Foreign Affairs

Putin Is Stalling, but Trump Should Stay the Course in Ukraine

The U.S. president should keep walking a middle path between escalation and giving up.

Credit: Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images

The Russia–Ukraine war looks bad.

Russia is hammering Ukraine, with intensified drone and missile attacks over Memorial Day weekend. Across the Atlantic, the U.S. president took notice.

Before boarding Air Force One on Sunday, President Donald Trump told reporters that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was disrupting peace talks by “killing a lot of people” in Kiev and other cities. “I dunno what the hell happened to Putin,” he shouted over jet engines. By nighttime, Trump had figured it out. “He has gone absolutely CRAZY!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Maybe so. More likely, Putin—a cold-blooded strategist who rationally, often ruthlessly, pursues Russia’s perceived interests—smells absolute victory in Ukraine and aims to achieve it. Alternatively, Putin may be trying to wear down the Ukrainians so that Kiev loses leverage at the negotiating table and consents to a deal that addresses what Moscow calls the “root causes” of the conflict, namely, Ukraine’s Western tilt in recent decades.

Amid Putin’s apparent intransigence, some foreign-policy analysts want Trump to “walk away” from Russia–Ukraine diplomacy and cease America’s involvement in the conflict. Other, hardline voices are urging Trump to escalate the war to show resolve and punish Putin. 

He should do neither, which is to say, he should keep doing what he’s doing. That means nudging diplomacy along while providing Ukraine enough aid to hold off the Russian invaders. 

Despite setbacks, Trump’s approach may be paying off. This week brought signs that Putin, who has rejected a U.S.-proposed ceasefire that Kiev agreed to in March, may be warming to the kind of peace settlement that Ukraine and the West could be satisfied with. 

Reuters reported Wednesday, citing three well-placed Russian sources, that Putin’s “conditions for ending the war in Ukraine” include the following: partial sanctions relief, Ukrainian neutrality, protection for Russian speakers in Ukraine, an agreement on Russian assets frozen in the West, and a written pledge by major Western powers that NATO will stop expanding eastwards. 

These are reasonable requests, none which Washington or Kiev should dismiss outright, and all of which seem compatible with a peace deal the White House presented in April.

Wednesday brought another non-depressing development. Hours after the Reuters report came out, news broke that Russia proposed another round of direct ceasefire talks with Ukraine in Istanbul, to be held Monday. Like Russia’s proposal for the first round two weeks ago, this one came amid intensifying pressure from Trump. The previous day, he had posted on Truth Social that Putin was “playing with fire”.

Putin, of course, may also be playing for time. At the first round of Russia–Ukraine talks, Moscow’s delegation made outrageous demands and seemed disinclined to cease fire anytime soon. Some analysts saw silver linings, but most judged that the talks were a Russian ruse. Kiev suspects that is happening again, in part because Moscow, at the time of writing, still hasn’t presented a promised memorandum outlining its vision of a peace settlement.

Nevertheless, this week’s diplomatic developments raise hopes that the brutal war in Ukraine can be resolved diplomatically, and soon. And they present Trump a momentous decision about how to navigate what may be the final phase of the Russia–Ukraine war, or just another cycle of foot-dragging by Putin.

Whether Trump wants to even participate in another phase of diplomacy isn’t clear. Vice President J.D. Vance warned in April that if the Russians and Ukrainians didn’t agree to a ceasefire, then the U.S. would “walk away from this process.” Since then, some on the right have urged the White House to do just that. These pro-restraint conservatives generally also recommend that the Trump administration, while it’s at it, cut support for Ukraine. 

America-Firsters see at least one good reason for Trump to wash his hands of the conflict and let Moscow, Kiev, and Brussels hash it out: America lacks vital interests in Ukraine. Put more bluntly: It’s none of our business. 

I understand the sentiment. But the truth is, the war is our business. The U.S. helped provoke Putin’s invasion and afterwards enmeshed itself deeply in the war. One of the belligerents, Russia, is an adversary of the United States. The other, Ukraine, is in this mess largely because of misguided U.S. foreign policy that for decades antagonized Moscow.

Trump himself seems to think that the fact of our involvement in the conflict means we have an interest in resolving it. During the now-infamous Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in late February, Trump offered this defense of America’s trying to settle the war diplomatically: 

It’s a pathway to getting something solved. And I feel that as the head of this country, I have an obligation to do that. Plus, we’re very much involved. We got involved. It’s too bad we got involved because there should have been no involvement because there should have been no war.

Trump is right, and it’s useful to lay out the reasons why abandoning our involvement now would entail serious domestic-political and geostrategic risks.

On the domestic-politics front, Trump would pay a steep political price if, after withdrawing military support from Ukraine and ceasing diplomacy, the Russian military proceeded to overrun the country. As Trump knows, President Joe Biden’s poll numbers never recovered from the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. The grim spectacle of Moscow gobbling up a former Soviet republic thanks to American retreat would likely play even worse.

