Russia is dissatisfied with the reported peace deal proposals on Ukraine from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s team, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on December 29, according to state-owned TASS. Earlier reports from the Wall Street Journal indicated that Trump’s team is considering a plan to delay Ukraine’s NATO membership by at least 20 years in exchange for continued Western arms supplies and the deployment of European peacekeepers to monitor a ceasefire. Lavrov said the proposal, as outlined in leaks and Trump’s December 12 Time interview, suggests “freezing hostilities along the current line of contact and transferring the responsibility of confronting Russia to Europe.” “We are certainly not satisfied with the proposals sounding on behalf of representatives of the president-elect’s team,” Lavrov said, specifically rejecting the idea of introducing European peacekeepers in Ukraine.
Reports suggest that President-elect Donald Trump discussed these ideas during a December 7, 2024 meeting in Paris with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron. Trump reportedly emphasized Europe’s need to take the lead in deterring Russian aggression. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that Moscow has received no official signals from Washington regarding these proposals, adding that policy remains under the Biden administration until Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Lavrov expressed Russia’s “willingness to engage” with the new U.S. administration, provided Washington takes the “first move” to restore dialogue severed after the start of Russia’s invasion.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on December 26 that Russia aims to “end the conflict” in 2025 while reiterating hopes for a front-line success. Following Putin’s comments, Sergey Lavrov ridiculed the possibility of a ceasefire, adding that “a ceasefire is a road to nowhere. Putin expressed openness to dialogue with Trump but maintained Russia’s firm demands, including no territorial concessions and a rejection of Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Russia’s rejection of Trump’s peace proposals is significant because it means that the incoming administration will have to revamp its strategy when it comes to negotiating peace between Kyiv and Moscow. As both sides have now rejected parts of the president-elect’s proposal, in order to facilitate negotiations, Trump will have to come up with an entirely new strategy.
President-elect Donald Trump has previously said on numerous occasions that he would end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours” and his advisers have reportedly been coming up with a peace plan that would involve freezing all conflict at the front lines and creating a demilitarized zone. Keith Kellogg, the president-elect’s nominee to serve as special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, has said that the nearly three-year war between the two countries will be “resolved in the next few months.” During his recent interview with Time magazine Trump said that he will not abandon Kyiv and that he believes the war would not have broken out if he was president. Russia had previously said that it was “ready to study Trump’s proposals on Ukraine” but specified that “studying” did not mean “agreeing.”
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week
1. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Meet in Helinski For Controversial Summit
President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week in a controversial summit in Finland.
Amid chaos following his week-long European trip and the ongoing investigations into allegations that the Russian government colluded with his 2016 Presidential campaign, President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir in Helinski, Finland on July 16 in their first-ever summit meeting. The summit marked the first official meeting between the leaders after previous unofficial talks between Trump and Putin at the 2017 G20 conference in Vienna. In addition to meeting with Putin, Trump also met the Finnish President Sauli Niinistö in the Presidential Palace. Some of the topics Trump pledged to discuss with Putin include the ongoing Syrian Civil War, the tensions between Russia and Ukraine, the steadily declining relationship between the US and Iran, and measures to reduce the threat of nuclear war between the US and Russia.
The summit between President Trump and Putin was wrought with controversy from the moment of its announcement. On June 14, a group of leading Senate Democrats urged Trump to forgo meeting Putin face-to-face and instead called on the President to work to remove the Putin regime from power and pressure the Russian government into stopping their supposed malign activities on the world stage. The letter was written by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and endorsed by Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and many others. Additionally, Trump tweeted on the morning of the summit that the relationship between Russia and the US has “never been worse,” blaming the declining relationship on “foolishness and stupidity” on the part of the US, and referenced the ongoing Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, calling it a “witchhunt”. Trump also indicated his inclination to accept Putin’s denial of Russian interference, saying “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!
