Zelensky, Volodymyr

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares62 Views

      in Elections

      Putin Is Ready to Carve Up the World. Trump Just Handed Him the Knife.

      by

      Washington and Moscow have been repairing relations at breakneck speed, comparable only to the speed at which the Trump administration is breaking things at home. After meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 18, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said the two sides had resolved to “eliminate impediments” to improving bilateral relations, a phrasing that sent chills down the spines of Russian exiles — myself included — who have sought what at the time seemed like safe harbor in the United States.Of course, Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has his sights set on much more than a bunch of political exiles. And his negotiations with President Trump about Ukraine are not just about Ukraine. Putin wants nothing less than to reorganize the world, the way Joseph Stalin did with the accords he reached with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in the Crimean city of Yalta in February 1945. Putin has wanted to carve the globe up for a long time. Now, at last, Trump is handing him the knife.How do I know Putin wants this? Because he has said so. In fact, he, Lavrov and a cadre of Kremlin propagandists and revisionist historians haven’t shut up about Yalta for more than a decade. After illegally annexing Crimea in 2014, Putin addressed a gathering celebrating the 70th anniversary of the accords; it culminated in the unveiling of a monument to the three Allied leaders.His reverence for the Yalta accords goes beyond the glorification of the once-mighty Soviet Union and its leader Stalin; he believes that the agreement those three heads of state struck — with the Soviet Union keeping three Baltic States it had annexed as well as parts of Poland and Romania, and later securing domination over six Eastern and Central European countries and part of Germany — remains the only legitimate framework for European borders and security. In February, as Russia celebrated the accords’ 80th anniversary, and prepared to sit down with the Trump administration, Lavrov and the official Russia historians reiterated this message in article after article.This week, Alexander Dugin, a self-styled philosopher who has consistently supplied Putin with the ideological language to back up his policies, sat down for a long interview with Glenn Greenwald, the formerly leftist American journalist. Dugin affably explained why Russia invaded Ukraine: because it wanted and needed to reclaim its former European holdings but realistically could attempt to occupy only Ukraine. He also laid out potential pathways to ending the war. At the very least, he said, Russia would require a partition, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. He was purposefully using the language the Allies applied to Germany in Yalta.On X, where Dugin has been hyperactive in the last weeks, he is even bolder. In the lead-up to elections last week in Germany, he posted, “Vote AfD or we will occupy Germany once more and divide it between Russia and USA.” (A German journalist friend sent me a screenshot asking if the post was real — German journalists are less accustomed to the unimaginable than Russian ones.)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

    • 113 Shares125 Views

      in Elections

      Ukrainians Blindsided by Deal’s Breakdown and by Trump’s Actions

      by

      Some said they felt the U.S. president was disrespectful and that they were proud of their leader for standing up to him.Liudmyla Shestakova has lost a lot to this war — her son, and his wife, who died together on the front lines. But she’s a realist, like many in this mining region in central Ukraine. And ever since President Trump suggested it, she has thought that her country should sign a proposed deal that would give America some profits from mining in Ukraine.Ms. Shestakova, 65, who works with an environmental group called Flora in the city of Kropyvnytskyi, had hoped a deal between the U.S. and Ukraine on critical minerals could bring much-needed investment to the region.But on Friday night, Ms. Shestakova, like many people in Ukraine, was shocked and blindsided at how the deal fell apart and how she felt that President Trump treated Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, almost like a serf who didn’t bow and kiss the ring quite enough.“With a trustworthy partner, this could have been a beneficial deal for everyone,” said Ms. Shestakova, who once ran Flora and now sits on its supervisory board. “But with a partner like Trump, it could actually be dangerous.”Across Ukraine, people said they were upset Friday night. They also said they wouldn’t stop fighting, even if America walked away.“It will be hard, but we will survive,” said Iryna Tsilyk, 42, a poet and film director in the capital, Kyiv, whose husband serves in the army. “Today, I was not ashamed of my president and my country. I am not sure that the Americans can say the same.”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

