© Jillian Vordick/The New York Times
President Donald Trump has issued a new threat against Cuba as U.S. officials reportedly press ahead with military planning for the Caribbean country, an escalation that coincides with an intensified oil blockade and UN vote scheduled for October 28.
At a campaign rally in Fort Myers, the Republican President laid out his plan in vivid terms. “What we are going to do with Cuba is we are going to come back from Iran. Those beautiful ships, we will pass by Cuba, we will have one of them stop about 50 yards (45 meters) from the coast. They will raise their hands and then we will send Marco Rubio to close the deal,” he said.
RELATED: Cuba Denounces U.S. Pressure Ahead of the UN Assembly Vote On Economic Blockade
The U.S. President closed the scene with a concrete promise: “We will take care of Cuba on our return from Iran. We will make a small stop.”
Cuba answered on X. “We reject all threats related to the ambitions of United States toward Cuba,“ wrote the Caribbean nation’s FM Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla.
He added a description of the coastline that carried an unmistakable warning. “Our coastline is full of beautiful beaches, but there ara also razor-sharp limestone spikes,” he said, referring to the karst rock formations along the shore. “Inhospitable to those who arrive with hostile intentions and dreams of domination,” he warned. The jagged coastal limestone, sharp and cutting, gave the response its edge.
We reject every threat related to US ambitions toward Cuba.
— Bruno Rodríguez P (@BrunoRguezP) October 23, 2026
Our coastline is full of beautiful beaches, but there are also razor-sharp limestone spikes, an inhospitable environment for those who make it to our shores with hostile purposes and lust for domination.… pic.twitter.com/jrrBc1jR8S
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio used the same platform to urge those pushing for “change” on the island to engage in “discreet collaboration with the CIA.” In August, The New York Times reported that the intelligence agency had secretly set up a task force focused on Cuba.
The threat came amid a heated campaign in a state that is home to the largest Cuban community in United States. Its lawmakers and an influential segment of that community shape Washington’s decisions on Cuba.
Rodriguez Parrilla’s post also echoes another phrase from the current U.S. President. In March, speaking at the White House, Trump said he would have “the honor of taking Cuba” and that he “could do whatever he wanted with it.” He described Cuba then as a beautiful place, with “good land, landscapes, wonderful weather and great potential for tourism centers.”
On that occasion his unfamiliarity with the territory was on display. He argued that taking control would be good because the country is “not in the path of hurricanes.” “They won’t ask us for money for hurricanes every week,” he said in that time.
Passing by the island after Iran is not a new idea. In early May, while signing the Executive Order that launched an unprecedented wave of unilateral and illegal penalties against Cuba, Trump had already spoken of “taking control” once his military objectives in Iran were met. Following that, he has promised the war will end “immediately” after the November 3 elections, without explaining how.
The new threat coincides with the campaign Rubio himself is leading to sway the votes of UN member states on the resolution against the blockade against Cuba. In a recent press conference, Rodriguez Parrilla denounced the pressures and threats against governments to make them change their position.
In recent weeks the U.S. administration has seized fuel shipments bound for Cuba as part of an oil blockade. The campaign against Cuba’s international medical cooperation has intensified in parallel.
The escalation arrives at a difficult political moment for the U.S. President. Midterm elections take place on November 3, and the Republican Party could lose control of Congress. Trump’s approval has sagged, and a majority of voters now reject his management of the country’s main fronts, a rejection that cuts across every issue.
The domestic scenario is complicated further by the conflict with Iran. Tehran retains control of the Strait of Hormuz and has inflicted significant destruction on U.S. military bases in West Asia.
Fuel prices keep climbing in the meantime. The increase strikes U.S. households directly, and every rise deepens the damage to the President’s public standing at a moment when he can least afford it.
The pattern toward Cuba has hardened even as those pressures mount at home. The fuel seizures, the diplomatic campaign and the military planning all point in the same direction, toward an increasingly explicit posture of confrontation against the island.
With the United Nations vote set for October 28 and the U.S. midterm elections following days later on November 3, the coming weeks will reveal whether the planning described in U.S. media translates into further concrete action against Cuba, or whether it remains a lever of pressure in a campaign that already weighs heavily on the island.
