RSS
What Is Next for Ukraine and Russia?
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy listens during a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City, New York, US, September 25, 2019. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.
There are two weeks to go before Donald Trump, elected to a second term on November 5, 2024, returns to the White House, but the outlines of the first “100 days” of his policy, albeit at the declarative level, are already quite clear. In addition to mass deportation of illegal immigrants, abolishing the education policy of the outgoing administration, “streamlining” the executive branch by cutting thousands of federal government positions, and other ambitious measures, there are also steps to implement one of the main campaign promises. Namely, to end as quickly as possible the “hot phase” of regional armed conflicts that could trigger political and economic instability in the world at large.
Trump’s promise to bring the war in Ukraine to an end through diplomatic measures is not the lowest on this list. Although the campaign promise to bring Putin and Zelensky to the negotiating table and end the conflict within 24 hours has already disappeared from the Trump team’s rhetoric, they remain confident that after January 20, 2024, the White House and the US State Department will have enough political and material resources to bring the hostilities to a relatively quick halt. And to convince Ukrainian and Russian leaders to accept Washington’s proposed roadmap, if not for a peaceful settlement, then for a long-term ceasefire (i.e., freezing the conflict). Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment to an immediate ceasefire and negotiations to end the war during his December 7 meeting in Paris with French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Possible offer for Russia
According to observers, the compromise arrangements that Trump intends to offer to both sides do not satisfy either Kyiv or Moscow so far. Thus, Putin, although showing glimmers of interest in ending the conflict, continues to insist that peace is possible only if, as a result of the negotiations, Kyiv officially refuses to join NATO and if Ukraine and the West agree to Russia’s annexation of five Ukrainian regions. Specifically, Crimea, officially annexed back in 2014, and four regions – Donetsk, Luhansk (the former self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics”), Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts. Moreover, Moscow wants to receive these regions in their entirety within their administrative boundaries, not only those parts that are already occupied by Russian troops.
Although according to Reuters sources in Moscow, “Russia may also be open to withdrawing from the relatively small patches of territory it holds in the Kharkiv and Mykolaiv regions, in the north and south of Ukraine.” Basically, Putin is in no hurry. Western sanctions against the Russian economy have not yet had the expected effect, internal opposition to the regime is weak, and Russian troops continue to push through the AFU defenses in the east of the country, albeit slowly. And to him, observers believe, dragging out does make sense in order to gain more by pursuing further land grabs. Finally, the level of public support for the SMO (“Special Military Operation,” as Russia officially calls the war with Ukraine) is still quite high. For example, at the end of November, according to the Moscow-based sociological Levada Center, the level of this support was 77% — despite the fact that a third of respondents confirmed that the country was still experiencing difficulties related to the SMO, and about 40% believed that real difficulties lay ahead. This may be why, judging by the same survey, support for the idea of peace talks in November 2024 stood at 57%, while support for continued military action fell to 35%. However, these figures hardly mean anything more than passive readiness of Russians to agree with any decision of the country’s leadership — to continue or end the SMO, but the latter, most likely, on the terms officially announced by the authorities.
Trump’s team seems to recognize this reality, which probably explains why the three options for a plan to end the war offered by his team to Putin, according to media reports, appear to contain more “carrots” than “sticks” for Russia. According to the first option, which was presented by Trump’s incoming Russia-Ukraine envoy, retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg together with former National Security Council official Fred Fleitz, as an analytical report by The America First Policy Institute, a think tank close to Trump, calls for freezing the current battle lines.
The second and third scenarios, presented respectively by Vice President-elect JD Vance, and by Richard Grenell, Trump’s former acting intelligence chief and ambassador to Germany, are essentially very close to the Kellogg/Fleitz ideas, except for some technical additions of varying degrees of importance. The Vance project also envisages the creation of a demilitarized zone at the existing front lines that would be “heavily fortified” to prevent further Russian incursions. The Grenell plan suggests the creation of “autonomous zones” in eastern Ukraine, without much detail as to what exactly is meant. (Purely theoretically, one can assume that it could be a territorial autonomy within Ukraine with expanded sovereignty; a quasi-state like the “Palestinian autonomy” under a de facto Russian protectorate, or a Russian-Ukrainian condominium with the participation of some external forces; or some third option).
The stick in all these scenarios is a threat to Moscow to dramatically increase military and other aid to Kyiv should it refuse to accept US proposals.