    • 150 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Pro-Russia Politicians in Ukraine, Inspired by Trump and Putin, See an Opening

      by

      From prison and from exile, supporters of Moscow have been ramping up social media posts aimed at backing Russia’s call for elections in Ukraine and slamming President Volodymyr Zelensky.Three years ago, support for members of a Ukrainian political party that advocated closer ties with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia plunged to near zero after Russian forces invaded Ukraine, flattening whole cities and killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians.The party, called the Opposition Platform for Life, was banned, some members went to jail on charges of treason, and others fled Ukraine. A few former members banded together in a new faction and still sit in Parliament, but have generally kept quiet since the Russian invasion.Now some of those pro-Russian politicians are attempting an unlikely comeback, inspired by President Trump’s attacks on Ukraine’s current leadership and Russian demands, echoed by Mr. Trump, that the country hold elections.The politicians are posting widely viewed videos on social media in which they have promoted themselves as future candidates; criticized President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government; and praised Mr. Trump.The efforts are unlikely to gain much traction in a country that remains overwhelmingly hostile to Russia and the people who have supported it. But analysts say the videos, which are rife with misinformation, could nonetheless stoke divisions at a time when Ukraine’s unity and its leaders are under threat from a hostile Mr. Trump.Oleksandr Dubinsky, a former member of Parliament, has produced videos promoting what he calls a pro-Trump and pro-peace agenda from prison, where is he serving time for treason. His videos place blame Ukraine’s leaders for the war, saying they are committing genocide against the Ukrainian people, an echo of Russian propaganda.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

    • 125 Shares111 Views

      in Elections

      U.S.-Ukraine Minerals Deal Draft Features Vague Reference to Security Guarantees

      by

      A copy of the agreement obtained by The New York Times says that the United States “supports Ukraine’s effort to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.”A draft of an agreement calling for Ukraine to hand over to the United States revenue from natural resources includes new language referring to security guarantees, a provision Kyiv had pressed for vigorously in negotiations.But the reference is vague and does not signal any specific American commitment to safeguarding Ukraine’s security.A copy of the agreement obtained Wednesday by The New York Times included a sentence stating that the United States “supports Ukraine’s effort to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.” Previous drafts did not have the phrase on security guarantees.It was not clear whether the draft, dated Tuesday, was a final version.A Ukrainian official briefed on the draft, and several people in Ukraine with knowledge of the talks, confirmed that wording on security had been included in the document. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations.The agreement is seen as opening the door to possible continued backing from the United States under the Trump administration, either as aid for the war effort or as enforcement of any cease-fire. Officials in the United States and Ukraine said on Tuesday that a version had been accepted by both sides.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine is expected to travel to Washington on Friday to sign the agreement with President Trump. The draft obtained by The Times showed Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine’s economy minister, as the initial signatories.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

    • 150 Shares69 Views

      in Elections

      What the U.S. and Ukraine May Gain From Trump’s Rare Earth Diplomacy

      by

      The White House and Ukraine struck a deal on strategic resources, a pact that speaks volumes about President Trump’s geopolitical strategy.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine won some major concessions in tense negotiations with the White House over a piece of the country’s mineral wealth.Agence France-Presse, via Ukrainian Presidential Press Service“They have very good rare earth”Ukraine has finally struck a deal to share revenue from mineral sources with the United States, following weeks of sometimes tense negotiations punctuated by insults and threats by President Trump.What Trump proclaimed as a “very big deal” is indeed noteworthy — both in terms of how his administration is looking to profit from supporting Ukraine and how he is increasingly focusing on strategic nonpetroleum resources as a geopolitical goal.What we know so far: Ukraine would contribute 50 percent of proceeds from the “future monetization” of mineral sales to a fund in which the United States would own a big — but as yet undetermined — stake. The joint venture would reinvest at least some of its revenue to rebuilding Ukraine.It doesn’t contain any security guarantees from Washington, something that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine had sought. But it also doesn’t contain earlier Trump demands including that Kyiv contribute $500 billion or repay double any future aid from the United States.Trump has been fixated on snapping up minerals. He doesn’t just want Ukraine’s resources, which include lithium, titanium and uranium. He’s also interested in getting access to Russia’s geographical wealth, including so-called rare earth elements like neodymium and promethium. (He appears to mistakenly believe that Ukraine has big stores of rare earth minerals as well.)“I’d like to buy minerals on Russian land too if we can,” Trump said on Tuesday. “They have very good rare earth.”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

    • 88 Shares95 Views

      in Elections

      Three Years: Reflections on the Ukraine War

      by

      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

    • 175 Shares103 Views

      in Elections

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

      by

      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

    • 125 Shares165 Views

      in Elections

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

      by

      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