© Venezuelan Presidency, via Agence France-Presse
US President Donald Trump said Elon Musk had restored Ukraine’s Starshield speeds, but the restrictions remained in place on 23 October, according to Ukrainian officials.
The cap, in place since 14 October, has disrupted interceptor drone missions against jet-powered Shaheds flying above 400 km/h for more than a week. On 16 October, Trump told reporters that, from what he understood, nothing had changed with the service. His latest claim that Musk restored it appears to acknowledge the restriction, even as he denies ordering it.
“At the moment, there is no confirmation that the restrictions have been lifted,” a Defense Ministry official told LIGA.net on the morning of 23 October. The official said connections continued to drop at above 161 km/h.
Presidential adviser Serhii Beskrestnov wrote on Telegram on 23 October that no lifting had been recorded. He said occasional operation above the limit could result from SpaceX algorithms or usage conditions.
A day earlier, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had promised to return with information in “48 plus hours,” according to his remarks to reporters in Kyiv. A Ukrainian official separately told The Kyiv Independent that reports of restored speeds were “all false.”
A senior European official told the Associated Press that the cap remained at about 160 km/h and that Ukraine had no clear explanation of who ordered it or why.
Trump said Musk had restored the speeds but declined to clarify whether he had contacted him.
“I guess the bottom line, he put it back,” Trump said.
Meanwhile, AP reported that the Wall Street Journal said Musk had agreed to lift the restrictions. The Ukrainian drone and mapping channel Kartohraf posted on the evening of 22 October that the cap had been lifted. The Economist’s Oliver Carroll said that frontline drone commanders thought it had likely been lifted but were still testing, according to his post on X.
The order came from inside the White House, according to a Reuters report on 15 October. Days later, the Wall Street Journal reported that Musk ordered the slowdown. Rubio denied White House involvement, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on 20 October that the US had not ordered the restriction. Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal announced an inquiry into how the service was slowed, AP reported.
The 3rd Army Corps’ Operation Vivaldi retook ground north of Lyman in Donetsk Oblast with drones, many of which rely on Starlink or Starshield, and those gains could erode if the cap stays.
At the same time, Radio Svoboda reported that Ukraine needs a limit of at least 450 km/h and that Germany pays for the service under a contract running until April 2027.
© Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times
The hardest part of ending Russia's war is making sure it cannot start it again. As the peace talks have escalated ahead of the US elections, Ukraine is weighing three options for its postwar security.
Among them are NATO membership, direct US guarantees modeled on NATO’s Article 5, and a European “Coalition of the Willing” backed by Washington, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says, according to UNIAN. But none of them have been agreed to yet.
Zelenskyy describes the guarantees as a single package, with each layer still under discussion with partners. All of it, he says, rests on a strong Ukrainian army, in both numbers and quality.
Everyone counts on NATO, Zelenskyy says, but Kyiv is also negotiating direct guarantees from the US, including an Article 5-style collective-defense clause, alongside the European Coalition of the Willing that would act together with Washington. The arithmetic, he said, is already done.
“Our colleagues in Europe and America know this. We have already calculated everything: both the financing and the corresponding number of our soldiers, so that our state can be at peace,” he states.
He went further, arguing that NATO membership would serve not only Ukraine and the Alliance but also Russia.
“I think, honestly, the Russians need our accession to NATO too, because for them that is more security than Ukraine outside NATO,” he claims.
The talks come as Washington pushes toward negotiations. Zelenskyy says he expects signals from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio within a day or two, as well as a call with envoy Steve Witkoff. He adds that Jared Kushner, on his way to Kyiv in November, told him Russia supports a trilateral meeting of the US, Ukraine, and Russia, at the level of technical teams.
Announcing the decision in Strasbourg on Thursday, 22 October, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said the award reflected the European Union’s commitment to multilateralism and international institutions.
Metsola praised the Court for its work in upholding international law and justice. The announcement was met with a standing ovation in the parliamentary chamber.
The decision comes amid an escalating confrontation between the European Union and the administration of US President Donald Trump over the ICC’s jurisdiction and independence.
On 9 October, the United States imposed sanctions on the ICC as an institution, extending measures previously directed against individual judges and prosecutors.
