and not the first time that a combination of push-back from Congress and NATO allies together with an adverse market reaction made him change course. So, how did we get there and is this the end of the Greenland saga?Buoyed by what he clearly saw as a successful military operation in Venezuela and the subsequent apprehension of a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic, the US president seemed determined to annex Greenland — a move he has claimed is essential to US national security — no matter the consequences.And these consequences were beginning to look more serious than ever.A meeting of officials from the US, Denmark and Greenland on January 14 had failed to reach any breakthrough. The following day, several European countries deployed small contingents of their armed forces to Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO and EU member Denmark.The public message attached to this was that the Europeans were serious about their commitment to Arctic security — allegedly one of Mr Trump’s key concerns. But combined with combative rhetoric about Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic self-determination, Europe also sent a message to Mr Trump that he had crossed a line that could and would no longer be ignored.Europe’s tougher stance on Greenland’s future did not mean that war between the US and its erstwhile European NATO allies was imminent or that the end of the transatlantic alliance was nearing, although the latter suddenly seemed a much more realistic possibility. Trump’s initial response to this European escalation — as he must have perceived it —was threatening to impose an additional 10 per cent levy on all goods imported from the eight European countries that he saw as the main obstacle between him and his ambitions in Greenland. These new tariffs were to take effect on February 1, before an increase to 25 per cent in June.The European response, at least rhetorically, was swift and clear: Europe will not be blackmailed. Even Italy’s leader, Giorgia Meloni, who is relatively close to Mr Trump, said the tariffs “would be a mistake”.What it lacks in military heft, the European Union makes up in economic leverage, and in a potential trade war, the EU would definitely be a more formidable opponent for Mr Trump. It still has some €93 billion worth of tariffs on US goods at the ready which Brussels drew up in response to Mr Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs last April.The EU took a pause on the implementation of these retaliatory tariffs when it managed to iron out a trade deal with the US last August. That six-month pause is running out on February 7. Unless there is a vote to extend the moratorium on their implementation, they will automatically come into force. This is an important consideration for both Brussels and Washington: it removes the threat of Mr Trump’s European allies, like Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, blocking their extension.An EU retaliation could quickly lead to an escalating tariff war. Given European dependence on the US for exports and imports of US-made weapons, Mr Trump, in all likelihood, has escalation dominance in a transatlantic trade war. This could then force the EU to deploy its ultimate trade weapon or the “big bazooka” — the so-called anti-coercion instrument.Initially devised to deal with China, the powerful but never-before-used instrument gives the European Commission powers in various areas, including restricting US access to EU public contracts, investment and even trade in services, one of the few areas where the US runs a surplus.Brussels might have had stronger cards in an economic war with the US, but if push came to shove, it would probably still have lost. But a win for Washington would also have come at a high cost for the US, never mind the irreparable damage to the West as we know it.So, given these likely and unpleasant outcomes, why was Europe pushing back so hard, and why now?First, it seemed clear that the strategy of flattering and placating Mr Trump had reached its use-by date. Europe is unlikely to be able to prevent a determined American president from taking Greenland, but it clearly also no longer wanted to pretend that these were just cultural misunderstandings among friends that could be magically fixed.Second, part of the European strategy was playing for time. Mr Trump is keen on ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • A privatised United Nations with a single shareholder

    A privatised United Nations with a single shareholder
    Jan 21 2026
    It is hard to believe that Donald Trump has only been back in the White House for a year. His accomplishments are many — but most of them are of questionable durability or benefit, including for the United States.Even his UN-endorsed 20-point ceasefire and transition plan for Gaza released on September 29, 2025, is now in danger of being subsumed in yet another grandiose fantasy of the American president: the so-called “board of peace” to be chaired by Trump.This group of international dignitaries was originally intended to oversee the work of a more technical committee, comprising technocrats responsible for the day-to-day recovery and rebuilding of Gaza. But the board of peace’s charter makes no mention of Gaza at all.Instead, its opening sentence declares that “durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed”.To make this break with such an unseemly past, the board of peace proclaims itself to be “an international organization” to “secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict” and commits to conducting its operations “in accordance with international law”.To which the immediate reaction is that unilateralism is increasingly the hallmark of Trump’s second administration. Settling conflicts is the prerogative of the UN. And, over the past year, the US has shown itself to be unconcerned about international law.Membership of the board is by invitation from the chairman: Donald Trump — who has broad and flexible discretion on how long he will serve for and who