Trump admin quietly shutters Russia pressure group, sources say
WASHINGTON, D.C.: A quiet shift inside the Trump administration has stalled a key diplomatic initiative aimed at pushing Russia toward peace talks with Ukraine.
According to three U.S. officials, a working group formed earlier this year to explore ways to increase pressure on Moscow has been quietly shelved — a casualty of dwindling presidential interest and sweeping staff changes.
Set up by high-ranking members of the White House National Security Council (NSC), the group included officials from the State Department, Pentagon, Treasury, and intelligence community. Its mission was to craft strategies for tightening the screws on Moscow and boosting U.S. leverage in negotiations. However, the group lost momentum by May, as President Donald Trump grew increasingly disillusioned with the pace of progress.
"It lost steam toward the end because the president wasn't there," said one U.S. official familiar with the matter. "Instead of doing more, maybe he wanted to do less."
The group's demise, which has not been previously reported, adds to growing concern in Europe about Trump's approach to Russia, particularly ahead of a key NATO summit this month. On June 16, speaking at the G7 in Canada, Trump repeated that removing Russia from the old G8 alliance had been a mistake.
The final blow came about three weeks ago when most of the NSC's Ukraine team was dismissed in a broader White House shake-up. Among those removed was Andrew Peek, the top NSC official for Europe and Russia.
Though it's unclear who ordered the effort to halt, officials say the scale of NSC personnel cuts made its continuation impractical.
While the group never finalized its recommendations, officials say ideas on the table included economic deals to loosen post-Soviet countries' ties to Moscow, covert operations, and incentives for Kazakhstan to enforce sanctions better. The Kazakhstani embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.
The working group had emerged in March or April as some of Trump's advisers began questioning Putin's willingness to deal and hoped Trump might shift to a tougher stance.
In late March, Trump told NBC News he was "furious" and "pissed off" at Putin's comments about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. An April 1 NSC statement to Reuters cited "deep frustration with the Russian government over negotiations."
But frustration eventually gave way to fatigue. Despite campaign promises to end the war on "day one," Trump has grown increasingly doubtful about his ability to deliver. Officials say he has recently floated abandoning U.S. mediation efforts altogether.
Meanwhile, Trump has seen little success in other peace efforts, including in the Middle East, where tensions have escalated sharply between Iran and Israel. A March Reuters report also revealed that parts of the U.S. government had suspended work on countering Russian disinformation and sabotage.
The White House, Treasury, Pentagon, State Department, and the embassies of Russia and Ukraine all declined to comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Europeans see a ‘window of opportunity' for diplomacy as they meet Iran's top diplomat
GENEVA (AP) — Iran's foreign minister plans to meet in Geneva on Friday with leading European counterparts, who hope to open a window for a diplomatic solution to the week-old military conflict that has seen Israeli airstrikes target Iranian nuclear and military sites and Tehran firing back. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who will meet Iran's Abbas Araghchi together with his French and German counterparts and the European Union's foreign policy chief, said that 'a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution.' The talks will be the first face-to-face meeting between Western and Iranian officials since the start of the conflict. Lammy is traveling to Geneva after meeting in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump's Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff. Trump has been weighing whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. He said Wednesday that he'll decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military will get directly involved in the war given the 'substantial chance' for renewed negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. 'Now is the time to put a stop to the grave scenes in the Middle East and prevent a regional escalation that would benefit no one,' Lammy said. Israel says it launched its airstrike campaign last week to stop Iran from getting closer to being able to build a nuclear weapon. Iran and the United States had been negotiating over the possibility of a new diplomatic deal over Tehran's program, though Trump has said Israel's campaign came after a 60-day window he set for the talks. Iran's supreme leader rejected U.S. calls for surrender Wednesday and warned that any military involvement by the Americans would cause 'irreparable damage to them.' Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is peaceful, though it was the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. The three European countries, commonly referred to as the E3, played an important role in the negotiations over the original 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. But they have repeatedly threatened to reinstate sanctions that were lifted under the deal if Iran does not improve its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Germany's foreign minister acknowledged that years of efforts to relieve concerns about the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon haven't succeeded, but said it's worth talking now. 'It is our commitment once again to undertake a very intensive attempt to dissuade Iran permanently from pursuing such plans,' Johann Wadephul said in a podcast released by broadcaster MDR on Friday. 'If there is serious and transparent readiness by Iran to refrain from this, then there is a real chance of preventing a further escalation of this conflict, and for that every conversation makes sense.' Wadephul said U.S. officials 'not only know that we are conducting these talks but are very much in agreement with us doing so — so I think Iran should now know that it should conduct these talks with a new seriousness and reliability.' French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot spoke by phone with Rubio on Thursday evening. A French diplomatic official, who was not allowed to speak publicly on the issue, said Barrot detailed the purposes of the Geneva meeting and Rubio 'stressed that the U.S. was ready for direct contact with the Iranians at any time.' __ Geir Moulson in Berlin, Sylvie Corbet in Paris and Jill Lawless in London contributed to this report. —- The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. —- Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Israel and Iran launch strikes a week into their war as new diplomatic effort takes shape