The Helsinki 2018 meeting began with Niinistö officially welcoming Putin, followed by Trump. The bilateral discussions between Putin and Trump mainly took place in the Finnish Presidential Palace, with Trump and Putin met with only interpreters present. The bulk of the meeting was conducted in secrecy, leading to much confusion and questions regarding the content that was discussed. In the closing press conference press conference, Trump and Putin praise each other and appeared to be in broad agreement on all policy issues. Much to the shock of Western observers, President Trump exonerated Putin of interfering in the 2016 election, directly going against the overwhelming consensus in the intelligence community that Russia indeed interfered in the election and potentially swayed the vote in as many as ten states. Trump also used the press conference to criticize the ongoing investigation into his campaign by Special Counsel Robert Muller, calling it a “partisan witch-hunt.”
Overall, the reaction to President Donald Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been negative. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it a “sad day for America,” and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) called for American interpreter Marina Gross, who sat in on the private meeting with Putin, to be questioned before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Additionally, many Republicans strongly criticized President Trump. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) claimed Trump “made us look like a pushover,” whereas Senator Ben Sasse called Trump’s remarks “bizarre and flat-out wrong.” 2008 and 2012 Republican Presidential Nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney also condemned the meeting and the President’s actions. Romney said Trump’s siding with Putin rather than US intelligence agencies was “disgraceful and detrimental to our democratic principles”, while McCain called the summit “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.” Despite the overall negative reaction to the summit by political leaders of both parties, President Trump’s approval rating among Republican voters increases in the wake of the summit, with many of his strongest supporters expressing the belief that Russian collusion in the 2016 Election was a positive turn of events.
2. Violence and Turmoil Threatens Pakistan’s Unstable Political Situation
Amid a hotly-contested general election, several events this week threaten to further destabilize Pakistan and prevent the country from exiting a long period of political turmoil.
Several events this week have threatened to upend the already unstable political situation in Pakistan. On July 19, Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan from 2013 until his removal from office in 2017, returned to his country to begin serving a ten-year prison sentence. In a July 6 court decision, Sharif was sentenced to 10 years in prison and handed an almost $11 million fine over corruption charges related to his family’s purchase of overseas properties. His daughter Mariam Nawaz was also found guilty and is facing seven years in prison and a $2.6 million fine. Her husband Captain Safdar has received a one-year jail sentence. All three have been barred from engaging in politics for 10 years and four properties in London will be confiscated by the Pakistani state, according to the verdict.
The return of Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan occurred amid a heightened level of violence and turmoil facing the country in the wake of the bombing of a political rally in Baluchistan province on July 15, as well as tensions surrounding the upcoming general elections on July 25. Th suicide bomb attack resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 people and injured 186. Nawabzada Siraj Raisani, who was campaigning for an assembly seat in Balochistan, was killed in the bomb blast along with dozens of others. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in an email, stating that the attack was meant to intimidate the Shi’a Muslim community of Pakistan and discourage their participation in the political process. The Balochistan government announced two days of mourning and political parties in the province announced the suspension of political activities in the aftermath of deadly suicide bombing.
Despite the ongoing tensions within the country, many observers feel that the July 25 general election has the potential transform Pakistan for the better and allow the country to at last gain a sense of stability after nearly 4 decades of military rule. “For the first time in our history, fair elections are going to be held,” stated Fawad Chaudhry, a spokesman for the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) political party. As campaigning enters the final stretch, charismatic populist and former cricket star Imran Khan and the deposed leader’s brother, Shahbaz Sharif, have emerged as the two frontrunners. Additionally, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the 29-year-old son of former leader Benazir Bhutto, is also attracting widespread support, seeking to reestablish his family’s party as a viable political force. Most polling suggests that the election is too close to call, and could result in coalition negotiations which will ultimately leave Bhutto Zardari’s smaller party with the balance of power.
3. Israel Launches Broad Air Assault in Gaza Following Border Violence
Israel resumed its sustained siege against Gaza this week with the commencement of a sustained bombing campaign.