will replace him when he does decide to go. Those invited can join for free for three years and buy themselves a permanent seat at the table for US$1 billion (£740 million) — in cash, payable in the first year.With Trump retaining significant power over the direction of the board and many of its decisions it is not clear what US$1 billion would exactly buy the permanent members of the board — except perhaps a chance to ingratiate themselves with Trump.There is no question that established institutions have often failed to achieve durable peace. Among such institutions, the UN has been a favourite target for Trump’s criticism and disdain, as evident in a recent directive to cease participating in and funding 31 UN organisations. Among them were the peace-building commission and the peace-building fund, as well as the office of the special representative for children in armed conflict.The deeper and more tragic irony in this is threefold. First, there is strong evidence that the UN is effective as peace builder, especially after civil war, and that UN peacekeeping does work to keep the peace.Second, there is no question that the UN does not always succeed in its efforts to achieve peace. But this is as much, if not more often, the fault of its member states. There’s a long history of UN member states blocking security council resolutions, providing only weak mandates or cutting short the duration of UN missions. They have also obstructed operations on the ground, as is evident in the protracted crisis in Sudan, where the UN endlessly debates human suffering but lacks most of the funds to alleviate it.Third, even though he is unlikely to ever admit it publicly, Trump by now has surely found out for himself that making peace is neither easy nor straightforward despite his claim to have solved eight conflicts.And the more so if the “pragmatic judgement” and “common-sense solutions” that the charter to his board of peace subscribe to end up being, as seems likely, little more than a thin disguise for highly transactional deals designed to prioritise profitable returns for an America-first agenda.Part of the reason why the UN has success as a peacemaker and peacebuilder is the fact that it is still seen as relatively legitimate. This is something that is unlikely to be immediately associated with Trump or his board of peace if it ever takes off.Such scepticism appears well founded, particularly considering that among the invitees to join the board is the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who is not particularly well known for his love of peace. Even Trump, on rare occasions, admittedly, seems to have come to this realisation. But it did not stop him from inviting Putin to join the board of peace.So, what to make of it all? Is it just another of Trump’s controversial initiatives that he hopes might eventually earn him the Nobel peace prize after all? Is it merely a money-making opportunity for Trump personally? Or is it designed for his political and corporate allies, who might benefit from projects implemented by his board of peace? Ultimately, it might be any of these.The real question needs to be about the consequences for the current system. What Trump is effectively proposing is to set up a corporate version of the UN, controlled and run by him. That he is capable of such a ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    7 min
  • Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine now outlasts the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany

    Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine now outlasts the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany
    Jan 15 2026
    Russia’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine passed a significant milestone on January 13. It has now outlasted the 1,418 days it took Vladimir Putin’s notorious predecessor, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, to bring his war against Nazi Germany to a successful conclusion.The two wars are hard to compare in any reasonable way. But there are nonetheless some important parallels worth pointing out. The most wishful parallel is that aggression never pays.After some initial setbacks, Stalin’s Soviet Union turned things around on the battlefield and drove the German aggressors and their allies out of the country. This was possible because of the heroism of many ordinary Soviet citizens and because of the massive support the US gave to the Soviet war effort.Ukrainian heroism is unquestionably key to understanding why Russia has not prevailed in its aggression against Ukraine. Support from western allies is, of course, also part of this explanation. But the inconsistent, often hesitant and at times lacklustre nature of this support also explains why Kyiv is increasingly on the back foot.It would be easy to put most of the blame for recent Ukrainian setbacks on the US president, Donald Trump, and his approach to ending the war. Back in the second world war, there were several German attempts to cut a deal with the western allies in order to be able to focus the entire war effort against the Soviet Union. Such efforts were consistently rebuffed and the anti-Nazi coalition remained intact until Germany’s surrender.Now, by contrast, a deal is more likely than not to be made between Trump and Putin. Emboldening rather than weakening Russia, such a deal would come at the steep price of Ukrainian territorial concessions and the continuing threat of further Russian adventurism in Europe.But it is also important to remember that Trump has only been back in the White House for a year, and that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine started almost four years ago. During the first three of these years, the western coalition supporting Ukraine firmly stood its ground against any concessions to Russia in the same way as the allies of the second world war rejected a deal with Germany.What they did not do, however, is offer the unconditional and unlimited support that would have put Ukraine in a position to defeat the