Incentives and warnings for Ukraine
In fact, this is what the outgoing administration of Joe Biden intends to do: according to media reports, it has developed a “last-minute” program that provides for an “avalanche” of military aid. In any case, this is what Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Yermak. He said that by mid-January 2025, the USA intends to supply the Ukrainian Armed Forces with hundreds of thousands of additional artillery shells and a large number of missiles and armored vehicles, as well as to train new Ukrainian troops at sites outside Ukrainian territory.
And all of this comes in a package with a promise to transfer roughly $9 billion in military aid to Kyiv through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) and defense packages under the president’s authority. As well as a new set of sanctions against Russia, which, according to the same reports, are called to complicate “Russia’s ability to sustain its war effort and boosting Ukraine’s bargaining power at the negotiation table that could lay the groundwork for a future settlement.” However, there are doubts in American media and political circles that the outgoing administration has enough time to utilize these resources. Just as it is clear that all this large-scale and, from the point of view of many in Ukraine, very late influx of weapons cannot be carried out in a matter of weeks, so it will have to be implemented — or abandoned — mostly by the new administration.
This scenario may be convenient for Trump’s team as a “stick” for Moscow. However, judging by what is being reported from the president-elect’s inner circle, so far they would prefer, in response to Kremlin, to start with incentives rather than intimidation. It is indicative, for example, that all three scenarios of completing the war in Ukraine that were produced by Trump’s inner circle, denied the NATO membership for Ukraine in the foreseeable future. The difference is that while in the plans of Vance and Kellogg/Fleitz this looks like an inevitable concession to Putin in exchange for his agreement to end or freeze the conflict on terms more or less satisfactory to all parties involved, the plan of Grenell, who was one of the few people at a September meeting in New York between Trump and Zelensky, presents Ukraine’s non-participation in NATO as a conceptual judgment (“NATO membership for Ukraine was not in America’s interest”).
Yet, this is precisely what Kyiv is not ready to accept by definition. Ukraine’s joining, or initiating the process of joining NATO, was a critical element of the “Victory Plan” presented by Volodymyr Zelensky in September 2024, amid a perceived decline in Western interest in Ukraine and accumulated war fatigue in Eastern Europe. Key points of the plan included recognizing Ukraine’s absolute right to be a member of any alliance, regardless of the opinion of “third countries” on the matter; large-scale investments in military production facilities in Ukraine; auditing and expanding anti-Russian sanctions; and diplomatic pressure on Moscow.
This plan, presented in the Verkhovna Rada and at various high-profile international events, as well as Zelensky’s earlier proposed “peace formula,” did not evoke much enthusiasm among Ukraine’s allies. Therefore, at this stage Kyiv is ready for a minimal alternative — to be “invited” to the alliance, and to receive some “guarantees of Ukraine’s security” from American and European leaders, and to have a “deterrence potential”, including an arsenal of conventional weapons sufficient to deliver a sensitive blow to the Russian Federation in case it violates the ceasefire regime. And at this stage — to obtain weapons and other resources capable of turning the situation on the front line and creating conditions for negotiations.
Kyiv would clearly be satisfied with such an arrangement if it became a fundamental element of Ukraine’s obtaining the status of “major US ally outside NATO,” which would at least partially raise the level of relations to that which binds the US, for example, with Israel, Japan, or Australia. However, Ukraine rejected such a partnership back in 2021, and although the question seems to have returned to the agenda after February 24, 2022, the chances of its implementation are slim. As a result, the position of the Ukrainian leadership in relations with the incoming US administration is rather weak.
Unlike Russian leaders, who still have a considerable amount of time and room for maneuver, Zelensky’s team has significantly less of these two resources. Ukraine experiences manpower shortages, growing territorial losses, a drop in public morale due to accumulated war fatigue, lack of prospects, and the feeling that Western allies are “preventing Ukraine from winning” by rationing aid. There is also outrage at corruption at all levels and a sense of injustice regarding the distribution of the war burden within Ukrainian society. Therefore, Zelensky has to be open to negotiations to find diplomatic solutions, especially since it is quite obvious that the public has such a demand.
Under these circumstances, Trump has much more leverage over Zelensky than over Putin, and it is possible that at some point the balance of “carrots and sticks” in Ukrainian politics will shift in favor of the latter. So far, the more or less openly articulated position of the Trump team fits into a simple formula: Kyiv should agree to negotiations with Moscow based on the White House and the State Department’s understanding of the optimal arrangement for a diplomatic solution under the threat of halting military aid, but boosting assistance if Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses.