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel and Iran exchanged strikes a week into their war Friday as President Donald Trump weighed U.S. military involvement and new diplomatic efforts appeared to be underway. Trump has been weighing whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. He said he'll decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military will get directly involved in the war given the 'substantial chance' for renewed negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi appeared headed to Geneva for meetings with the European Union's top diplomat and counterparts from the United Kingdom, France and Germany. A plane with his usual call sign took off from the Turkish city of Van, near the Iranian border, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed. Iran typically acknowledges his departure hours afterward. Britain's foreign secretary said he met at the White House with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss the potential for a deal that could cool the conflict. Israel said it conducted airstrikes into Friday morning in Iran with more than 60 aircraft hitting what it said were industrial sites to manufacture missiles. It did not elaborate on the locations. It also said it hit the headquarters of Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, known by its acronym in Farsi, SPND. The U.S. in the past has linked that agency to alleged Iranian research and testing tied to the possible development of nuclear explosive devices. Israeli airstrikes reached into the city of Rasht on the Caspian Sea early Friday, Iranian media reported. The Israeli military had warned the public to flee the area around Rasht's Industrial City, southwest of the city's downtown. But with Iran's internet shut off to the outside world, it's unclear just how many people could see the message. In Israel, the paramedic service Magen David Adom said missiles struck a residential area in southern Israel causing damage to buildings, including one six-story building. They have provided medical treatment to five people with minor injuries such as bruises, smoke inhalation, and anxiety, it said. This comes a day after at least 80 patients and medical workers were wounded in a strike on the Soroka Medical Center in the southern city of Beersheba. On Thursday, Israel's defense minister threatened Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after the Iranian missile crashed into the hospital. Israel's military 'has been instructed and knows that in order to achieve all of its goals, this man absolutely should not continue to exist,' Defense Minister Israel Katz said. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he trusted that Trump would 'do what's best for America.' Speaking from the rubble and shattered glass around the hospital, he added: 'I can tell you that they're already helping a lot.' The war between Israel and Iran erupted June 13 with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multitiered air defenses, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But it is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Israel is widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear weapons program but has never acknowledged it. The Israeli air campaign has targeted Iran's enrichment site at Natanz, centrifuge workshops around Tehran, a nuclear site in Isfahan and what the army assesses to be most of Iran's ballistic missile launchers. The destruction of those launchers has contributed to the steady decline in Iranian attacks since the start of the conflict. ___ Gambrell from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Can militarization deliver a safer world?
Opinion In a recent speech, Prime Minister Mark Carney said, 'Rising great powers are now in strategic competition with America. A new imperialism threatens. Middle powers compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu.' We hear this dog-eat-dog sentiment shared quite often now, most notably from U.S. President Donald Trump, and it is often used as a justification for Western countries to spend more on their military. I would argue that the world has not spiked in terms of violence, and I would also argue that we cannot forget that an important context of violence is inequality and poverty. Focusing on militarization diverts our attention and creates conditions that will exacerbate international poverty and drive further violence. The world is becoming more violent, right? Not really, at least not in the sense of rising interstate wars. For simplicity I focus on the post-Cold War period, 1989-2023, and use deaths from conflict as the indicator. Less than 10 per cent of the 3.47 million conflict-related deaths over this period were due to interstate conflict (i.e., war). Most, almost 55 per cent, were from intrastate deaths. The rest are considered one-side violence or non-state conflicts. The world is clearly more violent for many people but often this is not the result of war (interstate conflict) but due to internal conflict, e.g., the Rwandan genocide. Conflict-based deaths have a strong regional distribution. The regions most affected by violence are Africa and the Middle East. During this period, Africa has faced 350 deaths per 100,000 people; the Middle East 285 deaths; Europe 40 deaths; Americas 31 deaths; and Asia-Oceania 19 deaths. There is evidence of an increase in annual deaths from conflict since 2012, but this has been driven by non-state and one-sided violence, not interstate violence. It was not until 2022, with the latest episode of the Ukraine-Russia war, that interstate conflict death numbers rose. A recent study estimated that up to 100,000 Ukrainians were killed and 300,000 were wounded, while 250,000 Russians have died and 700,000 have been wounded. The data I have presented are slim in support of the view that the world has become more violent. But I accept that there might be better indicators of violence or that the argument is not about recent history, but about fear of the future. That is, the fear is that the rise of authoritarian countries, most notably the rise of authoritarianism in the United States (not to mention China and Russia) and that these states will fuel future interstate violence. So, will better arming us will make us less vulnerable to aggressive authoritarian pressures? I do not specialize in military and political theory, so I leave this debate for others. But what I would like to argue is that an unequal world is one that can create and exacerbate tensions and lead to rising violence including interstate violence. Violence flows from a world in which certain groups, nations, and regions accumulate more wealth and power at the expense of others. Conversely, there are many ways in which a poor group can experience self-identified economic improvement. It is critically important that the international economy is rules-based, that these rules embed economic justice within them, and that wealthy nations support relatively poorer ones. Worthwhile support comes in the form of fair trading and investing systems. Moreover, the poorest nations require assistance in the form or high-quality development assistance. But fair trade, investment, and aid are diminishing. Trade barriers are rising. For instance, the U.S. has placed a 37 per cent tariff on garments from Bangladesh. This is an odd move, because it is unlikely the U.S. will ever gain a share of garment manufacturing. It is a low-wage sector and, with anti-immigration pressures in the U.S., American wages are likely to rise well beyond what is needed for a competitive garment sector. For years, a key international goal was that development assistance would reach 0.7 per cent of national income. This is only one of many needed reforms. But the increasingly ubiquitous goal of spending two per cent (or five per cent) of national income on military has usurped that goal. The U.K. has stated its plan to cut its development assistance and the U.S., by cutting its agency USAID, it has already done so. Canada and other countries are following suit and plan to reduce their development assistance. The case of the Israel-Gaza/Palestine conflict demonstrates how military force does not solve the problem. After over a year and a half of violence, there is no end in sight. Civilian deaths and infrastructure obliteration will only aggravate inequality and cycle back into more violence. Fear about a violent future should compel us to embrace a justice-based economic system. The alternative is imperialism and the violence that logically flows from inequality. Jerry Buckland is a professor of economics and international development at Canadian Mennonite University.