aggressor. Endless debates over what weapons systems should be delivered, in which quantities, how fast and with what conditions attached have rightly frustrated Ukrainians and their war effort. This may have become worse under Trump, but it did not start with him.Nor can all the blame for the dire situation in which Ukraine now finds itself be attributed only to the imperfections of the support it received. Lest we forget, Russia committed the unprovoked crime of aggression against its neighbour and is violating key norms of international humanitarian law on a daily basis with its relentless campaign against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure.Yet several major corruption scandals in Ukraine, including one that left key energy installations insufficiently protected against Russian air raids, have hampered Kyiv’s overall war effort as well. They have undermined the country’s resilience, weakened public and military morale and have made it easier for Ukraine’s detractors in the west to question whether defending the country is worth taxpayers’ money.The parallel to the second world war is again interesting here. There is now much hand wringing in the west over corruption in Ukraine – a problem as old as the country has been independent – and the democratic legitimacy of its president, government and parliament.Volodymyr Zelensky, the democratically elected, and still widely supported, leader of a country defending itself against an existential threat, has to justify constantly why he will not violate his country’s constitution and sign over territory to its aggressive neighbour.Back in the 1940s, western allies had few qualms to back Stalin in the fight against Hitler. They supported Stalin despite him being a murderous dictator who had used starvation as a tactic to commit acts of genocide against Ukrainian farmers, killed almost the entire officer corps of the Polish army in a series of mass executions and was about to carry out brutal mass deportations of tens of millions of people.The choices the western allies made in the 1940s when they threw their support behind Stalin may have been morally questionable. But they were driven by a keen sense of priorities and a singular focus on defeating what was at the time the gravest threat.That too is missing today, especially in Trump’s White House. Not only does Trump seem to find it hard to make up his mind whether it is Putin or Zelensky who is to blame for the war and the lack of a peace deal, he also lacks the sense of urgency to give this war his undivided attention.Worse than that, some of the distractions Trump ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    7 min
  • Trump's Venezuela raid foreshadows more turbulence in a new 'great power' carve-up of the world

    Trump's Venezuela raid foreshadows more turbulence in a new 'great power' carve-up of the world
    Jan 5 2026
    The US military operation in Venezuela in the early hours of January 3, rang the new year in with a bang — even by the current standards of American foreign policy. After months of military build-up and planning, US president Donald Trump gave the go-ahead for the apprehension of the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.Operation Absolute Resolve — the codename for this successful effort to capture and abduct a sitting head of state — has no recent precedent other than the US under President George H. W. Bush snatching Panama’s strongman Manuel Noriega some 36 years ago. This latest blatant and unashamed violation of international law confirms even for the last doubter that Trump cares little about rules and norms. As such, it also signals the continuing erosion of what is left of the rules-based international order.For all of the US president’s triumphalism at his post-operation press conference, he cannot be certain that the undoubted tactical success of capturing Maduro will equate to an enduring success of moulding the western hemisphere in his own image. As his predecessors have found in Afghanistan and Iraq, regime change is a fraught and costly business. It is also one that is deeply unpopular among Trump’s Maga base.The temptation for the White House, therefore, is to declare victory after the weekend’s operation against Maduro and quickly move on to other targets while the world is still stunned by the audacity of kidnapping a sitting foreign leader.But any expectations that other countries in the western hemisphere will fall like the proverbial dominoes that Trump’s neo-con predecessors envisioned in the Middle East after the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 are deeply misplaced. And yet the people and leaders of Cuba (long an obsession for Trump’s secretary of state, Marco Rubio), Colombia (the largest supplier of cocaine to the US) and Mexico (the key route through which fentanyl gets into the US) will be deeply worried about their future prospects in a Trumpian world after they got name-checked at Trump’s press conference.The same goes for Greenlanders. Trump has, since his first term in office, repeatedly claimed that the US needs Greenland, which is legally part of EU and Nato member Denmark. And he did so again in the aftermath of the operation against Venezuela, stating over the weekend that the US “need[s] Greenland from the standpoint of national security”. Equally unsettling was the ominous tweet by Maga influencer Katie Miller — the wife of Trump’s influential deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller — showing a map of Greenland in the colours of the US flag, with the caption “SOON”.Much to the dismay of Greenlanders, the US president certainly won’t be discouraged by the meek response from many European officials to the intervention in Venezuela. This, too, is deeply disconcerting, signalling that many of the erstwhile most ardent defenders of international law have given up pretending it matters any more. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, was first out of the block, with a post that started by pointing out Maduro’s lack of legitimacy as president and ended with an expression of concern for European citizens in Venezuela. She just about managed to squeeze in that “the principles of international law and the UN charter must be respected”. But this sounded like — and almost certainly was — an afterthought. A subsequent joint statement by the EU26 (that is, all member states except Hungary) was similarly equivocal and did not explicitly condemn Washington’s breach of international law. The British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, focused his statement on the fact that “the UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela”, that he “regarded Maduro as an illegitimate President” and would “shed no tears about the end of his regime”. Before closing with his desire for a “safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people”, the former human rights lawyer briefly reiterated his “support for international law”.The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, however, wins the prize for prevarication. Not only did he make almost identical comments about Maduro’s lack of legitimacy and the importance of a transition in Venezuela, he also noted that a legal assessment of the US operation is complicated and that Germany will “take its time” to do so.While there was a mixture of enthusiasm and worry across Latin America, the strongest condemnations came from Moscow and Beijing.Russian President Vladimir Putin had signalled his support for Maduro early on in the escalating crisis at the beginning of December. A statement by the Russian foreign ministry initially merely offered support for efforts to resolve the crisis “through dialogue”. In subsequent press releases, Russia took a stronger line, demanding that Washington “release the legitimately ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    11 min
  • The US attack on Venezuela erodes further what is left of the old world order

    The US attack on Venezuela erodes further what is left of the old world order
    Jan 4 2026
    United States President Donald Trump has never been particularly discreet about wanting regime change in Venezuela. After months of sabre-rattling, the direct “large scale strike” on the South American country came in the early hours of January 3 — and involved a special forces operation apprehending Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro.This demonstration of unconstrained force is the first time that the US has effectively kidnapped a head of state since 1989 when some 20,000 US soldiers descended on Panama and took its de facto leader, General Manuel Noriega, to the US to face charges of drug trafficking.But the US operation is more than simply a shocking violation of international law. It is yet another major departure from Trump’s re-election platform of limiting US overseas entanglements. For, at his subsequent press conference, the president announced that the US “are going to run the country” until a proper transition can take place. He stopped short of committing troops to an actual occupation force, but neither did he explicitly rule out any American boots on Venezuelan ground.The Trump administration is without doubt the key player deciding whether the situation in Venezuela now escalates further or not. But much will also depend on how Venezuelans will react. Maduro was not vastly popular, to say the least, but he and his inner circle exercised full control over the armed forces and security apparatus. His government, for now, remains in power but the capture of Mr Maduro could set off infighting among the remaining elite and trigger a new wave of mass protests against the regime.In the immediate aftermath of the operation, Venezuela’s defence minister said that the country will resist the presence of foreign troops and that all of the country’s armed forces will be deployed. Whether these forces will ultimately put up a fight during a second wave of US strikes, which Mr Trump threatened during his press conference, however, is not clear. Nor is it obvious how pro- and anti-Maduro forces will position themselves in the coming days, or what exact plans the White House has in place to deal with widespread unrest in Venezuela should that happen.Venezuela is at a critical juncture now, but the repercussions of this US operation will be felt well beyond the country. Mr Trump said the US and the western hemisphere are a much safer place to be after the US operation. But no matter the lengths to which he and his supporters go in justifying their action, this operation will further erode what is left of a rules-based international order.The US operation confirmed the trend to a return to thinking of the world as spheres of influence — as articulated in the Monroe doctrine some two-hundred years ago and in the new national security strategy of the US, released just a few weeks back. The “president of peace”, as Trump likes to portray himself, and his war secretary, Pete Hegseth, were unequivocal that this operation was a clear indication of Washington’s determination to re-assert absolute dominance in the western hemisphere — in word and deed.Unsurprisingly, several countries in the Western Hemisphere, which the US sees as the core of its sphere of influence, denounced the US operation, as did Russia and China.Russian President Vladimir Putin had signalled his support for Maduro early on in the escalating crisis at the beginning of December. A statement by the Russian foreign ministry initially merely offered support for efforts to resolve the crisis “through dialogue”. In subsequent press releases, Russia took a stronger line, condemning the US operation as “unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of an independent state” and then demanding that Washington “release the legitimately elected president of a sovereign country and his spouse.”China similarly condemned the US operation as a “clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter” and urged Washington to “ensure the personal safety of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, release them at once, stop toppling the government of Venezuela, and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”But it is unlikely that the US will face any immediate major repercussions beyond some handwringing about the need to respect international law, including from other democratic countries. The US operation to capture Maduro sets a dangerous precedent, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres put it. That it will likely further encourage other states with similar pretensions to their own spheres of influence goes almost without saying.The US president has made no secret about his desire to take over the Panama Canal and Greenland for national security reasons, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio has long taken a hard line on Cuba’s government. If the operation in Venezuela indicates how the White House envisages the implementation of...