More stories

  • in

    Three Years: Reflections on the Ukraine War

    More from our inbox:Advice for Democrats: ‘Go Home and Listen’Lab Discoveries LostBuy Back Pennies and NickelsRe-evaluating Movies Andrew Kravchenko/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “At Home and Abroad, Mourning Lives Lost Over Three Long Years” (news article, Feb. 25):Feb. 24 marked the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I am inspired by, and my heart breaks for, the brave and noble Ukrainians. I wish my president were more like President Volodymyr Zelensky.Alison FordOssining, N.Y.To the Editor:Re “Dueling U.N. Resolutions on Ukraine Highlight Fissures Between the U.S. and Europe” (news article, Feb. 25):If the United States’ joining Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution to condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine isn’t giving aid and comfort to our enemy, I don’t know what is. Shame on us all.Eileen MitchellLewes, Del.To the Editor:Republicans, historically the party for a strong U.S. foreign policy and an understanding of who our democratic allies are, now remain silent.As President Trump embraces Vladimir Putin, widely suspected of being a killer of political rivals and journalists, and calls President Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator, our Republican senators and representatives should understand that their silence is more than acquiescence.It should be construed as supporting our current path. So when things go wrong, as they inevitably do when you cut deals with bad actors, don’t you dare pretend you were not a part of this abhorrent change in direction in U.S. policy.Steve ReichShort Hills, N.J.To the Editor:Re “Ukraine Nears a Deal to Give U.S. a Share of Its Mineral Wealth” (news article, nytimes.com, Feb. 24):I want to register my objection to the United States’ “mineral rights” demand to Ukraine. Further, any treaty granting our nation such rights must be approved by Congress, which I hope will show a shred of dignity and ensure that it at least gives Ukraine protection and sovereignty in return.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Some Republicans Sharply Criticize Trump’s Embrace of Russia at the U.N.

    A band of moderate Republicans in Congress sharply criticized the Trump administration this week for siding with Russia at the United Nations on resolutions regarding the war in Ukraine, even as the majority of the G.O.P. turned a blind eye to the United States’ sudden embrace of a longtime adversary.“The Trump Administration royally screwed up today on Ukraine,” Representative Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska, wrote on social media on Monday night. “The vast majority of Americans stand up for independence, freedom and free markets, and against the bully and invader.”The reproach from Mr. Bacon and others came after the United States on Monday voted against a U.N. General Assembly resolution, introduced by Ukraine, that condemned Russia for invading Ukrainian territory and demanded that it withdraw and face repercussions for war crimes. Shortly afterward, the United States succeeded in passing a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for peace in Ukraine that did not chastise Russia. Key U.S. allies, including Britain and France, abstained.“This posture is a dramatic shift from American ideals of freedom and democracy,” Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, wrote on social media on Monday night, saying he was “deeply troubled by the vote,” which had “put us on the same side as Russia and North Korea.”The Russian representative to the United Nations welcomed the move by the United States and said the new stance gave Moscow “a certain optimism” about the future of European security.The position adopted by the Trump administration would have been anathema in recent years, during which the United States shipped arms to help Ukraine’s fighters beat back Russia’s invasion and sent funds to prop up the war-torn country’s civilian infrastructure. Even many Republicans who bristled at the tens of billions of dollars in aid packages that Congress approved for Ukraine were resolute that Russia and Vladimir V. Putin, its president, were the aggressors in the conflict.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    As Trump Courts Putin, China’s Leader Xi Emphasizes Close Ties With Russia

    The Chinese and Russian leaders reaffirmed their relationship in a video call on Monday, an apparent rebuff to the idea that the Trump administration could drive a wedge between them.China’s leader said his country and Russia were “true friends who have been through thick and thin together” after a video call with President Vladimir V. Putin on Monday, according to Chinese state media.The warm words attributed to Xi Jinping were clearly intended to dampen speculation that the Trump administration might succeed in driving a wedge between Beijing and Moscow.The call came on the anniversary of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, after three years in which China has served as Russia’s most important foreign partner amid Moscow’s isolation in the West.“History and reality show us that China and Russia are good neighbors who won’t move away, and true friends who have been through thick and thin together, support each other and develop together,” Mr. Xi was quoted as saying by Chinese state media.Mr. Xi said relations between China and Russia were not “affected by any third party,” in what appeared to be an oblique reference to the United States. And he said the two countries’ foreign policies were for the “long term.”The Kremlin issued a similarly cordial statement after the call, describing Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin’s conversation as “warm and friendly.” In a rebuff of the idea that President Trump could divide the two countries, the Kremlin added: “The leaders emphasized that the Russian-Chinese foreign policy link is the most important stabilizing factor in world affairs,” and said the relationship was “not subject to external influence.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    In Russia, Anniversary of Ukraine War Draws Little Public Mention