Moreover, Trump promised on the campaign trail to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war “within 24 hours” of winning the election. If, instead, he enables a Russian triumph within months of reentering the White House, the media would flail him, and the conservative political establishment could turn on him.

As for the geostrategic risks, they are in large part a problem of America’s own making. Its decades-long mishandling of the relationship with Moscow made more likely a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. In my view, wiser U.S. policy might have not only averted the invasion, but led to a harmonious Global North, with North America, Europe, and Russia integrated in a stable security order. 

But that didn’t happen. 

Instead, Washington dismissed Moscow’s legitimate concerns about NATO expansion and strategic instability, and the Kremlin took a revanchist turn. While normal security interests motivated Putin’s decision to invade, the Russian leader had also developed extravagant historical views that deny Ukraine’s status as an independent cultural entity. 

Over the course of the war, Russia has boosted its defense-industrial capacity, reversing its strategic decline relative to the West. At the same time, the antipathy of Russian elites toward the West has been inflamed to alarming levels. This is a disconcerting combination of factors.

Worse, Moscow’s military appetite seems to have grown with the eating, with high-profile politicians, intellectuals, and media figures increasingly describing the Baltic states and other eastern European countries as part of Russia’s sphere of influence, if not part of its rightful territory. Given Russia’s difficulties in conquering Ukraine, we shouldn’t exaggerate its capabilities—but we also shouldn’t discount the imperial ambitions and anti-Western animosity of Russian hardliners, nor their rising influence throughout the Ukraine war.

Russian–Western tensions are more likely to ease if the war ends in negotiations that address the concerns of all parties, rather than in a Ukrainian capitulation that leaves the West humiliated and Moscow emboldened. And the war is more likely to end that way if Trump, whom Putin respects, sustains America’s involvement. With Putin signaling a moderation of demands ahead of this week’s proposed talks, now is no time to give up on negotiations and withdraw U.S. military support that Ukraine desperately needs.

Rather, Trump should stay the course, continuing to use carrots and sticks to keep the two sides talking, while mostly avoiding actions and (until this week) rhetoric that needlessly alienate Moscow. Kiev has, for the most part, lately been going along with Trump’s peace efforts, thanks to his threats to cut off security assistance. But with U.S. military stocks depleting and the Russian economy resilient amid Western sanctions, Trump has smaller sticks to use against Putin.  

Fortunately, by putting on the table a broader rapprochement and economic partnership with Washington, Trump has dangled a big carrot in front of Putin’s nose, which may yet distract from the scent of looming military triumph. Based on my own conversations with Russian diplomats and academics, I know to a virtual certainty that Moscow finds the carrot enticing. 

To increase the odds that the carrot will help lead Russia to peace, Trump should make absolutely clear that concrete steps toward rapprochement can only happen after the war ends in a negotiated settlement.

As for the sticks, foreign policy experts assess that the U.S. still possesses some capacity to keep Ukraine in the fight. Trump can and should exercise his “drawdown authority” to quickly transfer billions of dollars in security assistance, thus continuing that feature of the diplomatic strategy. But he should calibrate the aid to bolster Ukraine’s defense, not to empower Kiev to try recapturing lost territory or to strike deep inside Russia. 

That last point is crucial, especially following the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s remarks this week backing Ukrainian long-range strikes with Western-supplied weapons. Last year, after the Biden administration authorized Ukraine to strike inside Russia with U.S. weapons, Moscow revised its nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear use and declaring that such strikes constitute a joint attack on the Russian Federation. Since Ukraine cannot use Western-supplied long-range missiles without targeting assistance from NATO, Russia’s view on the matter is valid. 

To manage nuclear risks and maintain constructive relations with Putin, Trump should prohibit Ukrainian strikes inside Russian territory with U.S.-supplied weapons. At the same time, he should make clear to Putin—as he promised to do on the campaign trail—that the U.S. will continue underwriting Ukraine’s defense until Moscow makes peace. 

Trump’s diplomatic efforts have brought the Russia–Ukraine war nearer a resolution. The process has taken longer than the president had hoped, but sustaining those efforts is his best chance to avoid political calamity, end a terrible war, and begin the hard work of repairing Russian–Western relations.

The post Putin Is Stalling, but Trump Should Stay the Course in Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics

Richmond Boils Over

Aging infrastructure was at the source of dirty water advisory—but who was at fault?

Credit: Sean Pavone/Shutterstock

Residents of Richmond, Virginia can safely drink the city’s water again after a city-wide boil water advisory was lifted late Thursday. It’s the third significant failure to impact the city’s drinking water this year. 

