|
Quotes of the Day:
"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error."
– Thomas Paine
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it ... always."
– Mahatma Gandhi
"I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what."
– Harper Lee
1. Trump Rolled Out the Red Carpet for Putin. He Got Little in Return.
2. Who Was in the Room for Trump-Putin Meeting
3. The Palantir Mafia Behind Silicon Valley’s Hottest Startups
4. OPINION: The Flashy Trump-Putin Summit Without Ukraine Was a Rehearsal for Betrayal
5. Live Updates: Trump Backs Putin’s Route for Talks, Dashing Ukraine’s Hopes for Swift Cease-Fire
6. How the Trump-Putin Summit Signals a Return to Imperial Thinking
7. Editorial: That meeting was sickening. Putin loved it
8. Why Russia Sold Alaska to the U.S.
9. A $45 Treatment Can Save a Starving Child. US Aid Cuts Have Frozen the Supply
10. China dependence poses existential risk to US universities
11. 'Economic Defense Unit': How the U.S. Military Wins in the 'Gray Zone'
12. Government papers found in an Alaskan hotel reveal new details of Trump-Putin summit
13. China Is Still Afraid of Losing World War II
14. What Was the Trump-Putin Meeting Even About?
15. Clouds Over China: A Challenge to Intelligence Gathering
16. One Belt, One Road, One Chilean Headache
17. Trump Expresses Gratitude For Hillary Clinton's Nobel Peace Prize Nod Ahead Of Putin Summit
18. Trump Tells Europeans He Is Open to U.S. Security Guarantees in Ukraine
19. Iron Rhine strategic railway chugs back to life to counter Russia
20. Taiwan and the limits of American power
21. Trump to meet Zelensky on Monday after "difficult" post-summit call
22. This World-Renowned Negotiator Says Trump’s Secret Weapon Is Empathy
1. Trump Rolled Out the Red Carpet for Putin. He Got Little in Return.
Trump Rolled Out the Red Carpet for Putin. He Got Little in Return.
Alaska meeting between U.S. president and Russian leader appears to yield no breakthroughs
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/trump-putin-summit-ends-without-breakthrough-7406d667
You may also like
Embed code copied to clipboard
Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebookTwitter
Click for Sound
WSJ’s Meridith McGraw explains what happened, and what’s next. Photo: Gavriil Grigorov/Press Pool
By Lara Seligman
Follow
, Thomas Grove
Follow
and Meridith McGraw
Follow
Updated Aug. 15, 2025 9:48 pm ET
Quick Summary
-
Trump and Putin met in Alaska, but failed to reach a breakthrough on ending the war in Ukraine, despite optimism from the U.S. president.View more
ANCHORAGE, Alaska—President Trump welcomed his Russian counterpart to Alaska with the former showman’s signature extravagance: a red carpet, a military flyover and a ride in the presidential limousine.
But Trump headed back to Washington with little to show for all the pageantry.
The U.S. president and Russian leader Vladimir Putin ended their highly anticipated meeting without announcing a breakthrough, leaving the path toward ending the war in Ukraine unclear. By Friday evening, Trump, who had taken a risk in inviting the sanctioned Kremlin leader to the U.S., was stuck in the same predicament he faced days prior: Putin remains unwilling to end the 3½-year war without concessions on Ukraine’s future.
Both men staked their political reputations on a successful summit, and Putin appears to have gained the upper hand. The Russian president was treated as an equal on U.S. soil, managed to sidestep any potential American sanctions for now and announced no battlefield concessions. Trump, who vowed on the campaign trail to end the war on his first day in office, failed to secure even a temporary cease-fire.
The site of a Russian strike in Kyiv, Ukraine. Photo: Svet Jacqueline for WSJ
It remains to be seen whether the discussions could lay the groundwork for future progress to end the war. Trump, standing in front of a backdrop that read “PURSUING PEACE,” said the two made “some headway” and expressed optimism that discussions would continue. Trump told Fox News anchor Sean Hannity that he would grade the meeting a “10” on a scale of one to 10, “in the sense that we got along great,” and that he expected Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to set up a future meeting.
“Now, it’s really up to President Zelensky to get it done,” Trump told Hannity, saying the U.S. and Russia agreed on several points, but still need to find consensus on “one or two pretty significant items.”
Trump made it clear there was still a long road ahead. “There’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Trump told reporters at a news conference after the summit. The typically talkative U.S. president took no questions from the dozens of journalists assembled before him. He said the delegations made progress on key issues, but added, “We haven’t quite got there.”
Putin, in remarks following the meeting, gave no indication he was prepared to agree to a cease-fire, repeating that Moscow wanted the root causes of the conflict addressed—a phrase that refers to Moscow’s demands to demilitarize Kyiv and block its hopes for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Russian leader, however, offered Trump a political fig leaf, echoing the U.S. president’s assertion that Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine in 2022 if the Republican was in office instead of former President Joe Biden. “I can confirm that,” Putin said.
In contrast to the handshakes and smiles that characterized the start of their meeting on the taxiway at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Putin and Trump looked stone-faced during much of the news conference. Putin spoke for roughly eight minutes. Trump then spoke for three minutes, before they both left.
The red carpet was cleaned before President Trump stepped from Air Force One in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday. Photo: Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
Putin and Trump after their arrival in Anchorage. Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
Following the summit, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, said she was “cautiously optimistic” that some progress was made, despite few public details.
The meeting underscored the challenge of bringing the conflict to an end. Even as the delegations met, Russian military forces launched new attacks targeting Ukraine’s eastern regions, according to the Ukrainian air force.
Plans for the meeting came about quickly after Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff went to Moscow, causing some to think Putin had buckled under the Trump administration’s move to boost tariffs on India owing to its purchases of Russian oil.
In his interview with Fox News, Trump said he would hold off for now on imposing new sanctions on Russia. “We don’t have to think about that right now, I think, you know the meeting went very well,” he said, adding that he may reassess whether sanctions are needed in two to three weeks. Asked by Hannity if the war would end with Russia gaining more territory and Ukraine getting security support, Trump said: “Those are points that we negotiated, and those are points that we largely have agreed on.”
Trump, in the interview, offered advice to Zelensky: “Make a deal.”
“Russia is a very big power, and they’re not,” Trump said of Ukraine.
The aftermath of a Russian drone explosion at a market in Sumy, Ukraine, on Friday. Photo: Francisco Richart/Zuma Press
Even before the meeting officially began, Putin, who has been sanctioned by the U.S. and largely snubbed on the world stage, racked up a series of symbolic wins.
Trump waited onboard Air Force One for 30 minutes before the Russian president’s plane touched down. The U.S. president greeted his Russian counterpart warmly, applauding as he walked down a red carpet and shook his hand. After posing for photos, both men got into the U.S. president’s armored limousine, known as the Beast, giving Putin the one-on-one time with Trump that some of the American president’s advisers sought to avoid.
Photographers caught the Russian leader smiling as he sat next to Trump in the limo. It isn’t unusual for an American president to invite a foreign leader for an intimate ride in the president’s motorcade. But Putin has repeatedly thumbed his nose at Trump’s calls to stop the war in Ukraine, which has killed or injured more than a million people on both sides.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Do you think the summit will further President Trump’s goals in Ukraine? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.
“Flattery doesn’t work to change Putin’s mind. He sees it as weakness,” said Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official during Trump’s first term. “And therefore something to be exploited.”
Trump’s reception of Putin was markedly different from the way the U.S. president treated Zelensky during a February visit to the Oval Office. Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated the Ukrainian president for not, in their view, showing sufficient gratitude for U.S. support in the war. Relations between Trump and Zelensky have subsequently improved.
Trump, a former reality-television star who focuses intently on stage-managing his public events, also sent a message to Putin about America’s military might. Trump and Putin walked down a red carpet flanked on either side by F-22 stealth fighters and, as the two leaders stepped onto a riser with the words “ALASKA 2025,” a nuclear-capable B-2 bomber and four F-35 jet fighters roared overhead.
Russian and American delegations in Alaska. Photo: Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
The apparent absence of any binding steps for the Russian side to follow out of the meeting gives Putin a chance to continue prosecuting his war in Ukraine, where Russian troops are gaining crucial footholds in the eastern part of the country.
Putin’s broader goal of trying to put Russia on an equal footing with the U.S., however, was already achieved just by clinching the meeting, particularly in Alaska, which Russia sold to the U.S. in 1867.
“This meeting elevates Russia in some ways to an equal status to the United States, which is what he has craved,” said Heather Conley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former top State Department official on European affairs.
The Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, wrote on Telegram that the meeting signaled to the media a shift in relations between Moscow and Washington. “For three years, they have been reporting that Russia is in isolation, and today they saw the red carpet laid to greet the Russian president in the United States,” she wrote.
In the days leading up to the summit, Trump played down the prospects for a breakthrough, calling his first face-to-face meeting with Putin in six years a “feel-out meeting.” He didn’t rule out the possibility the talks could fail, and he said he was prepared to walk away entirely if Putin refused to work toward peace.
The summit was initially set to begin with a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin, but it was expanded to include top advisers from each delegation at the U.S. president’s request. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Witkoff represented the American delegation, while Putin was joined by Yuri Ushakov, his longtime foreign-policy adviser, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
While Trump and Putin have spoken several times in the last six months, the meeting in Anchorage was the first time they met in person since the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, in 2019.
Russian troops participated in Navy Day celebrations in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol last month. Photo: Alexey Pavlishak/Reuters
Write to Lara Seligman at lara.seligman@wsj.com, Thomas Grove at thomas.grove@wsj.com and Meridith McGraw at Meridith.McGraw@WSJ.com
Appeared in the August 16, 2025, print edition as 'Summit Yields No Breakthrough'.
2. Who Was in the Room for Trump-Putin Meeting
See the interactive article at the web site:
https://www.wsj.com/world/who-was-in-the-room-for-trump-putin-meeting-3adf6ed2?st=z9hzWK&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Who Was in the Room for Trump-Putin Meeting
The leaders were each flanked by senior advisers for their first meeting in Alaska
By Jemal R. Brinson
Follow
, Thomas Grove
Follow
and Brendan Moran
Follow
Aug. 15, 2025 8:18 pm ET
President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin sat down with senior advisers from each country at a highly anticipated summit in Alaska where they discussed efforts to end the war in Ukraine. After the meeting, Trump said the leaders made “some headway” but hadn’t reached a deal.
3. The Palantir Mafia Behind Silicon Valley’s Hottest Startups
The Palantir Mafia Behind Silicon Valley’s Hottest Startups
The network connects founders and venture capitalists with ‘Palantir Pals’ and a Russian River camping trip
https://www.wsj.com/tech/the-palantir-mafia-behind-silicon-valleys-hottest-startups-f6e9bcbb
Clockwise from top, Peter Thiel, Melody Hildebrandt, Brian Schimpf, Trae Stephens, Garry Tan and Shreya Murthy Illustration: Emil Lendof/WSJ, Getty Images, Bloomberg
By Angel Au-Yeung
Follow
Aug. 15, 2025 8:00 pm ET
Quick Summary
-
Startups founded by former Palantir employees are gaining traction in Silicon Valley, supported by a strong alumni network.View more
Some of the buzziest startups in Silicon Valley share something in common: their founders once worked at Palantir.
The founders lean on other ex-Palantir executives and engineers for support and financing, tapping the network for hiring and funding. Venture-capital firms have sprung up whose mission is to invest in companies founded by people with Palantir experience.
Palantir, the data analysis firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, is best known as the rare Silicon Valley company that works with the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, including with the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. It also has many commercial clients. Its stock has quintupled in the last 12 months.
In conversation, alumni will refer to themselves as the Palantir mafia. The invitation to a panel last October, hosted by venture fund South Park Commons in partnership with Palantir, advertised that “several members of the ‘Palantir Mafia’” would be speaking. There are WhatsApp groups and Signal chats for alumni to keep in touch—one is called “Palantir Pals.”
Alumni have either started or are leading more than 350 tech companies, and at least a dozen have been valued at over $1 billion, says Luba Lesiva, who was head of investor relations at Palantir from 2014 to 2016. Lesiva runs a venture firm called Palumni VC, a play on the words Palantir alumni, which invests in startups founded or led by ex-Palantir employees.
Peter Thiel, Palantir co-founder, at the Bitcoin 2022 conference in Miami, spawned a network of startup founders and investors. Photo: Getty Images
“These engineers are dropped either in the middle of the desert or an office park in the Midwest with a server rack and a screwdriver,” says Lesiva. “Wherever they’re sent, no one really wants to be there, but it’s the high capacity for work and pain. They can chew glass.”
Ross Fubini, founder of venture firm XYZ Capital, made an investor pitch deck in 2017 where he predicted that Palantir would become the next “founder mafia.”
“VC interest in the Palantir mafia has increased in the last few years but it’s been frenetic this last year,” said Fubini, who has invested in over a dozen startups founded by Palantir alumni. “They’re just starting exceptional companies in hard industries.”
Palantir is known for producing good operators. A big appeal of the Palantir alumni is their common strategy, developed at Palantir, called “forward-deployed engineering,” which is basically a glorified term for consulting.
Palantir software engineers often travel to their clients and embed themselves. Engineers can find themselves in conflict zones or locales as varied as Omaha or Oman. Once there, they use technological acumen to help solve their clients’ thorniest and most vexing problems.
Palantir alumni, left to right, Barry McCardel, Nick Noone and Cobi Blumenfeld-Gantz
Hex Technologies, Peregrine, Chapter
Barry McCardel was a forward-deployed engineer at Palantir from 2014 to 2018. During his last two years at the company, he helped build a real-time monitoring platform for oil and gas giant BP to help the company analyze its oil wells around the world. He traveled every other week to places like Anchorage and Houston, Scotland and Azerbaijan.
“The magic of Palantir was we took proper software engineers, the type who had offers from Google and Facebook, and put them on planes and sent them to where the customers were,” he said. “That’s not for everyone, and that’s ok.”
A year after leaving Palantir, McCardel started building Hex Technologies, a data-analysis startup in 2019. To staff up, he and his co-founders—also ex-Palantir—turned to the mafia. That year, he went to a Halloween party of Palantir alumni in San Francisco where he, dressed as a grizzly bear, reconnected with a former co-worker, dressed as a bumblebee. He hired him as Hex’s founding designer.
In a little over five years at Palantir between 2012 to 2017, Nick Noone led the company’s military special-operations deployment projects and traveled to Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Germany as a Palantir engineer.
When Noone left in 2017 to start what would become Peregrine Technologies, a data-intelligence platform that now sells primarily to local government and law enforcement agencies, he applied that forward-deployed engineering approach.
In 2017, Noone and his co-founder embedded themselves with the police department of San Pablo, a city about a 40-minute drive from San Francisco. The initial scope of the work was to enhance the agency’s data-analytics tools. But soon, they were pulled in to help investigators solve a homicide case. They pieced together information from cellphone towers, historical police records and license plate data to help detectives create a timeline of where the murder suspects had been during the time of the crime.
Brian Schimpf, left, and Trae Stephens are among the Palantir alumni on the leadership team of Anduril Industries
Al Drago/Bloomberg News, David Paul Morris/Bloomberg News
During the resulting murder trial, Noone was called as an expert witness, and the suspects were found guilty. This experience in assisting investigators became the bedrock of Peregrine. Earlier this year, the company began landing federal contracts.
Peregrine closed a round of financing in March led by Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at $2.5 billion.
Cobi Blumenfeld-Gantz worked on agricultural, military and national-security projects for Palantir for over six years, deploying with the Marines in deserts in the Middle East and East Asia, before starting Chapter, a Medicare and retirement-technology company.
Blumenfeld-Gantz co-founded Chapter with Vivek Ramaswamy, biotech entrepreneur and Ohio governor candidate. Thiel is an investor and served on its board of directors for just under two years. The company today is valued at around $1.5 billion.
“I’m proud of the work I did for the government while at Palantir,” Blumenfeld-Gantz says. “I think most people who join Palantir can handle the nuances of the company.”
One of the highest-profile companies tapping into the Palantir alumni network is Anduril Industries, one of the few privately held tech companies to land contracts with the Defense Department. It includes three former Palantir employees on its founding team: Trae Stephens, Matt Grimm and Brian Schimpf. The company, which makes software and hardware products and systems for national-security operations, was last valued in June at $30.5 billion. Stephens said in a TV interview with Bloomberg Technology the round was eight to 10 times oversubscribed.
Last summer, Stephens, in his role as an investor in Thiel’s venture firm Founders Fund, hosted a luxury camping trip in Sonoma, Calif., for Palantir alumni. Stephens kicked off the two-day trip with brief opening remarks that touched on nostalgia from his days at Palantir, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Palantir alumni network includes, left to right, Joe Lonsdale, Melody Hildebrandt and Garry Tan.
Bloomberg News (2), Getty Images
Among the couple dozen attendees who floated down the Russian River and went paintballing that weekend were founders, investors and operators in tech, including Ryan Beiermeister, vice president of public policy at OpenAI.
Other names that frequently come up when alumni talk about the network include 8VC venture capitalist and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale; Garry Tan, venture capitalist and chief executive of Y Combinator; and Melody Hildebrandt, chief technology officer at Fox Corp.nbsp;
Association with Palantir is delicate in some spheres. Shreya Murthy, founder of the event platform Partiful which is popular among Gen Z users, was recently criticized on social media for working at Palantir due to its government contracts after an article about her appeared in The Cut.
“I joined Palantir when I was 23 and met a lot of smart people that helped me learn what to do (and not do) when running a company,” Murthy said in an email statement. “I left and chose to build something different, aligned with my values and passions.”
“We do recognize that it can come with baggage,” said Pratap Ranade, an engineer who joined Palantir when it acquired his first startup in 2016. He says he’s proud of his work there and doesn’t hide his experience.