In a sense, such an approach stymies Ukraine’s president, who signed a decree in 2022 forbidding Ukraine from negotiating with Russia as long as Putin is in power. Theoretically, Ukraine could formally cede some of its territory if such a move is approved in a national referendum, which, judging by opinion polls, is unlikely. In other words, there is obviously a built-in contradiction in the vision of the Ukrainian political establishment: a clear understanding of the lack of prospects for defeating Russia on the battlefield and the need to seek a diplomatic solution, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the impossibility of removing from the official discourse the declared goal of resisting Russian aggression, that is the restoration of Kyiv’s sovereignty over the entire territory of Ukraine within the 1991 borders.
Today, Zelensky’s team does not have many other options. One of them is to continue to insist on inviting Ukraine to NATO with the help of the so-called contact group consisting of France, Poland, Great Britain and Germany, which was launched on December 9, 2024 by Friedrich Merz, candidate to the German chancellor from the CDU party, to develop a common position on ending the war. The Ukrainian presidential administration pitched the initiative as a group of countries that have long-range weapons, that are investing the most in Ukrainian defense production, and on which Ukraine’s accession to NATO depends.
Nevertheless, it is clear that eventually everything will depend on the US position. And it is still unclear whether Kyiv and Moscow are impressed enough by Trump’s reputation as a “hard pragmatist” on foreign policy issues, and by the set of “carrots and sticks” voiced by his men for each side of the conflict, to soften their unyielding positions.
Prof. Vladimir (Ze’ev) Khanin lectures in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and is Academic Chairman of the Institute for Euro-Asian Jewish Studies in Herzliya, Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post What Is Next for Ukraine and Russia? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Rashida Tlaib Introduces Resolution to Mandate Federal Recognition of Palestinian ‘Nakba’
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) addresses attendees as she takes part in a protest calling for a ceasefire in Gaza outside the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, US, Oct. 18, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Leah Millis
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) on Wednesday introduced a resolution recognizing the 77th anniversary of the “nakba,” the Arabic term for “catastrophe” used by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists to refer to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
“The nakba never ended. Today we are witnessing the Israeli apartheid regime carry out genocide in Gaza. It is a campaign to erase Palestinians from existence,” Tlaib said in a statement.
“War Criminal Netanyahu,” she continued, referring to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “has threatened to ethnically cleanse the entire Palestinian population in Gaza, annex the land, and permanently occupy it. As we mark the 77th anniversary of the nakba, we honor all of those killed since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine began, and the Palestinians who were forced from their homes and violently displaced from their land.”
Co-sponsors of the bill include Democratic Reps. André Carson (IN), Summer Lee (PA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (MN), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Delia Ramirez (IL), Lateefah Simon (CA), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ).
The resolution does not mention the Jewish people’s millennia-long connection to the land of Israel or any instances of Palestinian terrorism against the Jewish state.
“Nakba refers not only to a historical event but to an ongoing process of Israel’s expropriation of Palestinian land and its dispossession of the Palestinian people that continues to this day, including the systematic destruction of Palestinian homes, the construction and expansion of illegal settlements, and the confinement of Palestinians to ever-shrinking areas of land,” the bill reads.
“It is the sense of the House of Representatives that it is the policy of the United States to commemorate the nakba through official recognition and remembrance; denounce the ongoing nakba of the Palestinian people; [and] reject efforts to enlist, engage, or otherwise associate the United States government with denial of the nakba.”
Tlaib, the only Palestinian American woman in Congress, further repudiated the US as being “an accomplice” in the alleged ongoing “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians” by supporting Israel’s defensive military efforts.
Since entering Congress in 2018, Tlaib has established herself as one of the most vocal critics of Israel. She has repeatedly characterized Israel as an “apartheid state” and accused the Jewish state of transforming Gaza into an “open-air prison.”
In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led slaughters in Israel, Tlaib ramped up her condemnations of the Jewish state. She was initially hesitant to condemn the terrorist attacks in Israel, in which 1,200 people were murdered and 250 hostages were kidnapped. However, Tlaib was among the first US lawmakers to accuse Israel of committing “genocide in Gaza. In most of her public statements regarding the war in Gaza, she has omitted any mention of the Hamas terrorist group. Moreover, the lawmaker has sparked backlash by attending multiple pro-Palestine events connected to terrorists.
The post Rashida Tlaib Introduces Resolution to Mandate Federal Recognition of Palestinian ‘Nakba’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
No Diploma for NYU Senior After Unauthorized Anti-Israel Commencement Speech
Students and professors attend the New York University (NYU) graduation ceremony at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx borough of New York City, US, May 15, 2025. Photo: Eduardo Munoz via Reuters Connect.