On July 20, the Israeli government launched a large-scale attack against Hamas in the Gaza Strip after a Palestinian sniper killed an Israeli soldier along the border fence during a day of escalating hostilities. Successive explosions rocked Gaza City at nightfall, and the streets emptied as warplanes struck dozens of sites that Israel said belonged to Hamas. Israeli military analysts said the aerial assault was one of the most intense since a cease-fire ended 50 days of fighting in the Gaza Strip in 2014. The ferocity of the bombings raised fears that the hostilities could spiral into an all-out war that will further devastate the Gaza Strip. After nearly seven hours of siege by the Israeli government, a Hamas spokesman announced that the cease-fire had been restored with the mediation of Egypt and the UN. At least four Palestinians were killed by initial Israeli artillery and tank fire. Hamas said that three of the four were members of its military wing.
https://youtu.be/XkaUJa2PkMA
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel Isreali Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman defended the actions by their government, warning of the commencement of a major siege of against the Gaza Strip unless Hamas ceases its supposed attacks against Israeli targets. Additionally, US Ambassador to the UN Nikk Haley and Senior Advisor to the President Trump Jared Kushner enthusiastically defended the Israeli government, stating that Netanyahu and Lieberman acted appropriately and that their actions will increase the chances for peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, Nickolay E. Mladenov, the United Nations special coordinator in the Middle East, had urged the Israeli government and Hamas “to step back from the brink” in a strongly worded post on Twitter on Friday night. “Not next week. Not tomorrow. Right NOW!” he wrote. “Those who want to provoke #Palestinians and #Israelis into another war must not succeed.”
🔴 Everyone in #Gaza needs to step back from the brink. Not next week. Not tomorrow. Right NOW! Those who want to provoke #Palestinians and #Israelis into another war must not succeed.
4. Israel Passes Controversial “Jewish Nation-State” Law
Amid much criticism, the Israeli Parliament passed the “Jewish Nation-State” Law on July 19.
On July 19, the Israeli parliament adopted a controversial and bigoted law defining the country as the nation-state of the Jewish people, provoking fears it will lead to blatant discrimination against its Palestinian citizens. The legislation, adopted by a relatively close 62 to 55 margin, makes Hebrew the country’s national language and defines the establishment of Jewish communities as being in the national interest. The bill also strips Arabic of its designation as an official language, downgrading it to a “special status” that enables its continued use within Israeli governmental and educational. “This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote. The nation-state bill was first introduced in 2011 by Avi Dichter, a member of the Likud Party and a center-right conservative. The main goal of the law was to establish the unique Jewish right to an Israeli homeland as one of Israel’s constitutional rules. When the final version passed this week, Dichter declared that “we are enshrining this important bill into a law today to prevent even the slightest thought, let alone attempt, to transform Israel to a country of all its citizens.”
Overall, the reaction to the new Israeli law has been mixed. In addition to praise among conservative Israeli politicians, noted American White Supremacist and Fascist political activist Richard Spencer endorsed the law. “I have great admiration for Israel’s nation-state law, Jews are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans,” Spencer stated in a press release. On the other hand, countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and even Israeli ally Saudi Arabia denounced the law, stating that it is discriminatory against Israel’s large Arab minority and threatens to further Israel’s reputation as an “apartheid state.” Additionally, several liberal Jewish leaders and orgnizations expressed outrage with the law. “The damage that will be done by this new nation-state law to the legitimacy of the Zionist vision … is enormous,” wrote Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, in a press release. J Street, a liberal Zionist organization, called it “a sad day for Israel and all who care about its democracy and its future.”
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week:
1. President Donald Trump Selects Brett Kavanaugh As His Supreme Court Nominee
President Donald Trump announced his selection of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court this week.
In a prime-time address on July 9, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to fill Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court. Presenting Judge Kavanaugh at the White House, President Trump described him as “one of the finest and sharpest legal minds in our time,” and stated that he is a jurist who would set aside his political views and apply the Constitution “as written.” Kavanaugh was selected from a list of “25 highly qualified potential nominees” considered by the Trump Administration. The main reasons cited by President Trump for the nomination of Kavanaugh included his “impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law” with the emphasis that “what matters is not a judge’s political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require.” In his remarks, Judge Kavanaugh, who once clerked for Justice Kennedy, said he would “keep an open mind in every case.” But he declared that judges “must interpret the law, not make the law.”
In choosing Judge Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump opted for a veteran of Republican politics with close ties to the Bush family. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1990, Kavanaugh worked as a law clerk for Judge Walter Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shortly before clerking for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. After his Supreme Court clerkship, Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr as an Associate Counsel in the Office of the Independent Counsel;in that capacity, he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues presented during that investigation and was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and Vincent Foster investigation Before joining the Bush Administration in 2003, Judge Kavanaugh worked for the Bush 2000 campaign in Florida.