Ranade stayed at Palantir for nearly two years as a forward-deployed engineer and after leaving founded his second startup, Arena. The company makes AI-driven software to assist hardware engineers to test and fix machines, akin to J.A.R.V.I.S.—the fictional AI software that Tony Stark from Marvel Comics makes to power the Iron Man suit, among other hardware products.
Write to Angel Au-Yeung at angel.au-yeung@wsj.com
Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the August 16, 2025, print edition as 'The Palantir Mafia Behind Silicon Valley’s Hottest Startups'.
4. OPINION: The Flashy Trump-Putin Summit Without Ukraine Was a Rehearsal for Betrayal
OPINION: The Flashy Trump-Putin Summit Without Ukraine Was a Rehearsal for Betrayal
Preliminary conclusions about what the stagecraft in Alaska produced, or rather failed to deliver.
https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/58304
By Bohdan Cherniawski
Aug. 16, 2025, 10:37 am
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin speak as they pose for photos after their arrival for a US-Russia summit on Ukraine at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. Gavriil GRIGOROV / POOL / AFP
The Alaska summit looked like a breakthrough – for Russia.
The White House and the Kremlin leaders sat down to discuss Europe’s security, while Ukraine was left outside the room. The message was unmistakable: Kyiv’s fate was being argued over its head, and President Volodymyr Zelensky was reduced to protesting from the sidelines.
For Vladimir Putin, simply showing up was a victory. He received the red-carpet treatment, the military flyovers, the photo-op handshake – the optics of parity with the United States. At the press conference, he even claimed that he and Donald Trump had reached an “understanding” on Ukraine.
He never explained what that meant, but the line alone was enough to spin back home: Russia as co-author of Europe’s future.
The talks yielded no signed deals, but the signals were troubling.
But the choreography cracked. Planned events were abruptly scrapped, and both sides left early. The press conference, meant to include questions from journalists, was reduced to a scripted monologue. The dinner and follow-up talks were canceled outright. What was billed as a show of strength collapsed into a hasty retreat.
Even those inside the room sensed it. Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich observed: “The way that it felt in the room was not good. It did not seem like things went well. And it seemed like Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say and got his photo next to the president and then left.”
Other Topics of Interest
Trump says Putin and Zelensky to set up a meeting.
The talks yielded no signed deals, but the signals were troubling. Trump floated the idea of offering Ukraine security guarantees outside NATO. On the surface, it sounded like protection. In reality, it echoed one of Moscow’s oldest demands: Keep Ukraine out of the alliance. Simply putting the option on the table handed Putin a propaganda victory and chipped away at Kyiv’s most important strategic goal.
Nothing concrete emerged. No ceasefire. No frozen lines. No binding documents.
Trump insisted he would not decide Ukraine’s sovereignty or territory in its absence. That stopped short of bargaining Ukraine away. But the bigger truth was clear: The summit gave Russia the stage, while Ukraine had no voice.
Putin’s talk of “neighbors” and “brothers” is the most poisonous lie of all. Neighbors do not invade. Brothers do not massacre children. Only an invader calls himself a brother while brandishing a knife.
Putin used the moment to recycle his favorite myths. He spoke of Russian place names in Alaska, “brotherly” ties with Ukrainians, and monuments from World War II. He wrapped conquest in nostalgia, as if memory could excuse murder. But this was not heritage. It was theater – and the curtain was soaked in blood.
The reality is unambiguous: Russia’s war has nothing to do with “security.” It is not won by reducing Mariupol to rubble or filling mass graves in Bucha. Safety is not found in the missiles that pound Odesa and Kharkiv. These are not acts of defense. They are the crimes of an empire trying to erase its neighbor. To call them anything else is obscene.
The smiles in Alaska were no less fraudulent. Putin praised “dialogue” while his troops shelled Ukrainians on their own territory. He stood on American soil as if a statesman, while behaving at home as an invader. This is not diplomacy, is theater meant to disguise a war of conquest.
Peace will not come from Western restraint or carefully staged summits. Peace will come only when Russia leaves every inch of Ukrainian land it has stolen.
And let us be clear: The Russian leader does not seek peace. He seeks recognition of conquest. He wants the world to accept that borders can be erased, that sovereignty is conditional. That is not peace – it is surrender dressed up as statesmanship. Europe once learned where appeasement leads. To repeat that mistake now would not end this war. It would spread it.
Putin’s talk of “neighbors” and “brothers” is the most poisonous lie of all. Neighbors do not invade. Brothers do not massacre children. Only an invader calls himself a brother while brandishing a knife.
The true lesson of history is not found in Alaska’s toponyms or Soviet memorials. It lies in what happens when free nations fail to confront a tyrant. Ukraine is fighting not only for its own survival, but for the principle that the future cannot be stolen by those who fear it.
That is why Alaska matters. The summit gave Putin the illusion of legitimacy, the stage to rehearse his fables, and the photo he wanted beside an American president. Ukraine, meanwhile, was left to answer from outside the door. Even without treaties signed or borders redrawn, the imbalance matters. In diplomacy, appearances become ammunition.
The lesson is urgent: Ukraine must never again be a guest in discussions about its own survival. Every summit without Kyiv and representatives of its genuine European supporters is not a path to peace, but a rehearsal for betrayal. And that is why this war will not end with Putin’s nostalgia or Trump’s theatrics.
It will end with valiant and undefeated Ukraine setting the terms, and not external bullies.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
Bohdan Cherniawski
Bohdan Cherniawski - serves as chief operations officer for the Ukrainian American Freedom Foundation.
5. Live Updates: Trump Backs Putin’s Route for Talks, Dashing Ukraine’s Hopes for Swift Cease-Fire
Live Updates: Trump Backs Putin’s Route for Talks, Dashing Ukraine’s Hopes for Swift Cease-Fire
President Trump said that he and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia favor a comprehensive peace deal over the urgent cease-fire Ukraine wants. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said he would meet with Mr. Trump in Washington on Monday.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/08/16/world/trump-putin-meeting-alaska
Pinned
Updated
Aug. 16, 2025, 7:08 a.m. ET39 minutes ago
Jim Tankersley and Ivan Nechepurenko
President Trump appeared on Saturday to split from Ukraine and key European allies after his summit with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, adopting Mr. Putin’s preference for pursuing a sweeping peace agreement instead of the urgent cease-fire Mr. Trump said he wanted before the meeting.
Doing so would give Russia an advantage in the talks, which are due to continue on Monday when President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine visits Mr. Trump at the White House. It breaks from a strategy Mr. Trump and European allies, as well as Mr. Zelensky, had agreed to before the U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, and it provoked a chilly reception in Europe, where leaders have time and again seen Mr. Trump reverse positions on Ukraine after speaking with Mr. Putin.
Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social early on Saturday that spoke by phone to Mr. Zelensky and European leaders after his meeting with Mr. Putin. He said that “it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.”
But European leaders issued a statement that did not echo Mr. Trump’s claim that peace talks were preferable to a cease-fire. Britain, France, Germany and others welcomed Mr. Trump’s efforts to stop the war but threatened to increase economic penalties on Russia “as long as the killing in Ukraine continues.”
Mr. Trump confirmed Mr. Zelensky’s announcement earlier Saturday that the Ukrainian president would come to the White House on Monday. If that visit goes well, Mr. Trump said, he would schedule another meeting with Mr. Putin.
Skipping cease-fire talks and going straight for a peace deal has been a demand of Mr. Putin’s in the long diplomatic effort to reach an end to the war in Ukraine. With Russia advancing on the battlefield, a cease-fire would give Ukraine relief from Moscow’s attacks and deprive Mr. Putin of some leverage at the bargaining table. Before his meeting with Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump had agreed with European allies and Mr. Zelensky that no peace negotiations could begin without a cease-fire in place.
Mr. Zelensky, who was left out of the summit, said in a statement that he and Mr. Trump would on Monday “discuss all of the details regarding ending the killing and the war.”
Mr. Trump, in an interview with the Fox News host Sean Hannity after the summit, put the onus for securing peace on Mr. Zelensky. “Now it is really up to President Zelensky to get it done,” he said. “I would also say the European nations have to get involved a little bit.”
Russia, which launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, has demanded that Ukraine cede a large part of its land, disarm, swear off joining NATO and change governments.
Here’s what else to know:
- Alaska summit: Mr. Trump and American officials divulged few details on Friday about the substance of the nearly three-hour meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. The summit broke up ahead of schedule. After their first meeting with a few aides and a meal break, Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin were expected to meet again with a larger circle of people. The second session appeared not to take place, cutting short a summit Russian officials had said they expected to last six or seven hours.
- Putin’s comments: At a joint news conference after their meeting, Mr. Putin referred obliquely to agreements between Mr. Trump and himself, without elaborating, and added, “We expect that Kyiv and European capitals will perceive that constructively and will not throw a wrench in the works.” The Russian leader also endorsed Mr. Trump’s oft-stated claim that if he had been in the White House, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine in 2022.
- Ukrainian concerns: Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Ukrainian Parliament, said the meeting had been a public relations victory for Mr. Putin, who appeared as an equal to Mr. Trump, and “used Trump to show that he is not isolated.”
-
The Trump-Putin relationship: The meeting was at least the seventh face-to-face encounter between the two leaders, and the first of Mr. Trump’s second term. His first term was shadowed by questions over Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly referred to as “the Russia hoax.” It was the first U.S. visit in a decade for Mr. Putin.
Show less
Aug. 16, 2025, 7:18 a.m. ET29 minutes ago
Constant MéheutReporting from Kyiv, Ukraine
It is noteworthy that Kyiv’s European allies, in their various statements after the Alaska meeting, did not mention the need to reach a cease-fire first. It has been one of their key principles.
The approach could be a way to avoid antagonizing Mr. Trump, who said he wants a direct peace agreement without securing a cease-fire first.
Aug. 16, 2025, 7:01 a.m. ET46 minutes ago
Constant MéheutReporting from Kyiv, Ukraine
Mr. Zelensky in a statement about the negotiations seemed to tread carefully to not openly contradict Mr. Trump’s call for a direct peace deal over a cease-fire.
“We need to achieve a real peace that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions,” he said. But he added that “the killings must stop as soon as possible, and the fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the air, as well as against our port infrastructure,” suggesting that he still does prioritize a cease-fire.
Aug. 16, 2025, 6:52 a.m. ET55 minutes ago
Chris Cameron and Maggie Haberman
Image
President Trump speaking with reporters on Air Force One on his way to Alaska on Friday.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
After his summit with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday, President Trump sat down with the Fox News host Sean Hannity to record an interview in which he offered few details about what the two leaders had said about the war in Ukraine, but talked up their personal connection.
“I think the meeting was a 10,” Mr. Trump said after Mr. Hannity asked how he would rate his talks with the Russian president. “In the sense we got along great, and it’s good when two big powers get along, especially when they’re nuclear powers. We’re No. 1 and they’re No. 2 in the world.”
Without sharing any specific information from the meeting in Alaska, Mr. Trump put the onus for securing peace on Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
“Now it is really up to President Zelensky to get it done,” he said during the interview, which was broadcast later on Fox News. “I would also say the European nations have to get involved a little bit.”
In the interview, Mr. Trump repeatedly praised Mr. Putin, and brought up compliments he received from the Russian leader during the summit.
“I always had a great relationship with President Putin,” Mr. Trump said. “And we would have done great things together.”
He claimed that Mr. Putin had even supported his claim that the 2020 U.S. presidential election, which Mr. Trump lost to Joseph R. Biden Jr., was rigged.
“He said, ‘Your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting,’” Mr. Trump said, adding that Mr. Putin told him that by-mail voting does not exist anywhere else in the world. Whether Mr. Putin actually said that or not, several countries have by-mail voting. And Mr. Trump’s own attorney general in 2020 said his assertions of widespread fraud couldn’t be proven.
During the interview, Trump mused about a three-way summit between himself, Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Putin but said explicitly, “I didn’t ask about it.” Twenty minutes after saying that, Mr. Trump said he had in fact discussed that with Mr. Putin.
“They both want me there,” Trump said. “And I will be there.”
Mr. Zelensky said on Saturday that he would travel to Washington on Monday to discuss the war with Mr. Trump.
Earlier on Friday, the Ukrainian leader had criticized Russia’s latest attacks and cast doubt on Mr. Putin’s commitment to ending the war. But Mr. Trump told Mr. Hannity that he thinks the Russian leader wants to “solve the problem.”
He did not acknowledge that Mr. Putin had started the war.
Show less
Aug. 16, 2025, 6:45 a.m. ET1 hour ago
Constant MéheutReporting from Kyiv, Ukraine
Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister, said in a statement that “President Trump today took up the Italian idea of security guarantees inspired by Article 5 of NATO.” Under this idea, Ukraine would not become part of NATO, but “a collective security clause” would allow it “to benefit from the support of all its partners, including the US, ready to take action if it is attacked again,” Ms. Meloni said.
Aug. 16, 2025, 6:09 a.m. ET2 hours ago
Jim Tankersley
Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, said in a statement that he welcomed “the openness of the United States, alongside Europe, to provide robust security guarantees to Ukraine as part of any deal.” Then he, like in the joint statement, said he was determined to keep increasing economic pressure on Russia until the war ends.
6. How the Trump-Putin Summit Signals a Return to Imperial Thinking
Excerpts:
The term was first popularized by Gerard Libaridian, an Armenian-American historian, who used it in a 2014 speech in England to refer to former empires like Iran, Turkey and Russia, as they sought to influence post-Soviet states they had once controlled. In his view, it describes an approach that lingers in many a national psyche, fusing a simplistic nostalgia for greatness to strong beliefs about the right to keep dominating smaller nations and neighbors.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the idea has gained momentum, usually in reference to Putin’s Russia. And Mr. Trump’s assertive second term — with his threats to seize Greenland and the Panama Canal, make Canada the 51st state and send American troops into Mexico — has spurred new accusations from historians and world leaders that his demands for deference reflect an imperial mentality.
r. Trump has hardly been consistent. He has often condemned foreign intervention and “stupid wars,” while bombing Iran and expressing ambivalence about U.S. alliances and the defense of vulnerable democracies like Taiwan.
Still, there’s perhaps something imperial — or at least a version of great power behavior with some additional traits — in his talk of “land swaps” to bring peace in Ukraine over the country’s own objections.
How the Trump-Putin Summit Signals a Return to Imperial Thinking
The two leaders are bringing some old-world approaches to bear on a 21st-century conflict.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/world/asia/trump-putin-summit-imperial.html
Listen to this article · 10:56 min Learn more
President Trump meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin in Helsinki, Finland, in 2018.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
By Damien Cave
Damien Cave is based in Vietnam and has reported for The Times from more than 20 countries
Published Aug. 15, 2025
Updated Aug. 16, 2025, 12:38 a.m. ET
When President Trump chose Alaska for Friday’s summit meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to discuss the war in Ukraine, his supporters suggested that the location offered a nod to savvy deal making. The United States had purchased the territory from Russia in 1867 for about 2 cents an acre.
But with Ukraine being excluded — as was the case for Indigenous Alaskans when their land was transferred — the summit has already revived discussion of what some scholars say Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump seem in some ways to share: an imperial mind-set.
The term was first popularized by Gerard Libaridian, an Armenian-American historian, who used it in a 2014 speech in England to refer to former empires like Iran, Turkey and Russia, as they sought to influence post-Soviet states they had once controlled. In his view, it describes an approach that lingers in many a national psyche, fusing a simplistic nostalgia for greatness to strong beliefs about the right to keep dominating smaller nations and neighbors.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the idea has gained momentum, usually in reference to Putin’s Russia. And Mr. Trump’s assertive second term — with his threats to seize Greenland and the Panama Canal, make Canada the 51st state and send American troops into Mexico — has spurred new accusations from historians and world leaders that his demands for deference reflect an imperial mentality.
Mr. Trump has hardly been consistent. He has often condemned foreign intervention and “stupid wars,” while bombing Iran and expressing ambivalence about U.S. alliances and the defense of vulnerable democracies like Taiwan.
Still, there’s perhaps something imperial — or at least a version of great power behavior with some additional traits — in his talk of “land swaps” to bring peace in Ukraine over the country’s own objections.
Image
Mourners pay tribute at a makeshift memorial for fallen Ukrainian and foreign fighters in Kyiv on Feb. 24 to mark the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.Credit...Roman Pilipey/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
“There’s been a powerful ‘countries don’t resolve their differences by annexing’ norm that’s held for a while, and Putin is obviously pushing on that,” said Daniel Immerwahr, a historian at Northwestern University and the author of “How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States.” “And Trump seems very comfortable with a reversion to the old rules.”
The imperial mind-set, of course, has never been confined to real estate. It is a mental framework for policy and the projection of power. It is a belief system with a long menu. And as the Trump-Putin meeting commences, historians and diplomats argue that the Alaska summit has already legitimized at least three imperial ideas that many had thought were buried in the past.
1. Core vs. Periphery
This week’s summit was announced as an insider’s affair: Ukrainian and European leaders were not invited.
That exclusion set off a week of frantic diplomacy, yielding assurances from Mr. Trump that he is going to do more listening than deciding. But the two-man meeting remains. The European Union has been relegated to secondary status.
Many still fear another Yalta, when the world’s superpowers divvied up Europe in 1945 after the defeat of Nazi Germany, with the most-affected countries kept from the room where it happened. For Poland, it was not the first time either.
Between 1772 and 1795, “Poland was divided three times by the great powers of the day: Austria, Prussia and Russia,” said Amitav Acharya, the author of a new book “The Once and Future World Order.”
In such carving lies the imperial idea of the core vs. the periphery.
Empires are hierarchies of subordination, scholars note. Power stays concentrated at the center, while the edges are forced to accept fewer rights and privileges purportedly in exchange for “civilization” or enrichment.