The first-year Mayor Danny Avula announced at 2:30 pm that the Virginia Department of Health had successfully treated the contaminated water and that negative results from required compliance samples would allow officials to remove the advisory effective immediately. 

“I’m deeply grateful to the residents and businesses for enduring this unexpected boil water advisory,” Avula said. “Residents and businesses expect better, and I am as committed as ever to finding the problems and fixing them. Doing this work requires being honest about what’s working and what’s not and I pledge my ongoing commitment to doing just that.”

“Sorry, we’re closed” read business signs throughout the region this week as officials attempted to diagnose and then treat the city’s water supply after a sudden drop in water pressure produced by samples from the Ginter Park Tank led to emergency conservation measures and a boil advisory. Residents in numerous neighborhoods across the city were affected, with businesses in the Fan, Jackson Ward, Carytown, Oregon Hill, and parts of Southside Richmond being forced to close due to water issues. 

The chaos began early Tuesday morning after an operational failure led to low or no pressure throughout the system. Richmond officials initially announced on Tuesday that they were addressing issues associated with “high turbidity” (murky or cloudy water) but that no further precautions were necessary. That directive had changed by the afternoon when city officials instituted a boil water advisory. 

WTVR in Richmond reported that a May 12 maintenance request noted that plate settlers, which are filters used to remove sludge, needed to be cleaned. The engineering expert Joel Paulsen explained that, if the settlers are not cleaned, sediment overwhelms the system and clogs the filters, which is exactly what happened earlier this week.

The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) spokeswoman Rhonda Johnson said officials were focused on providing recovery efforts and that an investigation into the cause of the failure would begin once the situation was addressed. 

“It really sounds like the plates themselves failed in this case, because they weren’t cleaned in a timely enough fashion,” said Paulsen.

In Richmond, the dirty water has renewed criticism of the Trump administration’s decision in April to cancel a $12 million FEMA grant intended to support Richmond’s aging infrastructure. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) called the administration’s decision to cut grant funding “the kind of penny-wise pound-foolishness that makes me crazy.”

“We have aging water and sewer systems all over Virginia,” Warner added. “If officials don’t invest in upgrading those systems, this kind of problem is going to happen everywhere around the commonwealth.”

But a spokesperson for the city’s Department of Public Utilities downplayed the cancelled funds, noting that the grant, approved in 2023, would not have addressed the problems this week. In its decision to revoke funding, the Trump administration deemed the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program as nothing more than “wasteful and ineffective” spending based on “political agendas.” 

Though the water failures have forced some to question Avula’s performance as mayor so far, Reva Trammell, a Richmond city council member, wondered whether former mayor Levar Stoney, who is running for lieutenant governor on the Democratic ticket, should have done more to address the city’s water infrastructure with the $155 million federal Covid-19 emergency aid package Richmond received between 2017 and 2024. 

Stoney pushed back on the suggestion Wednesday, stating by phone that he couldn’t recall “any sort of document coming across my desk as mayor speaking directly to this grant.” Richmond’s water facility, which can treat more than 100 million gallons per day, supplies water to parts of neighboring counties such as Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, and Goochland. 

“I put forward eight budgets,” Stoney said in a statement. “Seven of those budgets had adjustments to the water utility rate. By the time I left office, I saw a 21% increase in the rate. Those dollars went into investments in maintenance and capital upgrades. But we can’t burden our ratepayers with fixing a 100-year-old system alone. We need federal and state partners to make investments.”

Attempts to access the grant online and learn whether the funding would have addressed water infrastructure efforts were unsuccessful after the Trump administration removed the site. The city’s boil advisory, which affected schools, restaurants, and civilian housing, was lifted Thursday afternoon. 

Avula said on Friday morning that “delayed maintenance” of the sedimentation basins in the city’s water treatment plant was to blame for the facility’s failure. 

In January, Richmond was without water for days after a blizzard caused distribution outages throughout the city. Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) activated the National Guard to address the situation as residents in Central Virginia scrambled to find clean drinking water. Government officials were criticized at the time for failing to alert the public in a timely manner, an issue that reared its head again during this week’s advisory. 

The post Richmond Boils Over appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

Chevron First or America First?

Corporations should not dictate American foreign policy.

On Tuesday, the license that allowed Chevron to continue operating in Venezuela despite U.S. sanctions expired. The move sparked controversy and internal disagreement within the Trump administration over whether the license should have been extended—and under what terms.

When Special Envoy Richard Grenell announced on May 21 that Chevron would receive a 60-day extension, Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly contradicted him, confirming that the license would expire as scheduled on May 27.

Any extension requires approval from both the Treasury and State Departments. Ultimately, both agencies agreed to limit Chevron’s activities to minimal maintenance operations—similar to what was permitted during the first Trump administration.

Some in or close to the administration have claimed this decision reduces Trump’s leverage over the Venezuelan regime and hands China access to the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

But is any of this true?