The reaction to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination has been split along party lines. Senate Republicans (with the notable exceptions of Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Rand Paul) have generally expressed strong support for Kavanaugh’s nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that Kavanaugh is “highly regarded throughout the legal community” and intends to hold confirmation hearings before the November midterm elections. Several vulnerable Senate Democrats such as Joe Manchin (D-WV), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) have also announced that they might support Kavanaugh. Additionally, several liberal legal scholars such as Akhil Reed Amar and Alan Dershowitz expressed support for Kavanaugh’s nomination.
On the other hand, Many Senate Democrats such as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Kalama Harris (D-CA), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) denounced Brett Kavanaugh’s selection and intended on opposing his confirmation. Additionally, social conservative organizations such as the American Family Association and March to Life expressed concerns about Kavanaugh’s views on social issues, stating that he lacked the “backbone” to overturn cases such as Roe V. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
2. President Donald Trump Embarks On European Tour, Antagonizing Allies With Unorthodox Behavior
President Donald Trump embarked on his second European trip this week, frustrating allies with his unorthodox and unpredictable behavior and actions.
On July 8, President Donald Trump embarked on a weeklong European trip that took him through a series of meetings at the annual North Atlantic Treaty Organization gathering, a stop in Great Britain to meet with Prime Minister Theresa May, Queen Elizabeth II and other political leaders, and a visit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helenski, Finland. But in typical Trumpian manner, the President blew through all the diplomatic norms of engaging with American allies, instead alienating and puzzling them through his unpredictable actions.
In talks in Belgium with the leaders of the 29-country Atlantic alliance, President Trump escalated his criticism of American allies in Europe, demanding that NATO countries double their military spending targets and saying that Germany was “captive to Russia” because of its energy imports. The president ultimately left reaffirming his support for the alliance but offering vague threats of a potential American withdrawal. President Trump’s remarks sent officials scrambling for answers, triggered ripples of dismay among defense officials and alarmed members of Trump’s own party enough that one worried aloud the President is trying to “tear down” the nearly 70-year long alliance that has helped to unify Europe in the face of threats from countries such as Russia.
The reaction to President Donald Trump’s NATO trip has generally been negative. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN), a major critic of President Trump, stated that he is concerned that the President is trying to “tear down” NATO and “punch our friends in the nose.” through his harsh and unpredictable rhetoric. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), typically a strong supporter of Trump stated that he subscribes “to the view that we should not be criticizing our president while he is overseas, but let me say a couple of things. NATO is indispensable.” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and European leaders pushed back against Trump’s blistering attacks on Germany and other partner nations, as they attempted to downplay notions that the alliance may be fracturing. “The strength of NATO is that despite these differences, we have always been able to unite around our core task to protect and defend each other because we understand that we are stronger together than apart,” Stoltenberg told Trump over breakfast.
3. Twelve Russian Intelligence Officers Indicted For Hacking The Clinton Presidential Campaign And The Democratic National Committee
Twelve Russian operatives were indicted in the Russia-Trump probe this week due to their theft of documents related to the Clinton 2016 campaign.
On July 12, the Justice Department indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The allegations came in the latest indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Elections and ties to President Donald Trump’s successful campaign. According to the indictment, the officers worked for a military agency known as GRU, which hacked into computers of individuals working on the election with the goal of stealing and releasing documents unfavorable to Hillary Clinton, who advocated a hard line against the Russian government and called for the removal of Vladimir Putin from power.
Starting in June 2016, the intelligence officers released thousands of documents using online pseudonyms, such as “Guccifer 2.0” and “DC Leaks.” They used a network of computers around the world, to conceal their identities. They also broke into the computers of those charged with overseeing elections, including state election officials and secretaries of state (primarily in key states such as Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Texas, Arizona, and Wisconsin), as well as companies in charge of election technology and software. In total, the indictment charges 11 spies with conspiracy to commit computer crimes, eight counts of aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money. Two of the defendants are charged with a separate conspiracy to commit computer crimes. The indictment comes just days before President Donald Trump is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.