    President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is not scheduled to attend any events on Monday to mark the anniversary of the full-scale invasion that he ordered.No public events. No speeches, memorial church services for fallen soldiers or mentions on state television.Three years after sending troops across the border into Ukraine, Russian officials are marking the anniversary on Monday with a resounding silence.President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is not scheduled to attend any events on Monday for the anniversary of the full-scale invasion that he ordered, which has metastasized into Europe’s biggest military conflict since World War II.Russian state TV opened Monday morning news bulletins with routine reports from the front lines in Ukraine, making no reference to the symbolism of the date.And local officials who typically toe the Kremlin’s line on glorifying the invasion — casting Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine as heroes and the war as a moral imperative — were uncharacteristically quiet on Monday.Nor is Russia mourning its casualties — which U.S. intelligence estimates to be in the hundreds of thousands including the wounded — in any public way on Monday.However, independent Russian journalists in exile published a joint report saying that Russia had lost over 165,000 soldiers in three years of fighting, based on publicly available data from court records. Those figures could not be independently confirmed, and Russia’s defense ministry refuses to disclose casualty figures.A top Russian diplomat made no mention of the anniversary on Monday but praised the Trump administration’s efforts to draw closer to Mr. Putin and bring an end to the war.“A cease-fire without a long-term settlement is a path to renewed fighting and conflict at a later date with even graver consequences including for Russian-American ties,” Sergei A. Ryabkov, a deputy foreign minister, told the RIA Novosti news agency, a week after Russian and U.S. officials sat down for talks for the first time in three years.“We don’t want that,” Mr. Ryabkov went on. “We need to look for a long-term settlement that should include a way to deal with the underlying reasons for what has been happening in Ukraine and around it.” More

  • in

    Trump Has the Same Idea in Mind for Ukraine and the Department of Justice

    I grew up a Reagan Republican in the middle of the Cold War, and I never thought I’d see the day when the president of the United States became the world’s most prominent and effective Russian propagandist.Yet that’s exactly what happened last week, when President Trump began a diplomatic offensive against the nation of Ukraine and the person of President Volodymyr Zelensky.This month, the administration couldn’t seem to get its message straight. First it seemed to want to offer unilateral concessions to the Russian government — including by taking NATO membership for Ukraine off the table and recognizing Russia’s territorial gains in Ukraine — only to walk back the concessions days (or hours) later.The cumulative effect was confusing. What was the administration’s position on Ukraine? Last week, however, the words and actions of the administration left us with no doubt — the United States is taking Russia’s side in the conflict.What other conclusion should we draw when Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, begins peace negotiations with Russia without Ukraine or any of our NATO allies at the table, dangling “historic economic and investment opportunities” for Russia if the conflict ends?What other conclusion should we draw when Trump demands ruinous economic concessions from Ukraine to compensate America for its prior aid? He’s demanding a higher share of gross domestic product from Ukraine than the victorious Allies demanded from Germany after World War I.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    U.S. Pressing Tough Demands in Revised Deal for Ukraine’s Minerals

    The Trump administration wants revenues from Ukraine’s natural resources, according to a draft obtained by The New York Times, with no security guarantee in exchange.Ukraine on Saturday was seriously considering a revised American proposal for its vast natural resources that contains virtually the same provisions that Kyiv previously rejected as too onerous, according to a draft document of the new proposal.Some of the terms appear even tougher than in a previous draft.Though Ukraine had not finalized the deal as of Saturday afternoon, its assent to the terms would represent a capitulation to American demands after a week of intense pressure from President Trump. The American president views access to Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth as necessary repayment for the billions the United States has provided Kyiv for its war against Russia.The deal could strip Ukraine of funds that are now mostly invested in the country’s military and defense industry, and that could help rebuild the country once the war is over.The terms of the new proposal, which is dated Feb. 21 and was reviewed by The New York Times, call for Ukraine to relinquish half of its revenues from natural resources, including minerals, gas and oil, as well as earnings from ports and other infrastructure.A similar demand was made in a previous version of the deal, dated Feb. 14 and reviewed by The Times. Four current and former Ukrainian officials and a Ukrainian businessman who had the terms of the new proposal described to them confirmed that the demand remained unchanged.Ukraine had been floating the prospect of a partnership with the United States on its valuable natural resources as a way to persuade Mr. Trump to provide additional support for its war effort as well as guarantees against future Russian aggression if a peace deal is struck.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Shocked by Trump, Europe Turns Its Hopes to Germany’s Election