Editors’ Picks
The Romans resisted extending citizenship to conquered peoples. The French rebuffed requests for small measures of self-rule in Vietnam. In Puerto Rico and Guam, which the United States acquired after the Spanish-American War of 1898, residents are still not granted the same democratic representation as mainland Americans.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has already experienced a moment steeped in great power dynamics — and subordination — when Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated him for his lack of gratitude for American military aid during a televised White House visit in February.
Image
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in London this month. He has been excluded from the Alaska summit.Credit...Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated Press
“You’re not in a good position,” Mr. Trump told him. “You don’t have the cards.”
In other words, he suggested, Ukraine is too weak to be anything but an appendage.
Updated
Aug. 16, 2025, 1:31 a.m. ETAug. 16, 2025
Now Ukraine’s leaders fear that the summit is strengthening the idea that only a few major powers make decisions for the world. Any attempt to turn their country of nearly 40 million people into a bystander in its own future is especially sensitive, historians say, because Ukrainian identity centers on the principle “nothing about us without us.”
That foundational concept runs counter to Mr. Putin’s narrative of Russian centrality — his insistence that Ukrainians are just Russians separated from home.
“When conflicts arise, the core is likely to idealize the era of its imperial past as one of harmony,” Mr. Libaridian said in an interview, previewing what might be heard from Mr. Putin in Alaska. “That, in turn, will justify its intervention to bring peace.”
2. Supremacy and Self-Aggrandizement
The imperial mind-set, from the Crusades onward through Europe’s royals and Asia’s emperors, frequently involves a strong belief in cultural and often racial supremacy.
European colonizers justified brutal actions and grand larceny of national treasures by claiming they were saving souls or protecting valuables from damage and decay.
Imperial-minded leaders throughout history have also cast themselves as the embodiment of greatness — superhumans at the apex of superior nations that must be honored by all.
Mr. Putin has become an updated version of that self-aggrandizing, imperial urge.
A few years ago, he directly compared himself to Peter the Great, Russia’s first emperor. Former diplomats in Russia have said that he has often fostered ideas of messianic imperialism, seeking to make Ukraine and many other neighboring countries a part of grander Russia.
“The Russian imperial mind-set is alive and well in Russia,” said Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, and the author of several books on Mr. Putin.
Mr. Acharya, who teaches international relations at American University in Washington, said the summit, which Mr. Putin requested, harks back to a world order when great powers carved up states for “the personal glory of their rulers.”
Mr. Trump appears in some ways to also be headed that way. Though he has still focused his attention more at home than abroad, he has encouraged a blurring of the lines between patriotism and his own cult of personality. He sells coins with his face on the front. Gwenda Blair, who wrote the definitive biography of the Trump family, likened his second inauguration to a king’s return. On his 79th birthday, he spent the day soaking up the scene at a military parade that he had personally ordered up — ostensibly to mark the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, but arguably for his own honor as well.
His family business, meanwhile, is putting the Trump name on real estate projects all over the world, leading some countries to bend their own rules for his favor.
Image
The Trump Tower in Kolkata, India, last year. Mr. Trump’s family business continues to expand, with multiple projects across the globe bearing his name.Credit...Elke Scholiers for The New York Times
Europeans see his acceptance of the summit — on U.S. soil — as a gift to Russia’s leader that validates his viewpoint.
“Putin wants to make sure that Russia is able to control significant parts of Central and Eastern Europe, in direct and indirect ways,” said Sebastian Haug, a senior researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability.
“For Putin, Trump is a tool,” he added. “With the de facto support of the U.S. government, Moscow is trying to re-establish the logic of a concert of major powers as the key mechanism for international affairs.”
3. Economic Empirecraft
The British East India Company, a powerful trading company, was the tip of the spear for British colonialism. American interventions in Latin America to protect big U.S. companies like United Fruit came later.
Both are examples of the kind of top-down, less market-driven relationship between trade, business and the state that in some ways seems to be making a comeback in both Russia and the United States.
Then and now, the melding of power politics and commerce can take on a few forms.
Chinese emperors relied on state monopolies for key products like salt — not unlike Russia’s state-owned energy companies or China’s state-owned conglomerates.
The British crown did not typically direct businesses but often took a stake in the companies that were extracting wealth from overseas — similar to Mr. Trump’s demand that the United States be given a share in future revenues from Ukraine’s mineral reserves in return for its military aid.
Mr. Trump’s dangling of an offer to lift sanctions on Russia, and his threat to add “very severe tariffs” to Russia’s trading partners if Mr. Putin does not agree to a cease-fire in Ukraine, also fits an imperial mind-set model. In these cases and others, he is merging national and corporate interests, and prioritizing wealth as a tool to shape the global order.
Image
The aftermath of a Russian strike on a residential area of Kharkiv, Ukraine, in July.Credit...David Guttenfelder/The New York Times
The U.S.-Soviet summits of the Cold War were concerned with wider-ranging issues. They were choreographed affairs, with leaders stumping for different ideologies, trying to show off strength and a willingness to compromise — in part to gain influence with other countries.
As Michael McFaul, President Barack Obama’s adviser on Russian affairs, recently told me: “We had an argument for a better society, so did the Communists, and we were competing.”
Now, in Alaska, the U.S.-Russia relationship has been set up more as a business deal than a contest of philosophies. Both presidents are motivated by their own ideas of past greatness. Mr. Trump insists peace is the goal. Territory, for both leaders, is apparently the means.
Ukraine and the rest of the world now have to wait to hear about whatever the two men discussed.
A correction was made on Aug. 15, 2025: An earlier version of this article, citing an expert, misstated the time frame for three divisions of Poland in the 18th century. It was between 1772 and 1795, not 1792 and 1795.
When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at nytnews@nytimes.com.Learn more
Damien Cave leads The Times’s new bureau in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, covering shifts in power across Asia and the wider world.
A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 16, 2025, Section A, Page 7 of the New York edition with the headline: Old-World Approach to a Modern Conflict. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
7. Editorial: That meeting was sickening. Putin loved it
A view from Kyiv.
Editorial: That meeting was sickening. Putin loved it
by The Kyiv Independent
August 16, 2025 4:49 AM
(Updated: August 16, 2025 9:56 am)
3 min read
kyivindependent.com · by The Kyiv Independent · August 16, 2025
https://kyivindependent.com/editorial-that-was-sickening-was-it-necessary/
Sickening. Shameful. And in the end, useless.
Those were the words that came to mind when we watched the Alaska Summit unfold.
On our screens, a blood-soaked dictator and war criminal received a royal welcome in the land of the free — as his attack drones headed for our cities.
In the lead-up to the meeting in Alaska, Trump declared he wanted a “ceasefire today” and that Putin would face “severe consequences” if he didn't go for it.
Yet after a 2.5-hour closed-door meeting, Trump and Putin emerged to share… nothing. “Progress” was made and some “understanding” reached, but the two didn’t come to an agreement on “the most significant point” — clearly, Ukraine.
Trump didn’t get what he wanted. But Putin? He sure did.
From the moment he stepped off the plane on U.S. soil, the Russian dictator was beaming.
No longer an international pariah, he was finally getting accepted – and respected — by the leader of the free world. Trump’s predecessor once called Putin a murderer; Trump offered him a king’s welcome.
U.S. President Donald Trump greeted Russia’s Vladimir Putin with a red carpet, warm handshakes, a flyover of U.S. bombers, and a backseat limo ride.
The chummy display stood in stark contrast to Trump’s hostile reception of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office six months ago.
Ukraine’s president endured a public shaming. Russia’s was pampered. Both episodes were disgraceful.
Trump seemed to believe that a warm meeting could appease Putin and make a ceasefire more likely.
But there’s a lesson Trump still hasn’t learned: The Russian leader doesn’t really make deals — he takes. He takes what is offered to him, and then takes some more — he keeps taking until stopped by force. That is the Russian art of the deal.
Trump fails to grasp that Putin isn’t transactional about Ukraine — he is messianic. He wants Ukraine for Russia, period. For Putin and his inner circle, Ukraine’s independence is an accident, and they are correcting it.
The Russian delegation made no effort to hide their mockery of the talks. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in Alaska wearing a USSR sweatshirt — bluntly asserting Russia’s claim on Ukraine. Kremlin journalists wrote about how they were served chicken Kyiv on the government plane to Alaska — a not-so-subtle hint that Ukraine was “cooked.” The Russians clearly never took the “peace talks” seriously.
And there was another reason behind Putin’s grin in Alaska.
The Russian dictator was gloating because of how unsettling the meeting was for all U.S. allies, far beyond Ukraine. It sent a discomfiting signal to the viewers across the pond. And strategically, undermining the transatlantic alliance is an even more important Russian objective than taking control of Ukraine.
Putin returns from the Alaska Summit with a win — but not a sweeping victory he could have had.
If the two presidents failed to reach an agreement, it means that, despite all the chumminess on display, Trump didn’t approve of Russia’s absurd demands for Ukraine — demands that amount to Kyiv’s capitulation.
Trump said he hopes to see Putin again soon. If the U.S. president doesn’t want to hand the next meeting to Russia as well, he needs to let Ukraine join the table. And he must position himself as an ally of Ukraine, not as a referee between two fighting sides.
Only then might we avoid another scene in which the leader of the free world indulges a bloody dictator — in the name of 340 million Americans.
After all, agreements with Russia don’t live long. But the images of the U.S. military honor guards kneeling to roll out the red carpet for a murderer? Those will last.
And no one will remember this meeting longer — or more vividly — than Ukrainians.
kyivindependent.com · by The Kyiv Independent · August 16, 2025
8. Why Russia Sold Alaska to the U.S.
A reminder of our history. I wonder if this is still studied in US history classes.
Why Russia Sold Alaska to the U.S.
The Trump-Putin summit will take place in a former Russian colony that the United States bought for $7.2 million in 1867. Here’s how the deal came together and why its legacy matters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/world/europe/russia-alaska-purchase-ukraine.html
Listen to this article · 6:34 min Learn more
The $7.2 million U.S. Treasury check that sealed the American purchase of Alaska in 1867.Credit...National Archives and Records Administration
By Mike Ives
Aug. 15, 2025
Leer en español
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is scheduled to meet with President Trump in Alaska on Friday to discuss the war in Ukraine. If they talk about Ukrainian land concessions as part of peace negotiations, as Mr. Trump has suggested, they will be doing so on land that Russia sold to the United States in 1867.
That won’t be the only historical irony. Russia was moved to sell Alaska partly because of a war in Crimea, a peninsula that the Russian Empire annexed in 1783 under Catherine the Great. Crimea became part of an independent Ukraine in 1991, and Russia seized it in 2014 in a preview of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
As ironies go, “it doesn’t get much better than that on a grand historical scale,” said Pierce Bateman, a historian at the University of Alaska Anchorage, referring to the location of the Trump-Putin summit.
The $7.2 million purchase of Alaska now looks like a very good deal for the United States. Though it made sense for the Russian Empire at the time, some Russian nationalists see the sale as a historic blunder.
Here’s what to know about the forces and people that shaped it, and why its legacy matters:
Russia acquired Alaska during an era of colonial expansion.
Russian explorers reached present-day Alaska in the 18th century by crossing a narrow strait separating Asia and North America. The strait was named after Vitus Bering, the Danish-born mariner sent abroad by Czar Peter the Great in the 1720s to claim new Russian territory.
Professor Bateman said there was a “wild west” feeling in the territory as early Russian explorers rushed to harvest sea otter furs — a prized commodity in China at the time — in and around the Aleutian Islands.
Want to stay updated on what’s happening in Eastern Europe, North America and Northern Europe? Sign up for Your Places: Global Update, and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.
There was also brutality against Indigenous people, including abductions of the children of local leaders and the destruction of boats and hunting equipment, according to William L. Iggiagruk Hensley, a historian and former Democratic state senator in Alaska.
Alaska’s economic appeal for Russia faded over time.
In 1799, the Russian Empire chartered the Russian-American Company to streamline the fur trade and formalize Russian settlements in the territory that would become known as Alaska. “Russian America” would eventually stretch as far south as California.
Editors’ Picks
Image
Sitka, Alaska, in 1892. The settlement was founded by the Russian colonial administrator Alexander Baranov.Credit...Michael Maslan/VCG, via Getty Images
But overharvesting was making the fur trade far less profitable. There were also tensions among Russian, British and American fur traders, partly because the limits of their territories and hunting grounds were not well defined. And Russia’s sparsely populated settlements and assets were poorly defended.
Geopolitics were a factor in the sale.
The challenges of holding Alaska were complicated by developments on other continents. One was trade: Russia increasingly wanted to focus on imperial expansion in its Far East.
Updated
Aug. 16, 2025, 1:31 a.m. ETAug. 16, 2025
Another was war. When Russia began fighting Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire in Crimea in 1853, Russian officials worried that British forces might try to invade the Russian Far East through North America, according to a 2016 book about the purchase of Alaska by the historian Lee Farrow. Even after that threat subsided, they continued to worry about the British presence in the Pacific.
They also wondered if “Russian America” would survive U.S. expansionism. By the 1850s, the United States had acquired California, annexed Texas and fought a war with Mexico. There was talk of “Manifest Destiny,” the idea that the United States was destined to expand across North America.
Russian officials, including the commander of its Pacific fleet, urged the ailing empire to offload Alaska while it could.
The deal made sense for both sides.
The diplomatic conditions for a sale were good, according to Dr. Farrow, a professor at Auburn University at Montgomery. Trade between Russia and the United States was blossoming, and both were increasingly distrustful of Britain, America’s former colonial master.
In March 1867, Secretary of State William Henry Seward opened the negotiations by offering $5 million for the territory to Eduard Stoeckl, the Russian minister to the United States.
Two weeks later, they agreed on $7.2 million, or less than two cents an acre. A treaty was signed in Seward’s office at 4 a.m. after an all-night negotiating session, and later approved by Congress and Czar Alexander II.
Image
Secretary of State William Henry Seward negotiated with Russia over the purchase of Alaska.Credit...Mathew Brady/Encyclopaedia Britannica, via Getty Images
The deal led to some tension and scandal: The U.S. government was late to pay Russia, and there were accusations that American politicians and journalists had taken cuts of the payment as bribes. Some critics did not see the strategic advantage of adding a frozen territory more than twice the size of France, and called the purchase “Seward’s folly.”
But the resistance was largely driven by a minority of American newspapers, according to a 2019 study by the historian Michael A. Hill. Many Americans were excited about Alaska’s rumored natural resources, he wrote.
Some Russians have seller’s remorse.
Alaska turned out to have plenty of resources, including gold, timber and petroleum, and the purchase was increasingly seen as a good deal for the United States. Alaska became the 49th state in 1959.
In Russia, there was some relief after the deal. But by the Soviet era, it was seen as an embarrassment, said Julia Davis, the founder of the Russian Media Monitor, a project that tracks Kremlin propaganda.
Mr. Putin, who often talks about the need to restore Russian power, equivocated in 2014 when asked if Russia planned to annex Alaska. But a sense of seller’s remorse over the lost territory seems to be a feature of his rule, Ms. Davis said, and calls to take Alaska back have grown louder as relations with the United States have worsened.
“Alaska is ours” billboards popped up in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the message was amplified by some politicians and television pundits.
In that sense, holding a Trump-Putin summit in Alaska is a victory for hard-right Russian nationalists.
“Across the board, it’s considered a major win,” Ms. Davis said.
Trump-Putin Summit
When Trump Meets Putin, Anything Could Happen
Aug. 12, 2025
Russia Makes a Swift Battlefield Advance, Seeking an Edge in Trump Talks
Aug. 12, 2025
A Sidelined Zelensky Warns That Russia Will Try to Deceive the U.S.
Aug. 11, 2025
Mike Ives is a reporter for The Times based in Seoul, covering breaking news around the world.
9. A $45 Treatment Can Save a Starving Child. US Aid Cuts Have Frozen the Supply
Excerpts:
In previous years, American farmers supplied the raw ingredients — peanuts, milk powder and soy — to Edesia and Mana, another large American manufacturer. The finished product was transported by truck to major American ports, then shipped to the ports of Africa, where it would be unloaded and stored. An intricate network of organizations then transported and distributed the boxes.
The stop-start-stop of work orders and the dissolution of U.S.A.I.D. have thrown the system into disarray. U.S.A.I.D.’s activities have in theory been transferred to the State Department, but the department has neither the personnel it needs to restart all activities — even less so after widespread layoffs earlier this month — nor the systems needed to release funds.
The department “continues to strengthen internal systems and personnel capacity to ensure timely, accountable delivery of lifesaving humanitarian programs,” a spokesperson for the State Department said in an email.
In the meantime, some organizations are burning through their reserves, but many small ones have folded.
Others are looking to philanthropy. Mana received a gift of $20 million from a British philanthropist, and donated about 500,000 boxes to UNICEF. Edesia has raised $2 million in private funding and is shipping some boxes to the neediest sites on its own.
Without more funds, the companies will have no money left to buy raw materials, and are in danger of defaulting on contracts from farmers in 25 states.
A $45 Treatment Can Save a Starving Child. US Aid Cuts Have Frozen the Supply
The dismantling of U.S.A.I.D. has disrupted the global supply chain that provides a therapeutic food, leaving thousands of malnourished children at risk of dying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/health/hunger-malnutrition-usaid-cuts.html
By Apoorva MandavilliPhotographs by Taiwo Aina
Apoorva Mandavilli and Taiwo Aina visited several camps and clinics in Nigeria where malnutrition treatments are dispensed. Apoorva spoke to dozens of people before and after the U.S. aid cuts.
The women walked miles through the dusty streets of Maiduguri, in the northeastern corner of Nigeria, carrying their emaciated children. At 7 a.m., they began lining up to wait, for hours, to be handed a small, red packet containing a special paste that could bring their children back from the brink of starvation.