During the first Trump administration, the U.S. government pursued a “maximum pressure” strategy that targeted Venezuela’s oil industry. After negotiations with the Venezuelan government, the Biden administration eased some sanctions, including restrictions on the oil industry, granting operation licenses to Chevron, EMI, and other western oil companies. In April 2023, Biden reinstated many of the sanctions it had lifted but left the Chevron license untouched.

The Trump administration announced in February the revocation of the license issued by Biden in November 2022. Nevertheless, the Trump administration extended the license for 60 days in March after Venezuela committed itself to allowing the return of deported Venezuelan migrants and released a group of American hostages in Venezuela. But, as usual, Maduro didn’t deliver what he had promised. He didn’t allow as many repatriation flights as expected, and the human rights situation in the country has only worsened.

Before the license, Chevron’s presence in Venezuela was limited to minimal maintenance operations, but it could not exploit, process, or export Venezuelan oil. Ever since, Chevron has been free to do business in Venezuela, which allowed the country to become the third-largest exporter of crude oil to the U.S.  But now Trump has returned Chevron to its pre-2022 state, only permitting it to continue maintenance operations. Chevron won’t be able to export Venezuelan oil or buy oil extracted in Venezuela.

Those who hoped for the extension of the license and further engagement with Maduro have changed their narrative: The main issue now, they say, is that China will have free access to the largest oil reserves in the world all for itself. In an interview with Steve Bannon, Grennell said that “in our neighborhood, we want to make sure that the Chinese are not coming in and taking oil and minerals and gold and keeping us on the outside.”

The reasoning behind this is shaky to say the least. China already has an expansive presence in Venezuela, with or without Chevron. If they want to exploit oil resources in Venezuela, they can do so, and here is no reason Venezuelan authorities would stop them.

Nevertheless, while China’s economic endeavors are growing throughout Latin America, Venezuela is one of the few exceptions. Oil production of China’s joint ventures with the Venezuelan state oil company have declined since 2016, as has trade between both countries. After lending over $60 billion to Venezuela, China is trying to recoup its loans via discounts on Venezuelan oil shipments. Thus, it is quite unlikely that the Chinese presence in Venezuela would increase as Chevron goes to its pre-2022 status. In fact, Chinese investments and exports only decreased from 2019 to 2022, when the sanctions imposed on the Venezuelan oil industry by the Trump administration were still in force.

The suspension of Chevron’s license has significantly harmed the Venezuelan regime. Chevron exports between 200,000 and 240,000 barrels per day of crude from Venezuela, which is more than a quarter of the country’s oil exports. Venezuela was receiving an approximate $400 million a month from Chevron. Tax and royalty payments from Chevron’s license have been a major source of income for Maduro since early 2023, expanding its oil industry once again. Venezuela is taking between $2 billion and $3 billion a year in royalties and tax payments thanks to the licenses. Venezuelan oil production, although still far from its historical records, was at its highest point in almost a decade. The sanctions will prevent the Venezuelan regime from receiving this income, and with the Chinese unwilling to invest more in Venezuela, it’s likely out of options.

This has led Venezuela to escalate repression in the country. Around 70 opposition leaders and political activists in Venezuela were arrested last week. The highest-profile name is Juan Pablo Guanipa, who was the right-hand man of María Corina Machado, the opposition leader. Guanipa had been in hiding since the July electoral fraud that saw Maduro proclaim his reelection as president of Venezuela. After almost a week since his arrest, his whereabouts are still unknown, but he’s rumored to be in the Helicoide, the largest torture center of the Venezuelan regime.

The arrests are probably a desperate Maduro attempt at getting Trump back at considering negotiating the extension of the Chevron license in exchange for some political prisoners. Still, the Trump administration is unlikely to yield—nor should it. In fact, if anything, it has done quite the opposite. In March, the U.S. government imposed a 25 percent tariff on “all goods imported into the United States from any country that imports Venezuelan oil, whether directly from Venezuela or indirectly through third parties.”

Allowing Chevron to operate in Venezuela was actively hurting the U.S. Some $400 million a month generated by American oil imports was being used by the Venezuela regime to fund its drug operations throughout the Americas, including drugs funneled into the U.S. through the southern border by Tren de Aragua. The money also helped stabilize the dictatorship that has caused the largest humanitarian crisis in the western hemisphere, with thousands of Venezuelans trying to cross the southern border illegally as a result.

Oil companies shouldn’t dictate American foreign policy, and they especially shouldn’t do it when they would lead the U.S. to finance a dictatorship that has been doing everything in its power to destabilize America through drug trafficking, uncontrolled migration, and the establishment of criminal groups on U.S. soil.

It’s right and proper that the Trump administration puts America first instead of Chevron first.

The post Chevron First or America First? appeared first on The American Conservative.