The restrictions place the Court under the US Treasury’s sanctions regime, limiting financial transactions involving American individuals, businesses and institutions. Washington has issued several temporary and limited exemptions intended to allow specified operations to continue.
The measures followed earlier sanctions against senior ICC officials, including Court President Tomoko Akane, and form part of Washington’s campaign to prevent the tribunal from exercising jurisdiction over American personnel.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has argued that the ICC threatens American sovereignty by asserting authority over nationals of countries that have not accepted its founding treaty.
The Court rejected the latest restrictions, describing them as an attempt to obstruct the administration of international justice.
Established under the Rome Statute, the ICC operates independently of national governments and investigates serious international crimes where its jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.
Neither the United States nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute.
The dispute with Washington has intensified since the ICC issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with military operations in Gaza.
Israel rejects the Court’s jurisdiction and disputes the allegations. Washington has similarly opposed the proceedings against Israeli officials.
The ICC has also pursued investigations into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In March 2023, its judges issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.
Further warrants followed in 2024 against senior Russian military commanders and officials in connection with attacks on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.
The proceedings demonstrate the geographical scope of the Court’s investigations, although its ability to secure arrests depends heavily on cooperation from individual states.
The ICC has no independent police force and relies on national authorities to execute its warrants.
The ICC’s nomination for the Sakharov Prize was submitted by the Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament.
Its selection comes as European lawmakers examine how the EU should respond to American sanctions affecting the Court and organisations supporting its activities.
The October restrictions have raised practical questions about access to banking, technology services and other infrastructure required by the tribunal.
European governments must also consider how to support an institution established through an international treaty while maintaining relations with Washington.
The Sakharov Prize carries no legal authority to reverse American sanctions or compel governments to cooperate with ICC investigations. Nevertheless, the award represents an explicit institutional endorsement of the tribunal at a time when its operations face increasing external pressure.
The ICC was selected from three finalists announced earlier this month.
The other nominees were Tanzanian opposition leader Tundu Lissu and Iranian sisters Taraneh and Romina Rahimi, whose cases have attracted international attention over political persecution and judicial proceedings.
The Sakharov Prize, established by the European Parliament in 1988, is named after Soviet physicist, dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov.
It recognises individuals and organisations defending human rights, freedom of expression and fundamental liberties. The award includes €50,000.
Previous recipients include Nelson Mandela, Malala Yousafzai and imprisoned journalists.
In 2025, the prize was awarded jointly to Belarusian journalist Andrzej Poczobut and Georgian journalist Mzia Amaglobeli.
The formal presentation of the 2026 prize is scheduled for 16 December at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The award places the ICC alongside previous Sakharov laureates while drawing further attention to the unresolved dispute between Washington and European governments over international criminal jurisdiction.
© Reuters
In late August, President Donald Trump announced what he called the “biggest oil deal in world history.” Since then, the full text of the accord — which grants the U.S. sweeping access to Venezuela’s oil reserves — has been one of the most sought-after secrets in Washington, DC. ProPublica has reviewed a copy of the […]
The post The secret terms of Trump’s Venezuelan oil deal appeared first on Asia Times.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in Samarkand on October 19 with nearly 300 American business leaders, seeking to deepen US commercial ties with Central Asia. Washington’s renewed interest will matter less for how many agreements it produces than for whether American investment helps the region move beyond being merely a supplier of raw […]
The post Rubio’s Central Asia pitch is about more than minerals appeared first on Asia Times.
The latest negotiations over Russia’s war against Ukraine have produced a renewed diplomatic initiative, with US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff preparing to travel to St Petersburg on Wednesday, 21 October, following consultations with Ukrainian and European leaders in Oslo.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met Witkoff alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb on Tuesday. Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, participated remotely. The discussions covered territorial questions, security guarantees, sanctions and proposals for a partial ceasefire.
The meeting concluded with cautious expressions of optimism. Stubb suggested that the negotiating process was back on track, while Støre confirmed that Witkoff would present proposals developed by American, Ukrainian and European representatives to the Russian leadership.