The children were eerily listless; they did not run, shout or even swat the flies off their faces. Their tiny, frail frames made many appear years younger than they were. Near the head of the line, Kaltum Mohammad clutched her two-year-old daughter, Fatima, who weighed just 16 pounds.
Women and children like these waited for treatments in the half-dozen camps and clinics visited by The New York Times last November. Now, six months into the United States’ withdrawal of foreign aid, many of the sites are closed, some permanently. At others that remain open, rooms once filled with boxes of the lifesaving packets are close to empty.
Starvation in Gaza has brought intense international attention to the horrors of famine, but less attention has been paid to a wider issue: the dismantling of U.S.A.I.D. has worsened the problem of severe hunger and malnutrition throughout the world.
Saving children with severe acute malnutrition is simple and inexpensive. Each packet costs less than 30 cents, but contains a high-calorie mix of peanuts, sugar, milk powder and oil — flavors appealing to children — and a blend of vitamins and minerals. A complete six-week treatment for a severely malnourished child runs to less than $45.
U.S.A.I.D. funded roughly half the world’s supply of ready-to-use therapeutic food, or R.U.T.F., purchasing some directly from American manufacturers and funding the United Nations Children Fund, or UNICEF, to manage its distribution.
Image
Attending an acutely malnourished child at a clinic in Damasak, Nigeria, in November.
Empty packets of Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food; a swiftly-emptying warehouse that stored foreign aid supplies in Maiduguri in April; eating a supplementary meal at a nutrition center in Damasak.
All those grants were abruptly halted when the Trump administration froze foreign aid earlier this year. U.S.A.I.D. eventually reimbursed grantees for costs already incurred. The State Department authorized a $93 million new grant to UNICEF last week, but it is less than half what the government had typically spent. In 2024, the agency spent about $200 million on this work, not including aid for countries and direct grants to organizations that implement programs.
Funds for 2025 have yet to be released to manufacturers, the World Food Programme — which distributes a similar product for moderate acute malnutrition — those who transport the products or the many organizations, like the International Rescue Committee, or Helen Keller International, that run the malnutrition programs.
In response to questions from the Times, the State Department emailed a statement asserting that lifesaving malnutrition programs “remain a priority.”
“Malnutrition treatment is among the first new obligations of foreign assistance funding,” the statement said.
But it also said that “other actors — including national governments and international humanitarian organizations — must step up.”
Sign up for Your Places: Global Update. All the latest news for any part of the world you select. Get it sent to your inbox.
President Trump has made the same argument for many aid programs, saying the United States should not have to carry the bulk of the burden of caring for the world. Though other countries do already contribute, and some organizations are scrambling to fill the gap, it is unlikely that they can do so quickly enough to help the children who are now in need.
Increasingly, some governments such as Nigeria, Kenya and Burkina Faso have been contributing by hosting factories that manufacture the packets. The Child Nutrition Fund, started by UNICEF, the British government and others, encourages governments to finance supply by offering a 1:1 match for every dollar.
Before the sudden withdrawal of aid, “things were absolutely moving in the right direction,” said James Sussman, a spokesman for the International Rescue Committee.
Now, boxes containing millions of dollars worth of the lifesaving packets are stuck at every link in the supply chain: in manufacturers’ warehouses, at shipping companies, in cities that received the shipments and in treatment centers that have shut down all over the world.
In nearly a dozen countries, the supply chain for the packets has become so unstable that thousands of children are at high risk of dying, according to organizations that help distribute the treatments. Tens of thousands more could be in danger in the coming weeks and months if funds for this year do not move quickly.
“We have seen the mortality rates in the hospitals increasing by the day,” said Aliyu Mohammed Jabo, Helen Keller International’s director for Nigeria. “This is the ugly situation that we are facing because of this funding cut.”
Editors’ Picks
Image
Fatima was weighed as Ms. Mohammad, left, watched.
Image
Fatima, already diagnosed with acute malnourishment, was sent for a malaria test because of her high body temperature.
Image
Ms. Mohammad and Fatima were led to another tent for a malaria test.
In Nigeria, 150 clinics operated by the World Food Programme in Borno and Yobe states, which provided treatment for more than 300,000 children below the age of 2, shut down at the end of July. In Bauchi state, Helen Keller International has had to stop treating malnutrition in 16 of its 17 centers, leaving more than 17,000 children without treatment.
In eastern Chad, Mali and Niger, malnutrition treatments are unavailable or in dangerously short supply. Clinics in northeast Syria, Burkina Faso and Kenya have closed down. In South Sudan, the International Rescue Committee estimates that it will have to close 62 static treatment sites and nine mobile clinics if funding is not restored by September.
In Afghanistan, I.R.C. warehouses are bare, despite 900,000 children who are in desperate need of treatment for severe acute malnutrition. Nepal has no supply in about half of its provinces, and is facing a nationwide shortage starting this month, endangering about 200,000 malnourished children, including about 25,000 who are at risk of death.
Several other countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Madagascar, similarly have only enough products to treat children for a few more weeks or months.
Maryam Mohamed, 35, is mother to three boys under 4, all severely malnourished. She also has three older boys who are not much better off, but it’s the young ones who most need help. In the past few months she has taken them to a series of different centers in Maiduguri as one after another has shut down, sometimes walking 45 minutes or more each way, with one boy on her back and two in her arms.
She now brings them to Mashamari camp in Maiduguri, where the supply of treatments is expected to run out this month.
“I wish they will have a change of decision,” she said about the Trump administration, through a translator. “They should please try to help by not stopping the supply.”
Image
Maryam Mohamed, with her sons, Mohammed and Abatcha, at Rescue Mashamari health clinic in Borno.
Image
Empty pallets at the UNICEF clinic of Muna camp in Maiduguri last April.
Image
A nutrition stabilization center at the Rescue Mashamari health clinic in April. By the time a child reaches a treatment center, he or she may have only hours or days to survive.
Last week, after months of delays, the State Department authorized $93 million for UNICEF, its first large grant for 2025, to supply R.U.T.F. to 12 African countries and Haiti. Part of the grant is for distributing 11,000 metric tons of packets, enough for about 800,000 children, to last through June 2026. Some money will also be spent to transport and distribute more than 1,200 metric tons of stalled packets — enough for about 87,000 children.
But UNICEF expects that it will be two to three months before the products are delivered, according to Helen Wylie, a spokeswoman for the organization.
After orders are placed and products manufactured, it can take months for treatments to reach people.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has repeatedly said that no children have died as a result of the cuts to foreign aid and the dismantling of U.S.A.I.D., calling reports of any deaths “false” and “fake.”
But several organizations, including Doctors Without Borders and the aid group Action Against Hunger, have reported deaths in children related to malnutrition. More timely and precise estimates of deaths are difficult, because many of the programs that track children in need have shut down, and most organizations dare not speak up against the administration, fearing retaliation.
“No one’s counting these children,” said Jeanette Bailey, director of Nutrition for the International Rescue Committee, among the largest of groups implementing the treatments.
“With pretty strong certainty, we know children are dying,” she added. But, “we don’t know how many.”
One global study has estimated that more than 160,000 children might die each year if the funds are not restored.
Acute malnutrition, also called wasting, is thought to affect about 43 million children worldwide. Even when aid flowed freely, it did not reach many of them. In 2023, R.U.T.F. was dispensed to 9.3 million children, according to UNICEF.
The first 1,000 days of life in particular are critical for brain development. Severely malnourished children have impaired immune responses, may suffer permanent cognitive damage, and are more vulnerable to infections, even after treatment. They are up to 11 times as likely to die as a healthy child is. Severe wasting accounts for as many as one in five deaths of children under 5 worldwide.
By the time a child reaches a treatment center, he or she may have only hours to days to survive. “It really comes down to the children who do not have time to waste,” said Navyn Salem, who runs Edesia Nutrition, one of two large American manufacturers.
A busy day at the Muna UNICEF clinic in November; the same clinic in April.
In previous years, American farmers supplied the raw ingredients — peanuts, milk powder and soy — to Edesia and Mana, another large American manufacturer. The finished product was transported by truck to major American ports, then shipped to the ports of Africa, where it would be unloaded and stored. An intricate network of organizations then transported and distributed the boxes.
The stop-start-stop of work orders and the dissolution of U.S.A.I.D. have thrown the system into disarray. U.S.A.I.D.’s activities have in theory been transferred to the State Department, but the department has neither the personnel it needs to restart all activities — even less so after widespread layoffs earlier this month — nor the systems needed to release funds.
The department “continues to strengthen internal systems and personnel capacity to ensure timely, accountable delivery of lifesaving humanitarian programs,” a spokesperson for the State Department said in an email.
In the meantime, some organizations are burning through their reserves, but many small ones have folded.
Others are looking to philanthropy. Mana received a gift of $20 million from a British philanthropist, and donated about 500,000 boxes to UNICEF. Edesia has raised $2 million in private funding and is shipping some boxes to the neediest sites on its own.
Without more funds, the companies will have no money left to buy raw materials, and are in danger of defaulting on contracts from farmers in 25 states.
“The American farmers that we work with can only hold on for so long as well,” Ms. Salem said. “So it’s been a waiting game, a very stressful waiting game.”
Image
Mothers waited with their children at a nutrition center the Damasak camp to be redirected to other parts of the camp for more specific treatment and attention.
A delivery of R.U.T.F. packages to Damasak, which is largely inaccessible by road, in November; a severely malnourished child in Muna camp; mothers with supplementary food packets leaving the Nana Kashim clinic in Maiduguri last fall. The clinic closed in July.
Edesia recently shipped 122,000 boxes to Sudan, and still has more than 185,000 at its warehouses. UNICEF will use the new funds to ship those products soon, according to the State Department. Mana, too, has already been paid for 400,000 boxes which have yet to ship; 100,000 are slated to move to South Sudan some time in the coming weeks.
Even if funding were to resume tomorrow, it takes weeks to ship products to their destinations. For R.U.T.F. to reach locations in South Sudan, for example, the products must first be shipped to Mombasa, Kenya — or produced locally in Kenya — then transported by road through Kenya and Uganda to Juba, the capital, and then to more remote parts of the country.
The roads are rough, especially in the rainy season, and boxes may take two or three months to reach the sites, said Stephane Doyon, an operations manager for Doctors without Borders. In Afghanistan, the time to delivery may stretch to eight or nine months, he said.
That may be too late for some children.
Chi Lael, a spokeswoman for W.F.P. in Nigeria., sat in a car just outside the Nana Kashim clinic in Maiduguri, a few days before it shut down at the end of July. W.F.P. would typically be scaling up in order to reach more people in July, the lean season, when food stocks dwindle and prices rise.
“A halt in assistance at a time where people are the hungriest, when they have less access to food, when prices of food are much higher,” she said, her voice breaking. “It’s the worst time imaginable to stop providing assistance.”
Image
Ismail Alfa contributed reporting.
Apoorva Mandavilli reports on science and global health for The Times, with a focus on infectious diseases and pandemics and the public health agencies that try to manage them.
10. China dependence poses existential risk to US universities
Excerpts:
This is not a call to end international cooperation. US science has thrived on open exchange. But universities must balance openness with strategic awareness and recognize how generosity can aid strategic rivals.
Policymakers must adopt a tougher stance. Research that involves dual-use technologies alongside institutions in authoritarian states known for serious human rights abuses should be banned outright. Partnerships linked to foreign military or intelligence agencies must be suspended or ended immediately.
The US should expand green-card access to foreign STEM graduates who have earned their degrees in the United States, to retain talent for American innovation and security.
Moreover, increased federal and state funding for public higher education is essential to reduce universities’ reliance on foreign tuition, which currently threatens national security and America’s technological edge. Protecting our strategic interests allows no compromise.
If the US is serious about maintaining technological leadership in the 21st century, we must recognize that the same institutions that are producing Nobel laureates and Pulitzer winners might also be accelerating China’s military and technological rise.
China dependence poses existential risk to US universities - Asia Times
America’s academic ties to Chinese entities compromising research integrity, national security and even free thought
flip.it · by Derek Levine · August 16, 2025
In July 2025, the Trump administration paused export controls on advanced AI chips to China in an effort to restart trade talks.
The decision drew criticism from national security circles concerned about China’s expanding tech dominance. Yet a quieter and more enduring pipeline of technological transfer remains largely overlooked: America’s elite universities.
Institutions such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Columbia are global beacons of research and innovation. Their mission statements reflect an ethos of internationalism and academic freedom.
Harvard seeks to “inspire every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world,” for example, and Columbia commits to “advancing knowledge and learning at the highest level and to convey the products of its efforts to the world.”
These ideals sound noble, and they often are, but they also create blind spots in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape.
Some of the most influential voices in academia have grown increasingly critical of America’s global role. Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs has argued that the US suffers from “imperial overreach” and argues for a multipolar world where China plays a leading role.
American University political scientist Amitav Acharya has, similarly, advocated a “multiplex world order” that seeks to challenge America’s global dominance.
Even Princeton’s John Ikenberry, often seen as a defender of liberal internationalism, has expressed concern that US unilateralism could unravel the very international order that America has helped build.
These aren’t abstract academic theories. They shape how universities approach international research and collaboration.
In many elite institutions, the pursuit of knowledge is considered to be inherently global; an endeavor that should remain open, inclusive and free of political constraint. But as the boundary between civilian and military technologies grows fuzzier, particularly in fields like AI and quantum computing, academic openness can come at a cost.
Such national security concerns are sometimes brushed aside by academia and are viewed as illegitimate, or even as reactionary or xenophobic.
At the heart of this matter is money. Students from China and India compose more than half of the 1.1 million foreign students studying in the US. During the 2023–24 academic year, international students contributed more than $40 billion to the US economy.
With annual tuition at elite schools often exceeding $60,000, these students fund research centers, laboratories, and faculty salaries. This revenue stream gives universities every reason to remain globally open, even if doing so occasionally creates tension between their priorities and national security.
More significantly, many of these institutions maintain formal research partnerships with Chinese universities tied to state and military entities.
Harvard, for instance, has collaborated with Tsinghua University, often referred to as China’s MIT, on joint research on artificial intelligence, quantum physics, and biomedicine.
While billed as academic exchanges, many projects in these fields relate directly to China’s civil-military fusion strategy, whereby breakthroughs in science serve Chinese economic development as well as military modernization.
These are not theoretical risks. They are playing out in real time. According to the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, about one-third of Chinese nationals who earn PhDs in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields in the US return home within five years. Many go on to work in high-priority sectors supporting China’s strategic goals.
Kai-Fu Lee, a Carnegie Mellon Ph.D., led Google China before founding Sinovation Ventures, an AI-focused firm closely aligned with Beijing’s national objectives. Jie Tang, a Cornell PhD, now leads major AI research initiatives at Tsinghua.
During my own fieldwork in China’s aviation sector, I mentored two promising students, Kankan Xie and Jikuo Lu, through elite US graduate programs. One is now a professor at Peking University; the other works on AI at Meta but plans to return to China.
Both were grateful for the opportunities they found in the United States but made clear that their long-term goals were to support China’s national development.
Faculty are not blind to this. Martin Widzer, who teaches at the University of Colorado Denver and at the International College Beijing, told me that many of his Chinese students were candid in their nationalist convictions. Several now attend elite US institutions, and many plan to return home, equipped with a world-class education and a strong sense of purpose.
Even more concerning is the growing trend of academic self-censorship. Scholars who rely on access to China or funding from Chinese sources often steer clear of politically sensitive topics such as Taiwan, Xinjiang, cyber espionage and technology theft.
A prominent China scholar declined to let me publish his comments, fearing that it could jeopardize his visa and access to archives. The pressure is real, and it is only growing.
As China scholar Ming Xia has noted, this kind of self-censorship undermines academic independence. When faculty or institutions depend on partnerships with authoritarian states, they risk shaping their research agendas to align more closely with the priorities of their funders, conducting experiments based on what is deemed acceptable rather than on the pursuit of truth.
This is not a call to end international cooperation. US science has thrived on open exchange. But universities must balance openness with strategic awareness and recognize how generosity can aid strategic rivals.
Policymakers must adopt a tougher stance. Research that involves dual-use technologies alongside institutions in authoritarian states known for serious human rights abuses should be banned outright. Partnerships linked to foreign military or intelligence agencies must be suspended or ended immediately.
The US should expand green-card access to foreign STEM graduates who have earned their degrees in the United States, to retain talent for American innovation and security.
Moreover, increased federal and state funding for public higher education is essential to reduce universities’ reliance on foreign tuition, which currently threatens national security and America’s technological edge. Protecting our strategic interests allows no compromise.
If the US is serious about maintaining technological leadership in the 21st century, we must recognize that the same institutions that are producing Nobel laureates and Pulitzer winners might also be accelerating China’s military and technological rise.
Derek Levine is a professor at Monroe University. He is the author of “The Dragon Takes Flight: China’s Aviation Policy, Achievements, and International Implications” and “China’s Path to Dominance: Preparing for Confrontation with the United States.”
This article first appeared on The National Review and is republished with the author’s kind permission.
flip.it · by Derek Levine · August 16, 2025
11. 'Economic Defense Unit': How the U.S. Military Wins in the 'Gray Zone'
It is about time. South Korea endured China's economic warfare in 2017 over the THAAD decision on its own.
'Economic Defense Unit': How the U.S. Military Wins in the 'Gray Zone'
nationalsecurityjournal.org · by Mackenzie Eaglen ·
PUBLISHED on August 16, 2025, 09:04 AM EDT – Key Points and Summary: The U.S. Senate is proposing a new Pentagon “Economic Defense Unit” to counter “gray zone” warfare, particularly economic coercion from China.
-This move comes after incidents where Beijing punished countries like South Korea and Lithuania for policy decisions.