The reaction to the indictments has resulted in a mixed reaction from American political leaders. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have called on President Donald Trump to cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin in response to the allegations. Additionally, Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) responded to the indictments by calling on President Trump to expand the already-strong sanctions the US has in place against Russia and work with the international community to remove the Putin regime from power. In its response to the indictments, In an unusual response to the Russian indictments Friday, the Trump Administration issued a statement full of bullet points emphasizing that no Americans were charged and further reiterating that Russia’s supposed election meddling did not impact the actual vote in the 2016 Election and that President Trump was not personally aware of efforts by the Russian government to influence the election in his favor
One of the major foreign policy issues facing the world over the past few years is the Syrian Civil War and the formation of groups such as ISIS as a result of the instabilities created due to the conflict. In spite of the urgency of ending the conflict and combating the rise of organizations such as ISIS, there has been little effort on the world stage to come up with an adequate plan to do so. A major reason the international community has yet to come up with a plan to fight ISIS and end the Syrian Civil War is due to different visions between world powers over the best way to do so. The U.S. argues that the ultimate goal of any intervention in Syria would be that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would peacefully step down from power. In contrast, Russia is a close ally of Assad and their only military outpost in the Middle East is in Syria. Russia believes that any regime change in Syria would lead to increased instability in the Middle East and threaten their military presence in the region.
In recent weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has stepped up Russian presence in Syria and has begun a military build-up in the country. U.S. diplomats have cautioned Russia against such a move, arguing that it would lead to even greater instability and violence in Syria. Additionally, the U.S. fears that a potential confrontation may emerge between U.S.-backed coalition members and Russian forces in Syria if Russia continues expanding its military presence in the region. Despite the differences in opinion between the U.S. and Russia, Putin has come up with several proposals to combat ISIS, put an end to the Syrian Civil War and restore a greater sense of stability to the Middle East.
Vladimir Putin’s plan includes several components. The first part is that the U.S. and its allies coordinate their actions against ISIS with the Russian, Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian armies. Through the coordination of their actions, Putin hopes that any conflict between coalition members can be reduced and that a consensus to stop the spread of ISIS can emerge on the international level. Also, Russia also stated that their plan would put in place measures that would gradually transition political power away from Assad. Putin has also stated that if the U.S. and its allies reject his offer, he would be prepared to take military actions against ISIS in Syria unilaterally. Putin is hoping that the U.S. will accept his plan on the basis of it being the only realistic way to bring an end to the Syrian Civil War and contribute greater stability to the Middle East.
The reaction to Putin’s proposal has been mixed. For example, UN Ambassador Samantha Powers has stated that the U.S. would be unwilling to join in a coalition with the Syrian army because of Syrian Bashar al-Assad’s human rights record and alleged actions over the course of the war. Also, U.S. officials question Putin’s motives and feel that his plan is not comprehensive enough to be successful. Despite their reluctance to side with Russia, the Obama Administration did announce that it would be willing to engage in talks with Russia over the issue in the coming weeks. Additionally, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that the U.S. has become more receptive to Russia’s position and that it moderated two parts of its Syrian policy, that Assad must step down from power and that it will not negotiate with his government.
The proposed course of action by Russia regarding the Syrian Civil War could involve resorting to several components of international law. For example, Russia could present its case before the UN Security Council. After reviewing the case, the Security Council may call on the parties involved in the Syrian Civil War to settle their disputes via peaceful means. Furthermore, Russia can receive the authority to strike ISIS forces within Syria if it is given permission by the Syrian government to do so. If Russia acts without Syria’s permission, they would be in violation of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another country in terms other than that of self-defense. On the other hand, Russia could use the argument that their actions against ISIS are purely self-defense. At that point, Russia’s actions would be in accord with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that any member nations has a right to self-defense until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.
In conclusion, the Syrian Civil War has been a key issue facing the international community over the past few years and has destabilized the Middle East. The rise of ISIS is a major problem that has arose out of the instability brought on by the Syrian Civil War. Russia has devised a plan including several components that would potentially end the war and stop ISIS and is seeking support from the U.S. and its allies for its actions. If the U.S. rejects their offer, Russia is prepared to act unilaterally in Syria. The Russian plan for the Syrian Civil War can be implemented through existing channels of international law. Only time will tell if the plan can gain support on the international stage and successfully put an end to the Syrian conflict