However, the diplomatic improvement contrasts with Trump’s renewed public pressure on Zelenskyy, raising questions about Washington’s negotiating strategy and whether Moscow has any intention of accepting the proposed settlement.
Speaking in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump again insisted that Ukraine must reach an agreement with Russia, portraying Moscow’s military position as increasingly advantageous.
His remarks closely resembled arguments advanced during earlier disputes with Zelenskyy, when Washington pressed Kyiv to accept territorial concessions rather than increase pressure on the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to reassure the Ukrainian leadership that American military cooperation had not been deliberately restricted.
Rubio denied that Trump had ordered changes to intelligence-sharing or weapons assistance. Zelenskyy subsequently confirmed that Ukraine was again receiving American early-warning intelligence concerning Russian ballistic missile attacks.
Nevertheless, serious problems remain. Ukraine has reported delays in deliveries of American-made Patriot interceptors purchased by European allies, while restrictions affecting the military Starshield satellite communications system have not been fully resolved.
These difficulties are particularly serious as Russia intensifies attacks against Ukrainian electricity infrastructure, attempting to undermine civilian services ahead of winter.
The conflicting signals leave Kyiv negotiating with an administration whose diplomatic representatives promise continued cooperation while its president publicly demands Ukrainian concessions.
Among the proposals discussed in Oslo were security arrangements intended to provide Ukraine with protection comparable to NATO’s Article 5 collective-defence provision.
Zelenskyy acknowledged that American representatives had discussed such guarantees, although their precise obligations and enforcement mechanisms remain undisclosed.
The proposal presents a fundamental negotiating problem.
Russia has consistently opposed Ukrainian NATO membership, partly because the alliance’s collective-defence commitments would increase the consequences of any renewed Russian aggression.
An alternative arrangement offering genuinely comparable protection would consequently encounter many of the same Russian objections.
Conversely, guarantees lacking a credible enforcement mechanism would leave Ukraine exposed to another attack after a ceasefire.
Moscow’s record provides little reassurance. Russia violated Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders in 2014 and launched its full-scale invasion in 2022 despite previous commitments to respect Ukrainian sovereignty.
Washington’s approach appears increasingly concentrated on securing an agreement involving territorial concessions and restrictions on Ukraine’s future security arrangements.
Yet Putin’s objectives have consistently extended beyond the territories occupied by Russian forces.
The Kremlin has demanded constraints on Ukraine’s military capabilities, international alliances and strategic independence. Accepting territorial gains alone would not necessarily satisfy Moscow’s wider political ambitions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has maintained that Moscow is unwilling to make substantial political concessions, while the Kremlin continues to insist that any agreement must address what it describes as the underlying causes of the conflict.
Those conditions have previously included demands that would substantially restrict Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Consequently, even a Ukrainian willingness to consider elements of Washington’s proposals would not guarantee Russian acceptance.
One possibility under consideration is a limited ceasefire protecting energy and potentially food-related infrastructure.
Zelenskyy has indicated that Ukraine could suspend attacks against Russian energy facilities if Moscow stopped striking Ukrainian infrastructure.
Such an arrangement could reduce immediate civilian suffering. It would also have military and economic consequences.
Ukrainian attacks against Russian refineries, oil terminals and other energy installations have increasingly targeted infrastructure supporting Moscow’s war economy.
A temporary suspension could allow Russia to repair damaged facilities, restore production and stabilise export revenues. Without credible monitoring and enforcement, Moscow could exploit a limited agreement while leaving the wider conflict unresolved.
Trump has additional reasons to seek a rapid diplomatic result. With American congressional elections scheduled for 3 November, his administration is attempting to contain domestic fuel prices and demonstrate progress towards ending the war.
His recent decision to ease restrictions on Russian diesel exports has already provoked concern in Kyiv and European capitals over the potential financial benefits to Moscow.
The danger for Ukraine is that an agreement presented as a diplomatic achievement in Washington could provide Russia with economic relief without altering its military objectives.
Witkoff’s visit to St Petersburg will establish whether Moscow is prepared to engage with the proposals developed in Oslo.
Putin could accept a temporary arrangement, particularly one suspending Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, while postponing discussions over territorial and political questions.