Seven F-35 Lightning II aircraft wait to take off for a U.S. Air Force Weapons School training mission at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, Jan. 31, 2024. The U.S. Air Force Weapons School teaches graduate-level instructor courses that provide advanced training in weapons and tactics employment to officers and enlisted specialists of the combat and mobility air forces. (U.S. Air Force photo by William R. Lewis)
Economic Defense Unit: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
It is the Department of Defense’s job to think about war. It is also the Pentagon’s job to think about war avoidance. Military leaders use terms such as “the gray zone” to describe a state of operations that sits somewhere between peace and war.
Uncle Sam defines gray zone activities as “coercive or subversive actions to achieve objectives at the expense of others in contravention or in the absence of international norms.” These nefarious actions are undertaken by adversaries to strike at U.S. interests while avoiding direct conflict. Methods can include lawfare, political warfare, information and disinformation operations, debt trap diplomacy, sanctions evasion, economic coercion, cyber and space challenges, and support for proxy forces.
Congress has been worried about gray zone activities and competition for years—especially economic coercion by China against states, entities, and companies. One example of economic coercion, cited by the Council on Foreign Relations, took place when South Korea accepted the U.S.-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antiballistic missile system after various North Korean ballistic missiles launches and nuclear weapons tests in 2016–17. With THAAD too close for comfort, Beijing retaliated by forcing a major South Korean department store chain, Lotte, “which had provided some land for THAAD, to sell its stores in China for a fraction of its investment.”
Another example of China’s deeply damaging retaliation occurred after Lithuania allowed the Taiwanese representative office in Vilnius to call itself Taiwan, rather than Chinese Taipei, in 2021. According to CFR, Beijing “stranded shipments of Lithuanian goods to China and then publicly pressured global multinationals not to do business with Lithuania.” The result was an 80 percent drop in Lithuanian exports to China that year.
Working together across the United States government, and closely with allies and partners, is the key to beating back China’s gray-zone efforts and imposing pain upon Beijing when it employs these destructive tactics. As Beijing acts with increasing aggressiveness and enjoys significant impunity, the U.S. Senate is poised to debate the annual defense policy bill. This mammoth legislation includes many laudable reforms, changes, rescissions, and recommendations.
Among them is a Senate proposal to establish a new Pentagon “Economic Defense Unit” office. This fresh organization would coordinate and harmonize economic competition activities and develop a campaign plan to shore up America’s gray zone toolkit.
Congress defines economic competition activities as actions taken to “reinforce military advantage in and through the economic domain.” That includes actions taken to
-leverage private capital and market actors;
-acquire or procure items and equipment;
-protect or enhance the economic or technological advantage of the United States or allies of the United States;
-protect or disrupt in the information environment or cyber domain or other sensitive operations; or
-leverage interagency authorities.
The Senate wants the U.S. military to get more immersed in the business of economic competition. Examples of activities that will be developed and maintained by the new Unit include requirements for:
-access, basing, and overflight rights;
-countering mobilization of adversaries;
-countering defense industrial base activities by enemies; and,
-ensuring American access to critical materials and capabilities.
As the West begins rebuilding its depleted defense industrial base, the League of Darkness countries—China, Russia, Iran and North Korea—are busy cooperating on tech sharing, industrial capacity, sanctions evasion, and military equipment swapping. When Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces were low on artillery, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was quick to ship him an estimated 8 million shells to kill more Ukrainians; eventually, Kim sent North Korean soldiers to die for Putin. America and her allies simply must do more in the economic domain, and this office cannot stand up fast enough.
The Pentagon Economic Defense Unit’s new director would advise the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense on all the above-proposed activities, as well as “coordinate economic competition requirements or programs into joint and interagency planning activities.” This includes working with relevant private-sector actors and companies; sponsoring regular tabletop exercises related to assess the economic impacts of Pentagon decisions during crises and conflicts; evaluating the economic tools available to the U.S. government to augment military capabilities; and, analyzing planning scenarios and developing concepts, including to test proposed doctrine and tactics.
Importantly, the Economic Defense Unit would be able to fund projects to bolster America’s economic competition for deterrence and warfare, working closely with the still-expanding Office of Strategic Capital. Together, the two organizations would seek to plug related gaps identified by combatant commanders, address industrial base shortfalls, identify key investment opportunities, and help implement breakthroughs discovered during experimentation.
Uncle Sam needs the military to be more active and competitive in the economic domain. Hopefully, the Senate provision will prevail to stand up the new unit.
About the Author: Mackenzie Eaglen
Mackenzie Eaglen, now a National Security Journal Contributing Editor, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she works on defense strategy, defense budgets, and military readiness. She is also a regular guest lecturer at universities, a member of the board of advisers of the Alexander Hamilton Society, and a member of the steering committee of the Leadership Council for Women in National Security. Ms. Eaglen is also one of the 12-member US Army War College Board of Visitors, which offers advice about academic program objectives and effectiveness, and serves on the US Army Science Board, an advisory body that provides guidance on scientific and other matters to the Army’s senior leadership. In 2023, she became a member of the Commission on the Future of the Navy, established by Congress to study the strategy, budget, and policy concerning the future strength of the US Navy fleet.
More Military
Su-57 vs. J-20 Fighter: Who Wins?
J-20 vs. NGAD Fighter: Who Wins?
China Might Have a New Stealth Fighter
nationalsecurityjournal.org · by Mackenzie Eaglen ·
12. Government papers found in an Alaskan hotel reveal new details of Trump-Putin summit
Sigh...
Who among us has not made this kind of dumb mistake? But that doesn't excuse anyone. But something like this should never have been printed on a hotel printer. Fortunately this was published after the event was complete so it is only an embarrassment.
Government papers found in an Alaskan hotel reveal new details of Trump-Putin summit
NPR · by Chiara Eisner
President Donald Trump, right, Russia's President Vladimir Putin arrive for a joint press conference at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, Friday, Aug. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong) Jae C. Hong/AP
Papers with U.S. State Department markings, found Friday morning in the business center of an Alaskan hotel, revealed previously undisclosed and potentially sensitive details about the Aug. 15 meetings between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in Anchorage.
Eight pages, that appear to have been produced by U.S. staff and left behind accidentally, shared precise locations and meeting times of the summit and phone numbers of U.S. government employees.
At around 9 a.m. on Friday, three guests at Hotel Captain Cook, a four-star hotel located 20 minutes from the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage where leaders from the U.S. and Russia convened, found the documents left behind in one of the hotel's public printers. NPR reviewed photos of the documents taken by one of the guests, who NPR agreed not to identify because the guest said they feared retaliation.
Pictures of two documents about the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska that were found in a public hotel printer in Anchorage. NPR
The first page in the printed packet disclosed the sequence of meetings for August 15, including the specific names of the rooms inside the base in Anchorage where they would take place. It also revealed that Trump intended to give Putin a ceremonial present.
Sponsor Message
"POTUS to President Putin," the document states, "American Bald Eagle Desk Statue."
On Saturday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly dismissed the papers as a "multi-page lunch menu" and suggested leaving the information on a public printer was not a security breach. The U.S. Department of State did not respond to requests for comment.
Pages 2 through 5 of the documents listed the names and phone numbers of three U.S. staff members as well as the names of 13 U.S. and Russian state leaders. The list provided phonetic pronouncers for all the Russian men expected at the summit, including "Mr. President POO-tihn."
Pages 6 and 7 in the packet described how lunch at the summit would be served, and for whom. A menu included in the documents indicated that the luncheon was to be held "in honor of his excellency Vladimir Putin."
A seating chart shows that Putin and Trump were supposed to sit across from each other during the luncheon. Trump would be flanked by six officials: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles to his right, and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Special Envoy for Peace Missions Steve Witkoff to his left. Putin would be seated immediately next to his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, and his Aide to the President for Foreign Policy, Yuri Ushakov.
Sponsor Message
During the summit Friday, lunch was apparently cancelled. But it was intended to be a simple, three-course meal, the documents showed. After a green salad, the world leaders would dine on filet mignon and halibut olympia. Crème brûlée would be served for dessert.
Jon Michaels, a professor of law at UCLA who lectures about national security, said that the documents found in the printer of the Alaskan hotel reveal a lapse in professional judgement in preparation for a high-stakes meeting.
"It strikes me as further evidence of the sloppiness and the incompetence of the administration," said Michaels. "You just don't leave things in printers. It's that simple."
The printed papers are the latest example of a series of security breaches by officials of the Trump administration. Earlier this week, members of a law enforcement group chat that included members of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) added a random person to a conversation about an ongoing search for a convicted attempted murderer. In March, U.S. national security leaders accidentally included a journalist in a group chat about impending military strikes in Yemen.
If you have information to share, please reach out to the reporter who investigated this story, Chiara Eisner. You can reach her through encrypted platforms by contacting her on signal at username: ceis.78 or by email at eisnerchiara@proton.me.
NPR · by Chiara Eisner
13. China Is Still Afraid of Losing World War II
Excerpts:
In Europe, the end of World War II, wreathed in misery as it was, was a clean break. Between 1946 and 1991, there was not a single war between states in continental Europe. (The Greeks fought a nasty civil war until 1949 and lost half of Cyprus to Turkish invasion in 1974.) The Iron Curtain came down, and the superpowers glared at each other across it. In Western Europe, former enemies began to make a transformative union.
Asia was very different. Outside Japan, the fighting barely stopped. A divided Korea was in total war again by 1950, resolved only with an exhausted cease-fire in 1953. In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh’s army fought the French from 1945 to 1954; the South Vietnamese and the Americans from 1955 to 1975; and then, for an encore in 1978-79, toppled the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and fought off a Chinese invasion.
China Is Still Afraid of Losing World War II
Foreign Policy · by James Palmer
In the long Asian wars, being the victor in 1945 meant little.
August 15, 2025, 2:20 PM
Palmer-James-foreign-policy-columnist20
James Palmer
By James Palmer, a deputy editor at Foreign Policy.
When Hisao Kimura first heard the news that his country had surrendered, he refused to believe it. By 1945, the 23-year-old Japanese spy had been undercover in Central Asia for four years, pretending to be a Mongolian monk in order to make his way to Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. The experience had tarnished his optimism about Japan leading other Asians to liberation, but Kimura still clung to the remnants of trust in the emperor and the army. The claim, he decided, must be bazaar gossip, one of the wild rumors of the Himalayas.
Over the next few weeks, Kimura made his way down to Kalimpong, in British India. There, he sat in a cinema and watched the unmistakable newsreel images of national defeat: a devastated Tokyo, a famished public begging for food, Japanese soldiers surrendering to triumphant Gurkhas in Burma. He spent days afterwards in solitary misery on a rock overlooking the town.
“It all made no sense,” Kimura later recalled thinking. “Why should such a town be here in India, peaceful and serene, and why should I be in it, when my country lay destroyed and suffering?”
In many countries, Aug. 15 is V-J Day—the celebration of the end of World War II in the Pacific. (Thanks to the time difference, some in the United States celebrate it on Aug. 14; the official U.S. commemoration is on Sept. 2, when Japan signed the instruments of surrender.)
But in the Asia-Pacific, where the conflict reached from Lhasa to Hawaii, that victory was far less decisive than the triumph over Nazi Germany—and is a much more conflicted memory. That’s especially the case in China, where the question of which side of a divided country won the right to sit in the victor’s chair remains painfully acute.
Beijing’s leaders love to talk of the “correct” view of the history of World War II and the “safeguarding” of the postwar order. But what do these statements actually mean?
Rows of people in uniforms walk down a road
Japanese prisoners are led by Red Army troops in Manchuria in August 1945.Sovfoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Kimura was just one of millions of Japanese stranded across Asia and the Pacific, flotsam and jetsam left by the receding tides of war. In Manchuria, seized by the Soviets in a blitzkrieg after they finally declared war on Japan on Aug. 8, just days after Hiroshima, a chaotic exodus of hundreds of thousands of settlers—now turned refugees—began. Mothers fearful that they would never make it home gave their babies to Chinese families or pressed them on Japanese sailors at the docks.
In the Japanese naval base of Truk, bombed to oblivion and then ignored by the U.S. advance through the Pacific, an abandoned and starving garrison waited for some kind of relief; they had already murdered 70 of the “comfort women” who had been kept there, hoping to cover up their crimes. In China, soldiers who had spent years following the policy of “kill all, starve all, burn all” wondered which army they should try to surrender to: the Nationalists, the Communists, the Soviets?
This was a painful and humiliating loss, yet, in a way, the Japanese were the lucky ones. After the self-inflicted misery of the 1940s, Japan boomed in the postwar years as it embraced defeat. By 1955, the country was as rich as before the war; by 1964, when it hosted the Summer Olympics, it was far richer. Businesses such as Honda and Sony went from local shops to global giants.
In Europe, the end of World War II, wreathed in misery as it was, was a clean break. Between 1946 and 1991, there was not a single war between states in continental Europe. (The Greeks fought a nasty civil war until 1949 and lost half of Cyprus to Turkish invasion in 1974.) The Iron Curtain came down, and the superpowers glared at each other across it. In Western Europe, former enemies began to make a transformative union.
A teenaged girl carries a child on her back in front of a tank.
A girl carries her brother on her back past a tank in Haengju, Korea, in 1950. History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Soldiers in gear and helmets look up toward a sky filled with helicopters. Palm trees are on the horizon in the background.
Helicopters fly over American soldiers during an operation in South Vietnam in 1963. Patrick Christain/Getty Images
Asia was very different. Outside Japan, the fighting barely stopped. A divided Korea was in total war again by 1950, resolved only with an exhausted cease-fire in 1953. In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh’s army fought the French from 1945 to 1954; the South Vietnamese and the Americans from 1955 to 1975; and then, for an encore in 1978-79, toppled the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and fought off a Chinese invasion.
British Malaya defeated a Chinese-backed communist insurgency between 1948 and 1960, and then an independent Malaysia fought off an undeclared Indonesian assault from 1962-1966. British India won independence, bloodily divided, and its successor states went to war again and again, including the Pakistani Army committing genocide in the newly created Bangladesh in 1971.
The legacy of the war itself was far more ambivalent and unclear in much of Asia than in Europe. Soldiers who had fought on the side of freedom had often done so under the yoke of colonialism. Collaborators with the Japanese, such as the Indian fascist Subhas Chandra Bose, could be remembered as national liberation heroes—or go on to lead the country, as Indonesia’s Sukarno did. Nobody remembered the Japanese fondly, but there was plenty of oppression to go around.
A crowd of people smile and celebrate as a truck carrying sailors drives among them.
Sailors of the Russian Red Banner Amur Flotilla drive through the Chinese section of Harbin, Manchuria, after news of the Japanese surrender in August 1945. Sovfoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
It is in China that the war’s ending—and its legacy—is still most contested.
Officially, China was one of the victors of World War II, included in the “Big Four” of the allies alongside the Soviets, the United States, and the United Kingdom, as well as one of the “Four Policemen” of the United Nations. This was a stark difference to the end of World War I, when China had been treated as an imperial subject, with Germany’s colonial possessions in the country not returned to Chinese sovereignty but instead handed over to Japan. Along with a restored France, China received the ultimate accreditation of victory: a permanent seat on the new U.N. Security Council.
Yet the seeming accolade meant very little. Yes, China was the only nonwhite nation to be recognized by the new global order, theoretically as an equal. But China also barely existed. After the final collapse of the Qing Empire in 1911-12, China had entered a civil war of brutal ferocity and bewildering complexity. Soldiers who had learned their craft on the Western Front dug trenches and entrenched machine guns to shoot their countrymen; others terrorized, extorted, and massacred civilians.
By 1927, the conflict had theoretically evolved into a broad struggle between the Nationalist Party and the Communist Party (which had been allies, this being that kind of war, between 1924 and 1926) but with dozens of individual warlords fighting for their own profit or power. And when the Japanese seized Manchuria in 1931, they were just another party in a long and bloody conflict.
When that became a full-blown invasion of China in 1937, the Nationalists and the Communists reluctantly agreed to put the civil war on hold; in 1945, they picked it right back up. Aided by the Soviet handover of Manchuria, which the Japanese had turned into the country’s main industrial base; by hyperinflation in Nationalist territories; and by the disorder and corruption of their enemy, the Communists chased the Nationalists off the mainland and into Taiwan in 1949.
There was now an (almost) united China. The only problem was that just one side of the Cold War acknowledged it. Until the 1970s, the West recognized Taiwan, not Beijing, as the only legitimate Chinese state—and therefore as the legitimate victors of World War II, undeterred by the Nationalists’ very distinct failure to follow through on that victory. It wasn’t until 1971 that, in one of the most dramatic reversals imaginable, the leaders of Taiwan went from being a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to not even being recognized by the United Nations. (It would take another eight years for Washington to fully acknowledge the shift.)
A person with a ponytail is silhouetted against a museum exhibit showing newspapers with text in Chinese.
A visitor walks past an exhibit featuring Chinese newspaper reports about Japan’s 1945 surrender in Nanjing, China, on Aug. 23, 2005.China Photos/Getty Images
When Beijing’s leaders—such as President Xi Jinping—talk of “safeguarding” the “victory” of World War II, then, they’re talking about defending the idea of the Communist state as the only legitimate inheritor of “China’s victory”—as well as the idea that China, as a victor of the war, enjoys a naturally superior status to Tokyo, the instigator and loser. At home, it means a history that ignores all the messy horrors of the war, and instead tells a safe, party-approved story of moral triumph.
Chinese sacrifices in the war against the Japanese, of course, were enormous. But there’s one particularly thorny problem with Beijing claiming that wartime victory gives it carte blanche: The Nationalist Party did most of the sacrificing. While many communist guerrillas fought heroically, the Communist Party used the opportunity to rebuild itself in its mountain fastness of Yan’an.