New York University is withholding the diploma of a senior student at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study who lied to the administration about the content of his commencement speech to conceal its claim of a genocide taking place in Gaza, an anti-Israel falsehood propagated by neo-Nazi groups and jihadist terror organizations.
“My moral and political commitments guide me to say that the only thing that is appropriate to say in this time and to a group this large is a recognition of the atrocities currently happening in Palestine” the student, Logan Rozos, said, delivering the unauthorized remarks to a din of acclamation from the audience. “I want to say that the genocide currently occurring is supported politically and militarily by the United States, is paid for by our tax dollars, and has been live streamed to our phones for the past 18 months.”
He continued, “I want to say that I condemn this genocide and complicity in this genocide.”
Rozos drew a trenchant rebuke from a university that has enacted a slew of policies to reduce antisemitic discrimination on its campuses. Since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, a bloody invasion that started the war in Gaza, NYU has issued policies which acknowledge the “coded” subtleties of antisemitic speech and its use in discriminatory conduct that targets Jewish students and faculty.
“NYU strongly denounces the choice by a student at the Gallatin School’s graduation today — one of over 20 school graduation ceremonies across our campus — to misuse his role as student speaker to express his personal and one-sided political views,” university spokesman John Beckman said in a statement. “He lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules. The university is withholding his diploma while we pursue disciplinary actions.”
He continued, “NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him.”
Jewish civil rights groups rebuked Rozos as well, with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) saying he uttered “divisive and false comments about the current Israel/Hamas war.” The group added, “We are thankful to the NYU administration for their strong condemnation and rather pursuit of disciplinary action.”
End Jew Hatred (EJH), writing to The Algemeiner, called on NYU to impose the severest disciplinary measure possible on Rozos: withholding his diploma in perpetuity as punishment for using so high an honor to spread lies that have been used to justify antisemitic violence and discrimination.
“It was right to denounce his deception and abuse of the platform, and it was essential to affirm that hate speech masquerading as political commentary has no place at a graduation ceremony,” the group said. “But that cannot be where it ends. The diploma must be permanently withheld. The full process — from Rozos’s selection to speech approval to mic control — demands transparency. And NYU must do more than punish a student; it must confront the climate that made this outburst possible.”
The conclusion of the 2024-2025 academic year has seen other attempts to place anti-Zionism at the center of the public’s attention.
A group of pro-Hamas students at Yale University recently vowed to starve themselves inside an administrative building until such time as officials agree to their demands that the university’s endowment be divested of any ties to Israel as well as companies that do business with it. However, Yale officials are refusing to even meet with the students, who have been told that their demonstration, held in Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall, is “in violation of university policy.”
At the University of Washington, in Seattle, over 30 members of a pro-Hamas student group calling itself “Super UW” were arrested for commandeering the university’s Interdisciplinary Engineering Building (IEB) to protest and demand the termination of the institution’s partnerships with The Boeing Company, whose armaments manufacturing they identified as a resource aiding Israel’s war to eradicate Hamas from Gaza.
The illegal demonstration involved students establishing blockades near the building using “bike rack[s] and chairs,” burning trash — while setting off sizable fires — that they then left unattended, and calling for violence against the police. Law enforcement officers eventually entered the building equipped with riot gear, including helmets and batons.
University officials’ tolerance for such disruptions is depleting.
Earlier this month, George Washington University suspended its Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter until Spring 2026, punishing the group for a series of unauthorized demonstrations it held on school property last month. The move marked one of the severest disciplinary sanctions SJP has provoked from the GW administration since it began violating rules on peaceful expression and assembly, as well as targeting school officials for harassment, following Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel. Until next May, SJP is barred from advertising and may only convene to “complete sanctions or consult with their advisor,” according to a report by The GW Hatchet.
SJP will be placed on probation for one year after its suspension is lifted, the paper continued, during which it must request and acquire prior approval for any expressive activity. Additionally, members will be required to attend “teach-ins on university policy” for “ten consecutive semesters.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post No Diploma for NYU Senior After Unauthorized Anti-Israel Commencement Speech first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Announces $200 Billion in Deals During UAE Visit, AI Agreement Signed
US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Yousif Al Obaidli, director of Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, as he tours the mosque grounds in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
President Donald Trump on Thursday pledged to strengthen US ties to the United Arab Emirates and announced deals with the Gulf state totaling over $200 billion and the two countries also agreed to deepen cooperation in artificial intelligence.