    Germany’s economy is stalled and its politics fractured. But it sees an opening for a new chancellor to lead Europe’s response to a changing America.In the final days of Germany’s abbreviated election campaign, the task facing its next chancellor has snapped into focus. It appears far more existential, for the country and for all of Europe, than almost anyone initially imagined.Germany’s coalition government came apart just a day after the U.S. presidential election last November. As a result, a vote that was supposed to come this September is now set for Sunday. German leaders quickly realized that meant their campaign would be largely fought in the early days of President Trump’s second term.They were nervous from the start. But they were nowhere near prepared.In just a few short weeks, the new Trump team has cut Ukraine and Europe out of negotiations to end the war with Russia, and embraced an aggressive, expansionist regime in Moscow that now breathes down Europe’s neck. It also threatened to withdraw troops that have protected Germany for decades.How Germans vote will now be a critical component of Europe’s response to Mr. Trump’s new world order, and will resonate far beyond their borders.“It is not just another change of government” under Mr. Trump, Friedrich Merz, the leading candidate for chancellor, warned on Friday after taking the stage for an arena rally in the western town of Oberhausen, “but a complete redrawing of the world map.”Friedrich Merz at a campaign event in Oberhausen, Germany, on Friday.Martin Meissner/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    One Month into the Trump Presidency

    The president has moved swiftly to remake Washington. But for business leaders, that volatility has often been hard to navigate. In his first month back in office, President Trump has rapidly begun to remake Washington. But with that has come big questions about what’s next.Al Drago for The New York TimesThe good, bad and puzzlingCorporate leaders and investors expected a bit of volatility to accompany President Trump’s second term. In many ways, that’s exactly what has happened one month in, with the radical cutting of the federal government, threats of trade wars and more.But amid a flurry of unexpected announcements — talks over a possible Ukraine peace plan that exclude Kyiv, the retention of tough Biden-era deal guidelines and a potential Elon Musk-enabled stimulus plan, for starters — and a lack of clarity over where Trump stands on a host of issues, many executives are asking themselves: How do we navigate this?Trump has made good on some of his campaign promises. He has vowed to impose tariffs to bolster American manufacturing. He has waged war on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and more and more companies have fallen into line.And most notably, he has unleashed subordinates and Musk to raze huge portions of the Washington bureaucracy, with some courts refusing to stand in the way. The latest on that: The I.R.S. fired 6,700 workers on the eve of tax-filing season; Trump claimed the power to dismiss administrative law judges at will; and he reportedly plans to take control of the U.S. Postal Service, according to The Washington Post.But there’s a lot that business leaders and others are trying to figure out:Where does Trump actually stand on tariffs? He has spoken of a potential wide-ranging trade deal with China, even as he threatens Europe with huge levies.Trump’s position on Ukraine is increasingly unclear, as he publicly embraces Russia and castigates Kyiv and Europe. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is said to have pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to hand over billions’ worth of Ukrainian mineral resources, according to The Wall Street Journal, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio privately told European leaders that Washington wasn’t looking to disrupt the diplomatic status quo.The administration’s antitrust cops have kept in place Biden era merger rules, dampening hopes for a deal resurgence. And despite efforts by tech companies like Meta to forge closer ties to Trump, the Federal Trade Commission’s new chief is weighing a scrutiny of Big Tech over censorship concerns.Trump’s efforts to gain more control over independent agencies may reach further into the Fed, with Musk vaguely promising an audit of the central bank.The president’s floating of potentially inflationary taxpayer payouts, funded by Musk’s government cost-cutting (whose true extent appears to change frequently), is drawing lukewarm support from congressional Republicans.Trump’s legislative agenda is in limbo, with the president splitting Republican lawmakers over matters like the budget.For now, corporate America appears to be along for the ride. A new survey by the Conference Board found that C.E.O. confidence recently reached a three-year peak, reflecting “confident optimism.”Whether that will persist — Americans appear increasingly worried about rising inflation and the Musk cost-cutting — remains to be seen. Stay tuned.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More