And since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, China’s arguments have become increasingly linked with justifying Soviet imperialism: As the “principal pillars of resistance,” the Soviets, in this telling, have as natural a right to rule Ukraine as China does to rule Taiwan or Tibet or Xinjiang. China’s war commemorations emphasize a dual partnership between the Soviets and China—a history that was once put on hold for decades thanks to the Sino-Soviet split but is now useful again.
So, what did it mean, in the end, to come from the losing nation in 1945? Kimura spent five years wandering the Himalayan borderlands and India as a trader, teacher, and freelance spy—including for the British, who believed in his Mongolian disguise. He feared the consequences of surrender, but in 1950, overcome by homesickness, he went to the captain of a Japanese ship in Calcutta.
Unable to summon up his own language, he scrawled down: “I am Japanese. My name is Hisao Kimura. I have not spoken Japanese for seven years.” After several months in prison in Calcutta, he was returned to Japan, where he spent several happy decades using his language skills to analyze foreign broadcasts for the CIA.
This post appeared in the FP Weekend newsletter, a weekly showcase of book reviews, deep dives, and features. Sign up here.
Foreign Policy · by James Palmer
14. What Was the Trump-Putin Meeting Even About?
Excerpt:
More likely, Mr. Trump may simply lose interest in trying to end the war. When he said he’d be calling Mr. Zelensky and the Europeans, he added, “Ultimately it’s up to them.” Again, he did not elaborate, but given Mr. Trump’s faith in his deal-making skills and his gut instincts, it sounded like he was prepared to let this one go. That would explain Mr. Putin’s cheeriness — and would be a blow to Ukraine.
What Was the Trump-Putin Meeting Even About?
nytimes.com · by Serge Schmemann ·
Serge Schmemann
Aug. 15, 2025
Credit...Ioulex for The New York Times
Listen to this article · 3:01 min Learn more
By Serge Schmemann
Mr. Schmemann, an Opinion writer, is a former Moscow bureau chief of The Times.
Few East-West summit meetings in modern history have been preceded by as much speculation and uncertainty as Friday’s Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska. Few, if any, have concluded with even less clarity.
What was clear, though, was that Vladimir Putin was well satisfied. Reading from prepared notes — raising the question of whether they had been prepared before the meeting — at a press briefing after the three-hour meeting, the Russian president appeared especially satisfied with the fact that he, a pariah and wanted war criminal in Europe, was having what looked like a chummy face-to-face with the president of the United States, and on American soil, adjacent to Russia.
He heaped compliments on President Trump, even suggesting that Mr. Trump was right to say that had he been president at the time, there would have been no Ukraine war. He spoke at some length of Alaska’s Russian and Orthodox heritage, of the importance of turning the page in U.S.-Russian relations, of the great potential of trade between their countries (which drew a grin from Mr. Trump). But on the war in Ukraine, he went back to his old script, that to make a settlement lasting all the “root” causes of the conflict, which in his view are all on Ukraine’s side, have to be eliminated.
Mr. Trump, who before the meeting seemed to be moving toward a newly tough position on Russia — threatening “very severe consequences” if there was no cease-fire and even suggesting that Mr. Putin was playing him — seemed here to revert to his longstanding admiration for “Vladimir” (Mr. Putin did not publicly reciprocate with “Donald”). Mr. Trump happily mocked the accusations of Russian meddling in American elections — the “Russia, Russia, Russia hoax,” as he referred to it — and effusively thanked Mr. Putin for an “extremely productive meeting.” On Ukraine? Mr. Trump said “many points were agreed to” and spoke of “great progress” and “some headway,” all without any details, but acknowledged that “there’s no deal until there’s a deal.” He said he’d be calling key NATO leaders and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to give them a readout.
Those calls may shed more light on whatever understanding the two presidents reached, and it remains possible that the meeting did achieve something that could be called progress. But it was hard to avoid the impression that Mr. Putin had once again succeeded in gaining more time for his war, which is currently going his way. When Mr. Putin quipped — in English — that the next summit should be in Moscow, Mr. Trump seemed delighted: “Ooh, that’s an interesting one,” he said, “I don’t know. I’ll get a little heat on that one, but I could see it possibly happening.”
More likely, Mr. Trump may simply lose interest in trying to end the war. When he said he’d be calling Mr. Zelensky and the Europeans, he added, “Ultimately it’s up to them.” Again, he did not elaborate, but given Mr. Trump’s faith in his deal-making skills and his gut instincts, it sounded like he was prepared to let this one go. That would explain Mr. Putin’s cheeriness — and would be a blow to Ukraine.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
Serge Schmemann joined The Times in 1980 and worked as the bureau chief in Moscow, Bonn and Jerusalem and at the United Nations. He was editorial page editor of The International Herald Tribune in Paris from 2003 to 2013.
nytimes.com · by Serge Schmemann ·
15. Clouds Over China: A Challenge to Intelligence Gathering
Another form of "cover" or "top cover." Is China creating or manipulating cloud cover?
Can Taiwan obtain weather resilient ISR?
Excerpts:
In military parlance, the Taiwan leadership needs indications and warnings to understand the PLA’s readiness to execute combined arms exercises. This means being able to maintain constant watch over hundreds of areas several times each day, from the waters around Taiwan and deep into China, where drones cannot fly. Intelligence is Taiwan’s best strategy to counter China’s tactic of choice: gray zone warfare.
To preserve early warning and strategic autonomy, Taiwan must adopt a hybrid ISR strategy built on SAR, EO, machine learning, meteorological intelligence, and deepened international cooperation. Mitigating measures must include, at a minimum, investment in ISR capability, not just munitions.
Proper intelligence production requires the complementary use of multiple sensing systems including SAR and electro-optical imaging – especially when data is shared with friends and allies. Taiwan needs to build capacity to show its commitment to self-defense to its key allies. There are no quick and easy solutions other than to co-invest in satellite constellations with like-minded states.
Without weather-resilient ISR, Taiwan will be unable to see the storm brewing just across the horizon.
Clouds Over China: A Challenge to Intelligence Gathering
China takes advantage of persistent cloud cover to mask its movement of military assets and materiel. That’s a problem for Taiwan.
https://thediplomat.com/2025/08/clouds-over-china-a-challenge-to-intelligence-gathering/
By Jason Wang and Marvin Hamor Bernardo
August 16, 2025
Credit: NASA
Peering through the clouds is an intelligence analyst’s worst nightmare – and Beijing knows it. China is actively exploiting weather conditions to move military assets and materiel during persistent cloud cover over the Taiwan Strait and China’s coastal areas.
Summer months are traditionally the time for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to stage amphibious exercises, with some of the largest and most complex military exercises across Fujian, Guangdong, and Zhejiang. The prevailing weather conditions during this period negatively impact Taiwan’s ability to monitor and understand PLA training progress, movement of materials, and fundamentally provide early warning to Taiwan’s leadership.
Using 2024 as a baseline, from January to June, the PLA’s key training areas were under partial or total cloud cover for 70-73 percent of the time. From an intelligence production point of view, this is challenging for most nations in the First Island Chain, as their primary sensing is electro-optical (EO). This is also the time of year the PLA conducts basic training and prepares for their large-scale amphibious exercises during the summer and fall.
Russia effectively used this tactic prior to the invasion of Ukraine. The Russian army amassed troops under the guise of their annual military exercises during the winter months where they experienced high cloud cover. While their lightning strike tactics failed to deliver a coup d’etat, they managed to catch Ukraine by surprise.
However, the Taiwan Strait experiences some degree of cloud cover between 50-80 percent of the time, this means areas of interest just across the strait are already difficult to monitor. China also needs to be able to peer through darkness and the weather, here the balance is shifting in their favor.
The PLA continues to deploy an increasing number of satellite constellations to achieve persistent, all-weather monitoring across the Indo-Pacific. China operates a constellation of dual-use EO, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and electronic intelligence (ELINT) satellites. These constellations of satellites are increasingly automated to enable a real-time tip and cueing. The number of and capability of these satellites are allowing China to easily outpace Taiwan’s limited ISR architecture. For the PLA, this is not a technical luxury – it is a national security priority needed to overcome the United States in the event of a Taiwan contingency.
Prevailing weather conditions from January until July make it that much harder for Taiwan to maintain constant watch over the hundreds of military sites across China to provide early warning of PLA behavior. Since 2022, China has expanded the range of locations in which they practice warfare on Taiwan – from moving models of U.S. carriers on rails in the desert to helicopter cavalry practice in Zhejiang Province.
In military parlance, the Taiwan leadership needs indications and warnings to understand the PLA’s readiness to execute combined arms exercises. This means being able to maintain constant watch over hundreds of areas several times each day, from the waters around Taiwan and deep into China, where drones cannot fly. Intelligence is Taiwan’s best strategy to counter China’s tactic of choice: gray zone warfare.
To preserve early warning and strategic autonomy, Taiwan must adopt a hybrid ISR strategy built on SAR, EO, machine learning, meteorological intelligence, and deepened international cooperation. Mitigating measures must include, at a minimum, investment in ISR capability, not just munitions.
Proper intelligence production requires the complementary use of multiple sensing systems including SAR and electro-optical imaging – especially when data is shared with friends and allies. Taiwan needs to build capacity to show its commitment to self-defense to its key allies. There are no quick and easy solutions other than to co-invest in satellite constellations with like-minded states.
Without weather-resilient ISR, Taiwan will be unable to see the storm brewing just across the horizon.
Authors
Guest Author
Jason Wang
Jason Wang is the COO at ingeniSPACE, a Silicon Valley geospatial intelligence analytics house.
Guest Author
Marvin Hamor Bernardo
Marvin Hamor Bernardo is a doctoral candidate at the International Doctoral Program in Asia-Pacific Studies at the National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
16. One Belt, One Road, One Chilean Headache
An extensive rundown of Chinese investments in Chile.
Excerpts:
China’s economic activity in Chile is thus a double-edged sword. Chinese companies have been making unprecedented investments in Chile’s critical resources, yet at the same time, China’s actions in other parts of Latin America, particularly its promotion of Chancay port in Peru, could undercut Chile’s economy.
Chile’s upcoming election will be crucial for the future of the country’s economy – and its ties to China.
Jeannette Jara has been surging dramatically after the recent primaries. She is polling at 26 percent, putting her on top at the moment, although Jara is closely followed by Kast at 22 percent.
Of the many issues these two candidates face, ensuring the future of Chilean mining will be key for economic growth – especially with the bleeding assets of Codelco. Kast aims to open Codelco to private capital in the hopes of allowing boosting production and restoring revenue growth. His plan includes selling non-core assets to pay Codelco’s debts while focusing on operational efficiency and not state revenue. Given China’s track record of investing in Chile’s natural resources, Chinese firms would likely be keen to take part in the bidding.
...
With these very different individuals running for office, Chile is at a crossroads. While Chinese investment won’t be top of mind for the average voter, the next president will determine the extent of China’s influence in the country’s economy.
One Belt, One Road, One Chilean Headache
Chile’s next president will have to decide how to handle growing Chinese investment in Chile’s critical resources.
https://thediplomat.com/2025/08/one-belt-one-road-one-chilean-headache/
By Martin Brown
August 15, 2025
A lithium flat in Chile.
Credit: Depositphotos
On November 16, Chile will elect a new president who will lead the nation until 2030. Presidential candidates – including the Communist Party of Chile’s Jeanette Jara representing the left-wing Unity for Chile coalition, and the incumbent, President José Antonio Kast, for the conservative Republican Party – will have to present policies tackling domestic issues such as dwindling birthrates and rising crime. But one of the most important foreign policy areas for this election will be China’s growing investments in Chile’s weakened critical mineral and transportation sector.
Already, China controls approximately two-thirds of Chile’s energy sector through mainly financial acquisitions of companies operating in the region. Also, as of 2023, China bought just under 40 percent of Chilean exports. The next largest export destination – the United States – was well behind, accounting for just 15 percent of Chile’s total exports.
As of 2024, Chile and China’s bilateral trade was worth an estimated $37.8 billion. That year, Chile’s exports to China were primarily made up of minerals – at $27.95 billion, representing almost 75 percent of total trade. Of these minerals, the most prominent is copper, with Chile exporting $5.5 billion worth of copper to China. Chile holds an estimated 23 percent of the world’s reserves in copper, and as of 2024 produced 24 percent of the world’s copper, signifying the importance of China as a stable buyer.
In 2005, China’s Minmetal Corporation signed a 50-50 joint venture with Codelco, Chile’s state-owned copper producer, for $550 million. This venture would ensure China with 55,000 tons of copper for more than 15 years.
In other projects not owned by China, Chinese banks have provided investment. In 2021, the Collahuasi mine signed a $1 billion syndicate loan from 17 banks, including three from China: the Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and China Construction Bank. Together the three banks provided $71.43 million for the mine. Similarly, in 2021, the Bank of China also provided $38.11 million of a $571.6 million syndicate loan used for the expansion of the Mantoverde copper mine. Mantoverde – which is not owned by China – produces an estimated 120,000 tonnes of copper per year.
Chile also plays a significant role in lithium mining. As of 2023, Chile was the world’s second largest producer of lithium, accounting for 25 percent of global production. Here, too, Chinese firms have been actively investing.
In 2018, Tianqi Lithium Corporation purchased 23.77 percent of the Chilean lithium mining company Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile (SQM) from the Canadian company Nutrien. Tianqi paid $4 billion for the shares and has since held the second-largest stake in SQM (Pampa Group is the largest shareholder, with 26 percent). An agreement signed in May 2024 gives SQM the responsibility of producing refined lithium in Salar de Atacama from 2025 to 2060.
Furthermore, in 2023, China’s Tsingshan Holding Group and BYD planned to invest $233.2 million setting up a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) plant, operational by May 2025. Chile hoped this project would produce 120,000 tons of LFP per year. However, in 2025, the Chinese partners withdrew from those plans for unknown reasons. Also, in 2025, BYD delayed plans for a lithium cathode plant worth $290 million, with the capacity of producing 50,000 tons of LFP per year. Observers think the project is likely to be canceled.
Even with the recent issues involving lithium projects, China may have more opportunity to invest due to the weakened state of Chile’s Codelco, the state-owned mining company that is a critical player in Chilean copper and lithium. As reported in December 2024, Codelco’s debt has ballooned to over $20 billion with production hitting a historic 25-year low in 2022.
Beyond the mining sector, China is having a significant – albeit indirect – impact on Chile’s transportation sector.
Chile’s largest port, the Port of Valparaíso handles 11.5 million tons of cargo a year. In 2024, Valparaíso exported 31 percent of its cargo to Asia – primarily China. Chile has plans to expand the port, which is owned by the state company EMPORCHI, including adding cargo terminals, extending cruise terminals, and expanding the flow of cargo ships. The goal is for the port to maintain competitiveness with the region.
And the competition is fierce following the inauguration of the Chinese-built Chancay port in Peru. Chancay’s rise may cut into the traffic heading for Chilean ports like Valparaiso. The new “Chancay Express” connects the Chilean ports of Lirquen and San Antonio to Peru’s port. Essentially, the route allows for Chilean goods to be shipped to China via Peru’s Pacific coast, reducing shipping times from 35 days to 23 and cutting costs by 30 percent.
Unlike Chilean ports, Chancay can handle Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCVs) which means it has a double advantage: it can handle much more cargo on top of having shorter travel time to Beijing. For Beijing, it is clear Chancay is a vital transit hub not just for Peru but for all of Latin America. In addition to the Chancay Express linking Chile to Peru, China has revitalized negotiation for a trans-oceanic railway that would carry cargo from Brazil to Chancay.
China’s economic activity in Chile is thus a double-edged sword. Chinese companies have been making unprecedented investments in Chile’s critical resources, yet at the same time, China’s actions in other parts of Latin America, particularly its promotion of Chancay port in Peru, could undercut Chile’s economy.
Chile’s upcoming election will be crucial for the future of the country’s economy – and its ties to China.
Jeannette Jara has been surging dramatically after the recent primaries. She is polling at 26 percent, putting her on top at the moment, although Jara is closely followed by Kast at 22 percent.
Of the many issues these two candidates face, ensuring the future of Chilean mining will be key for economic growth – especially with the bleeding assets of Codelco. Kast aims to open Codelco to private capital in the hopes of allowing boosting production and restoring revenue growth. His plan includes selling non-core assets to pay Codelco’s debts while focusing on operational efficiency and not state revenue. Given China’s track record of investing in Chile’s natural resources, Chinese firms would likely be keen to take part in the bidding.
On the other hand, Jara opposes the deal between Codelco and SQM, instead calling for a new public company to aid in developing lithium resources. Codelco is a copper-mining company, and Jara aims to create a new state-owned firm playing a similar role for lithium resources. That would have implications for China, given its minority stake in SQM.
On foreign policy specifically, Jara has emphasized “not wanting Chile subordinated to foreign government or external models” and emphasizes human rights. She has made no explicit statements about China in this regard. Instead, Jara noted that her foreign policy goal is diversification of trade and multilateralism, focusing on expanding ties with China, India, and Latin America.
However, Kast, the incumbent president, has been strongly aligned with Western powers. He is particularly in sync with Trumpian positions such as removing Chile from the United Nations Human Rights Council and opposing immigration, LGBT rights, or any policies he views as “communist.”
With these very different individuals running for office, Chile is at a crossroads. While Chinese investment won’t be top of mind for the average voter, the next president will determine the extent of China’s influence in the country’s economy.
Authors
Guest Author
Martin Brown
Martin Brown is a graduate student as part of the Global Affairs program at Florida International University, where he completed a B.A. in International Relations and Political Science with a certificate in National Security Studies. He currently works as an open-source analyst at FIU’s Jack D. Gordon Institute.