After Trump’s meeting with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the White House said he announced deals that included a $14.5 billion commitment from Etihad Airways to invest in 28 Boeing 787 and 777x aircraft powered by engines made by GE Aerospace.
The US Commerce Department said the two countries also agreed to establish a “US-UAE AI Acceleration Partnership” framework and Trump and Sheikh Mohamed attended the unveiling of a new 5GW AI campus, which would be the largest outside the United States.
Sources have said the agreements will give the Gulf country expanded access to advanced artificial intelligence chips from the US after previously facing restrictions over Washington’s concerns that China could access the technology.
Trump began a visit to the UAE on the latest stage of a tour of wealthy Gulf states after hailing plans by Doha to invest $10 billion in a US military facility during a trip to Qatar.
“I have absolutely no doubt that the relationship will only get bigger and better,” Trump said in a meeting with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
“Your wonderful brother came to Washington a few weeks ago and he told us about your generous statement as to the 1.4 trillion,” Trump said, referring to a UAE pledge to invest $1.4 trillion in the US over 10 years.
Trump was referring to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Sheikh Mohamed’s brother and the UAE’s national security adviser and chairman of two of Abu Dhabi’s deep-pocketed sovereign wealth funds.
The US president was met at the airport in Abu Dhabi by Sheikh Mohamed, and they visited the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, its white minarets and domes, impressive in the late-afternoon light.
“It is so beautiful,” Trump told reporters inside the mosque, which he said had been closed for the day.
“First time they closed it. It’s in honor of the United States. Better than in honor of me. Let’s give it to the country. That’s a great tribute.”
$200 BILLION IN NEW DEALS
A White House fact sheet said Trump had secured $200 billion in new US-UAE deals and accelerated the previously committed $1.4 trillion.
It said Emirates Global Aluminum would invest to develop a $4 billion primary aluminum smelter project in Oklahoma, while ExxonMobil Corp, Occidental Petroleum, and EOG Resources were partnering with the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company in expanded oil and natural gas production valued at $60 billion.
Sheikh Mohamed told Trump the UAE was “keen to continue and strengthen this friendship for the benefit of the two countries and peoples,” adding to Trump: “your presence here today, your excellency, the president, confirms that this keenness is mutual.”
Before his departure for the UAE, Trump said in a speech to US troops at the Al Udeid Air Base southwest of Doha that defense purchases signed by Qatar on Wednesday were worth $42 billion.
UAE has been seeking US help to make the wealthy Gulf nation a global leader in artificial intelligence.
The US has a preliminary agreement with the UAE to allow it to import 500,000 of Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips a year, starting this year, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
The deal would boost the UAE’s construction of data centers vital to developing AI models, although the agreement has provoked national security concerns among sectors of the US government.
The AI agreement “includes the UAE committing to invest in, build, or finance US data centers that are at least as large and as powerful as those in the UAE,” the White House said.
“The agreement also contains historic commitments by the UAE to further align their national security regulations with the United States, including strong protections to prevent the diversion of US-origin technology.”
Former US President Joe Biden’s administration had imposed strict oversight of exports of US AI chips to the Middle East and other regions. Among Biden’s fears were that the prized semiconductors would be diverted to China and buttress its military strength.
At the UAE presidential palace, Trump and Sheikh Mohamed could be seen in TV footage in conversation with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang.
Trump said he would probably return to Washington on Friday after a regional trip that began on Tuesday, although he said it was “almost destination unknown.” Trump had hinted he could stop in Istanbul for talks on Ukraine.
DEALS, DIPLOMACY
Other big business agreements have been signed during Trump’s four-day swing through the Gulf region, including a deal for Qatar Airways to purchase up to 210 Boeing widebody jets, a $600 billion commitment from Saudi Arabia to invest in the US and $142 billion in US arms sales to the kingdom.
The trip has also brought a flurry of diplomacy.
Trump said in Qatar that the United States was getting very close to securing a nuclear deal with Iran, and Tehran had “sort of” agreed to the terms.
He also announced on Tuesday the US would remove longstanding sanctions on Syria and subsequently met with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
He urged Sharaa to establish ties with Syria’s longtime foe Israel.
Trump has made improving ties with some Gulf countries a key goal of his administration. If all the proposed chip deals in Gulf states, and the UAE in particular, come together, the region would become a third power center in global AI competition after the United States and China.
The post Trump Announces $200 Billion in Deals During UAE Visit, AI Agreement Signed first appeared on Algemeiner.com.