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    6 min
  • The fall of Siversk caps a difficult year for Ukraine

    The fall of Siversk caps a difficult year for Ukraine
    Dec 26 2025
    Over the last few days, Ukrainian troops have withdrawn from the town of Siversk in the Donetsk region. This brings Russian troops to within 30km of Sloviansk which is the most important hub in the northern part of the so-called fortress belt of cities in Ukraine’s east. This latest withdrawal caps a year of important territorial losses for Kyiv. With assistance from North Korean troops, Russia has pushed Ukrainian forces out of the Kursk region. Moscow also seized some territory in the northern Ukrainian region of Sumy, where fighting flared up again recently. In the east, and after a long and costly campaign, it captured Pokrovsk, another key fortress that Ukraine held onto until December. All of these losses were painful for Ukraine, but they have not led to an actual collapse of the frontlines. Russia either did not have the forces to capitalise on its advances or has been, as is currently the case around Pokrovsk, prevented from doing so by Ukrainian resistance. Individually Ukrainian losses were not strategic victories for Russia, and even collectively they do not mark a decisive turn in fortunes for either side. Moreover, the actual territory gained is relatively small, and overall, the frontline, which still stretches to over 1,000 kilometres in length has not shifted much. But wherever it has shifted, it has — with only few exceptions such as in Kupyansk recently — done so mostly to Russia’s advantage. All of this has come at huge cost in men and materiel, more so to Russia, but also to Ukraine.On the diplomatic front, the year has been more mixed. Donald Trump’s return to the White House has certainly improved the outlook for Russia, but again not in a game-changing way. After multiple proposals, deadlines, acrimonious and disastrous presidential meetings, and a lot of shuttle diplomacy, a clear pathway towards a ceasefire, let alone a lasting peace agreement, is yet to emerge.Another round of talks in Florida between US and Ukrainian and European negotiators, seems to have resulted in a broad agreement on security guarantees, post-war rehabilitation, and a general framework for ending the war. This new 20-point plan a much-improved version of an earlier 28-point plan floated by the White House and based on significant Russian input. It also comes after Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, accepted that Ukraine could give up on its NATO membership ambitions as part of a peace deal.The main sticking point in the current set of proposals remains the question of territory. Here, too, there appears to be some movement towards a possible compromise in the form of a demilitarized zone in those areas of the Donbas that Russia claims but does not yet control. A smaller free economic zone around the Russia-controlled Zaporizhzhya nuclear power station has also been suggested as a way forward on this particular issue. Zelensky now appears keen to resolve the remaining issues directly with Trump.Getting Trump to back a Ukrainian-accepted set of proposals would strengthen the Ukrainian position overall. But as the past 11 months of Trump 2.0 have clearly indicated, this is not merely about the substance of a deal but also, and often more importantly, about the process. Washington at times appears more interested in resetting relations with Russia than in peace for Ukraine. In his dealings with both Zelensky and Putin, the US president has left little doubt that any peace deal will also be a business deal and be negotiated, for the most part, not by seasoned diplomats but by friends and family aligned to Trump’s personal interests and his America-first agenda. This highly disruptive approach to peace making has inserted a new dynamism into the peace process but produced few tangible or desirable results.Trump’s diplomacy on Ukraine, as well as more generally, has alienated core transatlantic allies and has time and again enabled consequence-free Russian push-back. There are no signs that this pattern will end in the near future.Nor will Russia stop playing for time. After the current proposals were shared with Russia, the Kremlin responded saying that while they will be studied carefully and a position be prepared on this basis, while the Russian foreign ministry noted “slow but steady progress”.Given that Zelensky, domestically weakened by yet another corruption scandal, has already made a number of important concessions, such as on NATO membership and on a demilitarized zone, the question is how much more Ukraine can possibly give or be expected to give. Kyiv’s recent concessions should partly be seen as an effort to keep the US, and President Trump personally, engaged in the process. It also reflects Kyiv’s precarious overall position. Ukraine has achieved some reprieve after the EU managed to agree on a €90 billion loan last week and Kyiv negotiated a deal to restructure around €2 billion in growth-linked debt. But in the absence of stronger US sanctions and a ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min