17. Trump Expresses Gratitude For Hillary Clinton's Nobel Peace Prize Nod Ahead Of Putin Summit
Did the world's axis just tilt? Or did hell freeze over?
Trump Expresses Gratitude For Hillary Clinton's Nobel Peace Prize Nod Ahead Of Putin Summit
tampafp.com · by Leslie Bolden · August 15, 2025
President acknowledges former rival’s surprising praise as he embarks for high-stakes meeting with Russian leader in Alaska to negotiate end to Ukraine war.
President Trump
President Donald Trump expressed his appreciation Friday for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that he could be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize if he successfully brokers an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Clinton’s remarks, made during a recent episode of the “Raging Moderates” podcast, outlined specific conditions for her potential nomination, stating that Trump would need to secure a peace deal without Ukraine ceding territory or validating Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vision of a “greater Russia.”
“If he could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where it had to concede its territory to the aggressor, [or] had to, in a way, validate Putin’s vision of greater Russia, but instead could really stand up to Putin, to make it clear there must be a ceasefire,” Clinton said. “If President Trump were the architect of that, I’d nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.”
President Trump, currently in Anchorage, Alaska, for his meeting with Putin, was asked about Clinton’s comments by Fox News anchor Bret Baier aboard Air Force One. “That’s very nice,” Trump responded. “I might have to start liking her again.”
The president’s summit with Putin comes as he aims to fulfill his campaign promise to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Earlier on Friday, Trump stated his readiness to “walk away” from the meeting if Putin is unwilling to agree to terms acceptable to the United States.
Meanwhile, insights into the discussions were shared by a former Ambassador to Ukraine, highlighting the significance of the meeting in the ongoing efforts to de-escalate the conflict.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
tampafp.com · by Leslie Bolden · August 15, 2025
18. Trump Tells Europeans He Is Open to U.S. Security Guarantees in Ukraine
The question is what can we learn from the Budapest Memorandum?
From my "research assistant" (AI):
The Budapest Memorandum was a set of political agreements signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation, with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, to provide security assurances in exchange for their accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as non-nuclear-weapon states.
The signatories pledged to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders and to refrain from the use or threat of military force against Ukraine, except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the UN Charter.
The memorandum was signed at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in Budapest.
Ukraine, which inherited the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, agreed to give up its nuclear weapons, transferring all warheads to Russia for dismantlement by 2008.
In return, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia provided security assurances.
The United States also provided significant financial and technical assistance through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction programme, amounting to over $300 million (equivalent to $636 million in 2024), to support the decommissioning process.
Trump Tells Europeans He Is Open to U.S. Security Guarantees in Ukraine
U.S. president says that Putin accepted that any peace would need to include presence of Western troops in Ukraine to ensure its durability
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/trump-tells-europeans-he-is-open-to-u-s-security-guarantees-in-ukraine-347892f6
By Bojan Pancevski
Follow
, Laurence Norman
Follow
and Daniel Michaels
Follow
Aug. 16, 2025 2:09 pm ET
244
Gift unlocked article
Listen
(7 min)
President Trump disembarking from Air Force One on Saturday on his return to the Washington, D.C., area. Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press
Quick Summary
- Trump told European leaders he was open to offering U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, shifting his stance.View more
President Trump told European leaders that he was open to offering U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, according to several European officials, a significant shift in his stance toward America’s role in any end to the war.
The officials, who spoke with Trump after his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, said Trump told them Putin wouldn’t stop fighting during any peace talks and insisted Ukraine cede territory in the country’s east in exchange for a freeze of the front line elsewhere.
Putin accepted, Trump said, that any peace would need to include the presence of Western troops in Ukraine as a way of ensuring its durability, according to four of the officials.
European leaders had been told by the U.S. ahead of the summit in Anchorage that Moscow had indicated to Washington that it was willing to accept a temporary cease-fire and would attend a second round of talks toward a longer-term peace, according to three of the European officials.
But in a call from Air Force One on his way home from the summit, Trump relayed to the Europeans that Putin wanted to keep fighting, the officials said.
Kyiv has long sought U.S. security guarantees as a bulwark against future Russian aggression under any peace deal. But some U.S. officials have insisted that the U.S. wouldn’t act as a guarantor for Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s determination to win some kind of security guarantee from Washington contributed to the angry confrontation between Trump and the Ukrainian leader at the Oval Office in February.
The White House hasn’t spoken publicly about security guarantees for Ukraine since Trump arrived in Alaska for the meeting with Putin.
Trump’s apparent shift on the matter, indicated to the Europeans, is notable because for months he had rejected Zelensky’s request for such a U.S. role, fearing it would mire the U.S. in a foreign war. Trump also hadn’t responded to a European request to provide some form of backstop to any European troops potentially deployed to Ukraine as part of a peace deal.
U.S. security guarantees could potentially enable Zelensky to compromise in talks with Putin, provided Russia is ready to negotiate in good faith, some of the European officials who took part in the call said.
Three people familiar with the call said Trump indicated guarantees could include U.S. military support for a European-led security force in Ukraine but didn’t commit to American forces stationed on the ground.
The security guarantees as described by Trump on the call included bilateral security commitments and financial and military support for Ukraine’s armed forces by a Western coalition of the willing including the U.S., three of the European officials said.
The people on the calls gave different interpretations of Trump’s position on whether there would be a U.S. military component in any security guarantee.
In a joint statement Saturday after calls with Trump and among themselves, European leaders appeared to reference the president’s offer for security guarantees.
“We are clear that Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the leaders of Germany, France, Britain, Poland, Italy, Finland and the European Union institutions said in the statement. “We welcome President Trump’s statement that the US is prepared to give security guarantees.”
The Kremlin didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Trump also told European leaders he wants a trilateral meeting with Zelensky and Putin by the end of next week to advance the peace process, the European officials said.
Trump and Zelensky are set to meet in the Oval Office on Monday for talks, which will be attended by at least one other European leader. Trump said that if that meeting goes well, he would schedule a meeting with Putin.
The European leaders on Saturday said in their statement they were ready to support Ukraine in a trilateral summit between Russia, Ukraine and the U.S.
Putin’s senior aide Yuri Ushakov, who attended the meeting with Trump in Alaska, told state media that a second summit could be discussed, but that the proposal of holding trilateral talks between the two presidents and Zelensky has “not been touched upon.”
The highly billed summit in Alaska yielded few concrete steps toward ending the war in Ukraine, which is now well into its fourth year. Trump and Putin signaled that some agreements had been reached but there was no clear breakthrough. The U.S. president left Anchorage without the cease-fire deal he was determined to bring home.
“There will be very severe consequences,” Trump said ahead of the meeting in response to a question about what he would do if Putin failed to offer a cease-fire.
Hours after meeting Putin, however, he dropped his demand in a post on his Truth Social platform, in which he argued in favor of going straight to negotiations for a full peace agreement following his discussions with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and other European nations.
“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,” Trump wrote.
The move echoes Putin’s preferred approach and would allow the fighting to continue until a deal is reached—something Ukraine has argued against.
Putin told legislators Saturday that the meeting with Trump went well and that the conflict in Ukraine could only be pacified by removing what he called “root causes,” which the Kremlin defines as Kyiv’s drift toward the West and its aspirations to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
“We, of course, respect the position of the American administration, which sees the need for a speedy end to military action,” Putin said, according to a Kremlin transcript. “Well, we would also like this and would like to move on to resolving all issues by peaceful means.”
Trump and the European leaders also touched on a proposal by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, which would provide Ukraine with a security guarantee modeled on the Article 5 collective-defense clause of the NATO, according to two people briefed on the call.
During the call around 3 a.m. Central European Time on Saturday, Trump told European leaders that he had been working 24 hours straight and appeared tired and irritated with Putin, according to the officials who took part in the call. They said Trump said he would only consider renewing his threat of immediate sanctions against Russia if the trilateral talks failed to deliver progress toward peace.
Write to Bojan Pancevski at bojan.pancevski@wsj.com, Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com and Daniel Michaels at Dan.Michaels@wsj.com
19. Iron Rhine strategic railway chugs back to life to counter Russia
Those who served in Europe will recall the importance of rail load training. And I am sure they are doing such training and using the railways.
Iron Rhine strategic railway chugs back to life to counter Russia
Politico · by Martina Sapio · August 14, 2025
- News
- Mobility
The rail line linking Belgium’s port of Antwerp to Germany’s Ruhr region dates back to the 19th century but has fallen into disuse since World War II.
Iron Rhine, which once connected the Port of Antwerp in Belgium to Germany’s industrial Ruhr region, was pivotal for Allied forces during and after World War II. | Markus Schweiss via Wikipedia
August 14, 2025 4:07 am CET
By
Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are in talks to revive the Iron Rhine railway, a line dating back to the 19th century, aiming to boost military mobility in response to the growing Russian threat.
“The military angle has brought the Iron Rhine back into the spotlight,” said Herman Welter, a railway expert at the Gazet van Antwerpen newspaper, adding that this aspect might now play a significant role in the decades-long discussions about reactivating the railway.
Iron Rhine, which once connected the Port of Antwerp in Belgium to Germany’s industrial Ruhr region, was pivotal for Allied forces during and after World War II. Largely unused for decades, parts of it have been abandoned since 1991.
But now, as EU military mobility needs increase and other rail lines face capacity issues, the pressure is mounting for action. "It’s getting on [the countries'] nerves," said a mobility consultant close to the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirming that discussions are accelerating.
“This project is political,” said Thomas De Spiegelaere, spokesperson for the Belgian transport ministry. “Prime Minister [Bart] De Wever has taken control of the project himself."
Not everyone, however, is fully on board with prioritizing the railway's revival.
The Dutch, in particular, are less than enthusiastic. Their section is short while the parallel Betuwe line already links Rotterdam to Germany. The reluctance also has commercial roots: the Port of Antwerp has long championed the Iron Rhine, viewing it as a potential challenge to the Port of Rotterdam’s dominance in the region.
“The Netherlands goes along, but they’d rather sabotage it from the inside,” the consultant noted. The Dutch government did not respond to a request for comment.
In Belgium, the current hope is that the military angle will accelerate the project’s reactivation. But as Welter pointed out, “The Netherlands holds the key,” adding that “if it costs them little or nothing, they'll cooperate.”
One of the reasons the Netherlands may eventually come around, Welter noted, is the potential financial boost from NATO’s new spending targets and EU funding — €17 billion may be available for military mobility from 2027 in the proposal for the EU's next long-term budget.
“If the EU provides free money to build the infrastructure,” the mobility consultant said, “even the reluctant Netherlands will get on board.”
Discussions to revive the Iron Rhine have been ongoing for years and have sparked disputes over issues such as environmental concerns. In 2003, Belgium and the Netherlands took their fight over the railway’s reactivation to an arbitration tribunal, which ruled that Belgium could move forward with the reactivation, but would bear the environmental costs — with the Netherlands contributing only if it stood to benefit.
In the current talks, Welter noted that Berlin seems relatively in favor of the project, even as Iron Rhine poses the biggest infrastructure challenges in Germany thanks to difficult terrain around the junction city of Aachen and the collapse of the Rastatt tunnel in 2017.
Politico · by Martina Sapio · August 14, 2025
20. Taiwan and the limits of American power
Rarely do we see the question that is asked in the subtitle.
And does a negative answer undermine deterrence?
Taiwan and the limits of American power - Asia Times
Should America really send its daughters and sons to die in the Taiwan Strait?
asiatimes.com · by Leon Hadar · August 15, 2025
As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and Washington’s bipartisan consensus coalesces around defending the self-ruling island’s democracy, it’s worth stepping back from the emotional rhetoric about freedom versus authoritarianism to examine whether America’s evolving Taiwan policy serves genuine US national interests—or represents another costly overextension of American power.
The current trajectory of US policy toward Taiwan reflects the same strategic hubris that has characterized American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War: the belief that the United States can and should reshape the global order according to its preferences, regardless of the costs or the balance of power realities on the ground.
Strategic reality
Let’s begin with some uncomfortable truths that Washington’s foreign policy establishment prefers to ignore. Taiwan sits 100 miles (161 kilometers) off China’s coast and 7,000 miles (11,265 kilometers) from the continental United States.
For Beijing, Taiwan represents what strategists call a “core interest”—territory it views as integral to its sovereignty and historical identity. For Washington, Taiwan is what we might generously call a “peripheral interest”—important perhaps, but hardly vital to America’s survival or prosperity.
This geographical and strategic asymmetry matters enormously. China can bring overwhelming conventional force to bear in any Taiwan contingency, while the United States would be fighting at the end of extremely long supply lines, with bases in Japan and Guam potentially vulnerable to Chinese missile strikes.
Military analysts who engage in honest assessments—rather than Pentagon wish-thinking—increasingly conclude that China would likely prevail in a conventional conflict over Taiwan, especially as Beijing’s military modernization continues to narrow the capability gap with US forces.
Escalation trap
More troubling still is how American policy has steadily moved away from the strategic ambiguity that helped preserve peace across the Taiwan Strait for decades.
The incremental steps—high-level official visits, arms sales packages, training programs, and increasingly explicit security guarantees—have created what scholars call an “escalation trap.”
Each step makes it harder for Washington to back down without losing credibility, while simultaneously making it harder for Beijing to ignore what it views as American provocations.
This dynamic should sound familiar to students of international relations. It’s precisely how great powers stumble into catastrophic wars they never intended to fight—through a series of seemingly reasonable commitments that cumulatively create impossible situations.
The question American policymakers should ask themselves is whether they’re prepared for their daughters and sons to die in the Taiwan Strait, because that’s where this trajectory leads.
Economic realities
The economic dimension adds another layer of complexity that ideological hawks prefer to ignore. China is America’s largest trading partner, and despite all the talk of “decoupling,” the two economies remain deeply interconnected.
A war over Taiwan would destroy this relationship overnight, triggering a global economic crisis that would make the 2008 financial meltdown look manageable by comparison.
Meanwhile, Taiwan’s famous semiconductor industry—often cited as justification for American involvement—represents both an asset and a vulnerability. Yes, Taiwan produces many of the world’s most advanced chips.
But those facilities would likely be destroyed in any military conflict, making them useless to whoever “wins.” The rational response to semiconductor dependence is to diversify production, not to threaten war with a nuclear power.
Alliance mirage
Proponents of a more confrontational approach toward China frequently invoke America’s regional allies as force multipliers in any Taiwan scenario.
This reflects another dangerous delusion. Japan and South Korea have their own complex relationships with Beijing and their own domestic political constraints.
Australia is even more economically dependent on China than the United States is. None of these countries has shown enthusiasm for actual military confrontation with China over Taiwan—and why should they?
European allies are even less likely to support American military action in the Taiwan Strait. They view the Asia-Pacific as outside their sphere of vital interests and are already dealing with the costs of the Ukraine conflict.
Expecting them to sacrifice their economic relationships with China for what they see as an American obsession is unrealistic.
A path forward
None of this means abandoning Taiwan to its fate or appeasing Chinese aggression. But it does mean adopting a more realistic approach that acknowledges both American limitations and Chinese motivations.
First, Washington should return to genuine strategic ambiguity. This means stopping the incremental steps toward explicit security guarantees while maintaining enough uncertainty to deter Chinese adventurism.
Strategic ambiguity worked for 40 years because it gave all parties flexibility to avoid the worst-case scenarios.
Second, American policy should focus on making any Chinese military action as costly as possible through defensive arms sales and asymmetric warfare capabilities, while avoiding provocative offensive weapons that Beijing views as preparation for Taiwanese independence.
Third, the United States should explore diplomatic solutions that acknowledge Chinese concerns about sovereignty while preserving Taiwan’s democratic autonomy.
This might involve reviving proposals for confederation or other creative arrangements that satisfy Beijing’s need for symbolic unity while maintaining Taiwan’s practical independence.
Power limits
Ultimately, the Taiwan question illustrates a broader challenge facing American foreign policy: learning to operate in a multipolar world where the United States cannot simply impose its preferred outcomes through military superiority or economic leverage.
China’s rise represents a fundamental shift in the global balance of power, and no amount of military posturing or alliance-building will restore the brief unipolar moment that followed the Soviet collapse.
The tragedy of American foreign policy since 9/11 has been the repeated failure to recognize these limits, leading to costly interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere that achieved little beyond demonstrating American vulnerabilities.
Taiwan could represent the ultimate expression of this strategic overreach—a conflict that America cannot win at an acceptable cost, fought over interests that are peripheral to genuine American security.
The choice facing Washington is stark: adapt American strategy to the realities of Chinese power and geographical proximity, or risk a catastrophic war that could destroy the global economy and potentially escalate to nuclear exchange.
For those who claim to put America first, that should be an easy choice to make.
Leon Hadar is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and contributing editor at The American Conservative. He is the author of “Quagmire: America in the Middle East” and “Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East.”
asiatimes.com · by Leon Hadar · August 15, 2025
21. Trump to meet Zelensky on Monday after "difficult" post-summit call
Trump to meet Zelensky on Monday after "difficult" post-summit call
Axios · by Barak Ravid · August 16, 2025
After his summit with Russian President Putin in Alaska on Friday, President Trump will meet Ukrainian President Zelensky for what could be a difficult meeting at the White House on Monday afternoon.
Why it matters: Trump's positions coming out of the meeting — that he no longer supports a ceasefire, and its "up to President Zelensky" to make peace — appear highly unfavorable to Ukraine.
Driving the news: Zelensky and Trump announced their upcoming meeting after a phone call between Trump, the Ukrainian president and several NATO leaders during which the president briefed them on his meeting with Putin.
- The call, which lasted more than an hour an a half, "was not easy," a source with direct knowledge said.
- The meeting will take place six months after their disastrous Oval Office meeting in February.
Behind the scenes: Trump called Zelensky from Air Force One on his way back to Washington from Alaska. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House envoy Steve Witkoff, who were in the Trump-Putin meeting, were also on the call.
- They spoke with Zelensky for an hour and then the leaders of the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Finland, NATO and the European Commission joined the call for another half hour.
- According to the source, Trump told Zelensky and the NATO leaders that Putin doesn't want a ceasefire and prefers a comprehensive agreement to end the war.
- "Trump said on the call that he thinks a fast peace deal is better than a ceasefire," the source said.
Between the lines: That's the opposite from the approach Trump originally endorsed. Zelensky has been adamant that there must be a ceasefire before peace talks.
Trump also told Zelensky that Putin had told him that Russia was making significant progress on the front lines and that if he wanted, he could capture the entire Donetsk region and other areas where fighting is taking place.
- According to the source, Zelensky told Trump that Putin was misrepresenting the situation on the front.
- During the call, Witkoff briefed Zelensky and the NATO leaders on how Putin sees the issue of territory and what he's willing to give in return.
- "The impression was that in return for territory, Putin is willing to end the war and commit not to try and occupy more areas in Ukraine and to not attack other countries," the source said.
- Trump told Fox News after the summit that and Putin agreed on most but not all issues, and it was now "up to President Zelensky to get it done."
What they're saying: "Ukraine reaffirms its readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace. It is important that America's strength has an impact on the development of the situation. We support President Trump's proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the USA, and Russia," Zelensky said after the call.
- He added that he will use his meeting with Trump on Monday to discuss "all of the details regarding ending the killing and the war."
- "It is important that Europeans are involved at every stage to ensure reliable security guarantees together with America. We also discussed positive signals from the American side regarding participation in guaranteeing Ukraine's security," Zelensky said.
- Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday morning that his meeting with Putin was "very successful" as was his late night phone call with Zelensky and the European Leaders.
- "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said.
What's next: Trump wrote that "if all works out" he will schedule a trilateral summit with Putin and Zelensky soon. "Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved," he stressed.
Axios · by Barak Ravid · August 16, 2025
22. This World-Renowned Negotiator Says Trump’s Secret Weapon Is Empathy
This World-Renowned Negotiator Says Trump’s Secret Weapon Is Empathy
NY Times · by David Marchese · August 16, 2025
The Interview
Credit...Devin Oktar Yalkin for The New York Times
The Interview
Credit...Devin Oktar Yalkin for The New York Times
By
Whether it’s in the realm of tariffs, domestic politics or global conflicts, President Trump likes to boast about his deal-making mastery. But while his supporters may agree with him — buoyed by his aggressiveness in pursuing trade agreements — his detractors see something else. For them, he has earned the acronym TACO: Trump Always Chickens Out.
Whatever your politics, the way Trump conducts his negotiations so publicly on social media has made it almost mandatory to have a take on how he goes about his business. But what does an actual negotiation expert see in the “dealmaker in chief”?
I turned to Chris Voss for an answer. Voss was at the F.B.I. for nearly 25 years, where he was its lead international kidnapping negotiator and worked on over 150 hostage negotiations. Since leaving the bureau, he has become a highly influential public speaker and private coach and is the founder and chief executive of the Black Swan Group, a company that teaches negotiation around the world. Voss’s book on negotiation strategies, “Never Split the Difference,” written with Tahl Raz, has sold millions of copies since being published in 2016.
Voss’s work is rooted in what he calls “tactical empathy,” which is all about understanding your counterpart — not necessarily agreeing with them. To help unlock that understanding, he recommends a variety of techniques like conversational mirroring, strategic self-criticism and a mindful change of vocal tone to defuse tension.
I spoke with Voss about Trump’s negotiation skills, his formative experiences in hostage negotiation and the benefit of approaching life as a deal waiting to be made.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Amazon | iHeart | NYT Audio App
How did you wind up becoming a hostage negotiator? I was originally a SWAT guy. I was on the SWAT team in Pittsburgh and transferred to New York, trying out for the F.B.I.’s hostage-rescue team — the FBI’s equivalent of the Navy Seals. I reinjured an old knee injury and realized that I wanted to stay in crisis response, but I was going to continue to get injured as a SWAT-er. So we had hostage negotiators. How hard could it be? I talk to people every day. I volunteered for the negotiation team, was rejected and asked what I could do to get on. The woman that was in charge said, “Go volunteer on the suicide hotline.” I did, and discovered the magic of emotional intelligence. I was hooked. That got me on the hostage-negotiation team, and I never looked back.
Is there a story that stands out from early in your career of a situation that really taught you something? I negotiated the Chase Manhattan bank robbery. Bank robberies with hostages are rare events. The lead bank robber at the Chase bank said: “The guys I’m with are so dangerous, I’m scared of them. If they catch me on the phone with you guys. … ” He was doing his best to diminish his influence. He was putting up a smoke screen. This bad guy in the bank actually displayed the characteristics of a great C.E.O. negotiator. A great C.E.O. at the negotiation table is going to say: “Look, man, I got all these people I’m accountable to. If I make the wrong decision here, my board’s going to fire me. I’m scared to death of my board.” You’ve got to watch out for the guy who’s diminishing his authority at the table. That’s an influential dude, and that was exactly what this guy was doing.
Chris Voss in Manila in 2002 with Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director at the time.Credit...From Chris Voss
Your approach is rooted in “tactical empathy.” Can you explain what that is and why it’s effective in negotiation? The real roots are in Carl Rogers, an American psychologist from the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s. He wrote that when someone feels thoroughly understood, you release potent forces for change within them. Not agreed with, but understood. When you feel thoroughly heard, you’re less adversarial. And the demonstration of understanding, the articulation of the other side’s point of view — purely that, no agreement at all — that’s the application of empathy.
How did the word “tactical” get put in front of it? Because you want to appeal to men? That’s exactly it. Empathy is thought of as: “Oh, I feel bad for you. I’m on your side.” This soft, spongy thing. Back when Hillary Clinton ran for president, she said, I’m going to use empathy in international negotiations, and she gets barbecued for it as if it’s weakness. It’s not. So we threw the word “tactical” in front of it. The same way you can’t teach a Navy SEAL “yoga breathing”; you’ve got to tell them it’s “tactical breathing.”
How much does it matter if the person across the negotiating table has empathy for you? What if they’re disrespectful or dismissive? Is that insurmountable? No, it’s not. Let’s talk about empathy as a skill, not an emotional characteristic. If you start there, then it frees you up to use it as a skill with anybody on earth. Because the act of trying to articulate how the other side is feeling calms you down. It kicks in a certain amount of reason in you. It broadens your perspective. Now, what’s the percentage of people that will never go there? Hostage negotiators are successful roughly 93 percent of the time. You’ve got to accept the fact that 7 percent of the time, you’re never going to make a deal with the other person.
Listen to the Conversation With Chris Voss
The world-renowned negotiator on our “dealmaker in chief” and the benefit of approaching life as a deal waiting to be made.
Earlier this year, Elon Musk said that empathy is “the fundamental weakness of Western civilization.” He called it a “bug” that can be manipulated. Do you give any credence to that kind of thinking? The first thing is: What’s your definition of empathy? If it’s being able to articulate the other side’s point of view without agreeing with it or disagreeing with it, it’s not a weakness. It’s a highly evolved application of emotional-intelligence analysis. Now, is it manipulation? Similar to a knife, in one person’s hand it’s a murder weapon, and in another person’s hand it’s a scalpel and saves the life. So it’s an incredibly powerful tool that relies upon the user.
Credit...Devin Oktar Yalkin for The New York Times
In “Never Split the Difference,” you write about how life revolves around negotiation. In the last 10 years or so, the idea that negotiation is pervasive has been amplified because of one person: President Trump. He’s constantly publicly engaging in negotiation, using this giant megaphone of social media. From my vantage point, his strategies look like they’re all about threats and asserting leverage and trying to limit the other side’s choices. But when you see Trump negotiating, what’s your assessment? It’s hard to get a solid gauge on him. Social media posts are limited and lack context, and everybody in the media either loves him or hates him, which means the interpretation is going to be skewed. What I’m struck by is the reaction of people that talk to him in person and the outcomes. [Former] prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau — he and Trump have thrown rocks at each other for years. Trudeau goes down to Mar-a-Lago, they meet in person; suddenly, they’ve got a deal. Zelensky, leader of Ukraine: that rock fight in the Oval Office, and then they’re talking to each other at the pope’s funeral. They’ve got a deal. So he appears publicly to be a blunt object, and then in person he seems to make deals. What’s going on when he meets in person? I think there are emotional-intelligence skills that don’t translate through the media, which he appears to have a gut instinct and knack for.
It’s probably an oversimplification to say that Trudeau and Trump sat down and made “a deal.” But what effect does perception about the other person have in negotiation? The example that comes to mind is this term, “TACO”: Trump Always Chickens Out. If someone Trump is negotiating with has an awareness that he’s bothered by that term, and if Trump also knows there’s a perception that he chickens out, will it have an effect on the negotiation? First of all, why are people using that term? Because they know it’s getting under his skin. So they’re not on his side. He seems to be very aware of those sorts of things. If you hit somebody two or three times or something gets under your skin, eventually they’re going to go: “Ah, you’re trying that on me again. It used to work. Sorry, not anymore. You taught me a lesson. I learned it.”
Do you think Trump is a good negotiator? You know him a little, right? In passing. The crisis hotline I volunteered on was part of his family’s church. I became very good friends with the minister, Arthur Caliandro, and Arthur was friends with President Trump. I asked Arthur to ask President Trump if we could use his apartment at Trump Tower for a fund-raiser for the crisis hotline, and they graciously let us use the apartment, and he graciously showed up and was an amazing host. He didn’t have to give us an apartment, and he didn’t have to show up. That was my awareness of him. So your original question was: Is he good as a negotiator?
Yeah. I am blown away at the magic he’s working in the Middle East, taking chances that no other American president would have ever stepped into. Starting with the Abraham Accords that were done under his guidance in his first term. Then he turns around, recognizes the president of Syria, calls for sanctions to be removed. He’s operating extremely effectively in the Middle East in a way that no other president has.
President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine meeting at the Vatican in April, just before Pope Francis’ funeral.Credit...Ukrainian Presidential Press Office, via Associated Press
Does the Trump administration demonstrate empathy? I think he has a highly evolved understanding of how other people see things.
What makes you say that? The thing with Iran recently, when we decided to add to the ordnance being dropped on the nuclear sites. The reporting was that Israel was thinking about trying to take out the Iranian leader and that Trump was against that. Now, my view is that’s smart for a number of reasons. First of all, if you agree to take out the head of a country, you’re declaring there’s open season and fair is fair, which means they’re free to come after you. To me, there’s a sense of empathy there. Not necessarily agreeing, not being on their side, but if empathy is understanding how somebody sees it, I think he has a highly evolved sense of it.
Do you think he has a highly evolved sense of empathy when it comes to understanding how other people “see it” on immigration? Yeah, and then I think he’s making a calculation based on what he needs to move forward. I don’t think he is oblivious to how people see things, and to lack empathy is to be oblivious. Now, what decisions that causes you to make is a whole separate issue.
I need to stick with empathy and Trump and immigration. Help me understand how the way ICE functions is the result of a remotely empathetic understanding of other people. Yeah, I don’t know. I’m not on the ground with those guys. I don’t know what kind of orders are being given. Do you want a system where the guy who’s in charge tells you to do one thing and you say, “No, I am not doing it”? Then the system breaks down.
If you think the thing is wrong, you probably should say, “I’m not doing it.” Right? There are really tough questions about that as an individual. I’m seeing it from a distance. I’m not in a position to be able to offer an informed opinion on it, and yeah, I’m dodging your question.
Fair enough. I’m sure you must work with people all the time who come to you because they’re afraid of negotiation. My hunch is that a lot of the fear of negotiation is related to a fear of conflict. Yeah, in general terms, two out of three people are afraid of conflict. One of them loves it.
I hate those people. They’re tough, right? They beat you up, call you names and then say, “Let’s go have a drink.” And you’re like: “What? You just called me names! You want to have a drink with me? You’ve got to be kidding.” Most people don’t like conflict. Some people are afraid of it. Some people just see it as inefficient, it’s a waste of time. As soon as they begin to see that we can engage in negotiations and it’s not a conflict, and we can make it collaborative — I’m going to brag, but there’s a point to it. The book globally sold five million copies and sells well in every country that it’s in. What that tells me is there’s a global appetite to collaborate. People don’t want to fight. They would prefer to collaborate. They’re just not sure how to get there.
Voss speaking at Summit LA18 in Los Angeles in 2018.Credit...Amy Harris/Invision, via Associated Press
One of my best friends, an entrepreneur who runs his own company, said that he can tell when he’s in a negotiation with someone who has also read “Never Split the Difference.” What advice do you have for someone who has entered into a negotiation and understands that both sides are playing the same game? So first of all, it’s not if it’s going to happen, it’s when. The book sold millions of copies.
OK, OK. How many books did I sell again? Could you remind me? [Laughs.] My gut instinct right away is: What’s it being used for? Are you trying to collaborate with me? Or are you trying to cheat me? I’m going to be able to smell your intent early on. Are you using the skills to demonstrate understanding to get to an outcome? I’ve got no problem with that. Everybody on my team uses this stuff on me. I encourage them to do so.
So far we’ve talked about your ideas and about your work, but I don’t feel like I have a firm handle on Chris Voss. Hold on. Are you going to make me cry?
I hope so. Do you want to cry? I’m a very emotional guy. I probably don’t look that way, but deep down inside it’s soft and gooey.
My sense of people who are focused on how to effectively manage interpersonal communication or who develop systems for getting along with other people is that those interests don’t develop in a vacuum. Maybe they have to do with a desire for control? I’m not sure control. I like solutions. I suppose I would have been attracted to the idea of control in my younger days. The first time I came across the phrase in a negotiation — “the secret to gaining the upper hand in a negotiation is giving the other side the illusion of control” — I went, Oh, all right. So that resonates with me. And me being an assertive — I think assertives like to have control. They want to steer things. So that may be a vulnerability of mine, wanting control. Possibly.
What’s a negotiation that you lost in your life — not your work — that stands out? Getting divorced. I told my son just a couple of years ago: There is no question I could have been a better man. Simultaneously, that doesn’t mean it would have changed things. As we look back over our lives, that’s a critical issue: Could I have done it better, and would it have changed the outcome? Those aren’t the same thing. I suppose the negotiation overall for my marriage — I was unaware of the impact of being direct and honest and harsh and could have been a far better human being, a far better man. Would that have changed things? I don’t know.
Earlier, you brought up that hostage negotiators are successful roughly 93 percent of the time and unsuccessful roughly 7 percent. When were you part of the 7 percent? The first time things went really bad was working in the Philippines, the Martin Burnham-Guillermo Sobero case. Sobero was murdered by Abu Sayyaf early on. A lot of Filipinos died. Two out of three of the Americans that were taken were ultimately killed. That was a big wake-up call to get better and that sometimes it’s not going to work out. Then there was a string of kidnappings Al Qaeda did in the 2004 time frame. They were killing everybody they would get their hands on. They wanted to make it look like they were negotiating when they weren’t. It was kidnapping for murder.
So when you’re working on a negotiation and a hostage gets killed, how do you move on from that? It seems to me there would be a pretty strong impulse to walk away from the work. There is, and that’s the critical issue between the people that want to hang in there and get better and those that are defeated by failure. A lot of people are defeated by failure.
Understandably. Understandably. I never blamed anybody that was involved to want to bow out and go do something else. When Martin Burnham was killed — that was the first hostage I ever lost — I thought that was the worst moment of my life. Until: I remember sitting in the audience for another hostage negotiator’s presentation, probably about four years later. He talked about the trauma of this infant getting killed, and he said, “I don’t know why I keep talking about this, giving a presentation.” He says, “Because it’s something bad that happened to me on a winter’s day.” I remember thinking: Happened to you? That wasn’t your child. That wasn’t your brother. That wasn’t your son. I remember thinking: This is exactly as self-centered as I’ve been. Yeah, it was bad for you. It was worse for others. Stop feeling sorry for yourself.
Credit...Devin Oktar Yalkin for The New York Times
I want to take things in a different direction. In “Never Split the Difference,” you’re somewhat critical of the idea of compromise. What’s wrong with compromise? Well, compromise is guaranteed lose-lose. There’s no way around that.
That’s not just a matter of perspective? Why couldn’t a lose-lose compromise just as easily be understood as a win-win? [Pause.] Wow, OK. Why couldn’t it just as easily be understood as a win-win?
Yeah, why is it necessarily lose-lose? Well, compromise is: I believe I have an outcome in mind, and you believe you have an outcome in mind. We’re not sure which is right, so I’m going to water down mine, you’re going to water down yours. It’s a guarantee of mediocrity. It’s being consigned to being a C student for the rest of your life. Now, I suppose that’s superior to being an F student, but we were not built to be C students for the rest of our lives.
Do you see what we’re engaged in as a negotiation? Probably, yeah. I think we each are seeking to uncover some kind of truth that we can share through this conversation. We’re trying to uncover something that’s worth people listening to and maybe taking away and using it to make their lives better. So yeah, it’s a negotiation. That’s the outcome I think we’re both after.
And did you achieve it? I don’t know. I think there’s a pretty good chance we’ve said something together that’s going to matter to somebody. Even if we only impacted one life, it was a worthy outcome.
This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations. Listen to and follow “The Interview” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, iHeartRadio, Amazon Music or the New York Times Audio app.
Director of photography (video): Aaron Katter
David Marchese is a writer and co-host of The Interview, a regular series featuring influential people across culture, politics, business, sports and beyond.
See more on: Al Qaeda, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Donald Trump
NY Times · by David Marchese · August 16, 2025
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647
email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
| 