Alternatively, Moscow could reject the initiative and maintain its existing demands.
In either case, Washington will face a decision over the consequences of Russian intransigence.
For Kyiv, continued engagement with the United States remains essential because American intelligence, satellite communications and advanced air-defence weapons cannot readily be replaced.
But the prospects for a negotiated settlement will depend less on further Ukrainian concessions than on whether Russia faces sufficient political, military and economic pressure to abandon its maximalist demands.
The Oslo negotiations have restored cooperation between Ukraine, Europe and American mediators. They have not established that Putin is prepared to end the war on terms compatible with Ukraine’s continued independence.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the US has restored intelligence sharing with Ukraine, including advance warnings of Russian ballistic missile launches, following talks with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The lack of advance warnings came amid reports that the Trump administration had threatened to suspend intelligence sharing and weapons supplies unless Kyiv halted attacks on Russian oil refineries. US intelligence usually alerts Ukraine to ballistic missile launches before air raid sirens sound, giving the country time to warn civilians and prepare its air defenses. Russian ballistic missiles can reach Kyiv within minutes, making early notice critical to protecting lives.
Zelenskyy made the announcement on 20 October during a press conference broadcast by Suspilne. He said he had spoken with Rubio earlier that morning while traveling to Oslo, discussing intelligence, Starlink satellite communications, missile interceptors, and Patriot air defense systems.
“We discussed sensitive issues, including Starlink, interceptors, which are very important, and intelligence. We were very specific; the conversation was very positive,” Zelenskyy said.
He added that he plans to speak with Rubio again within the next 48 hours.
On 18 October, Zelenskyy also said that US warnings had returned, which turned out not to be true as Russian ballistic missiles hit Kyiv that evening before air raid sirens sounded.
The warning gaps began with Russian ballistic missile attacks on Kyiv on 12 October and continued through 19 October. During the attacks on 12 and 13 October, Ukraine received no advance warning from its partners, with air raid alerts sounding only after the attacks had begun.
The problem persisted during subsequent attacks. Overnight on 18–19 October, Russia attacked Kyiv in two waves. Ukrainian Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat said no warning arrived before the first wave, around 23:00. Information arrived before the second wave, around 03:00, but left little time to respond.
Advance intelligence on ballistic missile launches is particularly important because these missiles can reach their targets within minutes, leaving little time for civilians to seek shelter.
US President Donald Trump previously denied that Washington had stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine, despite the missing warnings. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also rejected claims of a suspension, pointing to a software problem in Ukraine's early-warning system.
However, the disruptions came amid reports that the Trump administration had threatened to suspend intelligence sharing and weapons supplies unless Kyiv halted attacks on Russian oil refineries. The Financial Times reported that Washington was pressuring Ukraine to stop the strikes as part of efforts to secure an energy truce with Russia.
Ukraine temporarily paused attacks on Russian refineries but said Moscow continued striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
Zelenskyy's latest statement indicates that advance ballistic missile warnings are reaching Ukraine again, although the recent gaps have raised questions about the reliability of a capability critical to protecting civilians.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 20 October that he had spoken with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about ballistic missile interceptors, early warning of Russian launches, and “the situation with Starlink/Starshield, which needs to be restored,” he wrote on X. He thanked Rubio for “his readiness to help and his clear position” and said they would speak again soon. A day earlier, he had told US senators how each of those supplies had stalled.
This comes as the US presses Kyiv to stop its strikes on Russian oil refineries, which Trump has blamed for high fuel prices at home, and Zelenskyy counts the Starlink slowdown among the steps he says look like an effort to push Ukraine to capitulate. Ukraine’s interceptor drones depend on the service to hunt Russia’s jet-powered Shaheds, and Kyiv says they now lose the link at speeds too low to catch them. The call appears not to have settled whether that cap is gone. If it stays, Ukrainian cities could face Russia’s drone waves this winter with one fewer means to stop them, as Russia keeps striking the grid.
On 17 October, Rubio told reporters that nobody in the US ordered Starlink slowed, that the slowdown “wasn’t deliberate,” and that “my understanding is it’s been restored.” He drew a line between the two services. Ukraine’s drones, he said, ran on commercial Starlink, while Starshield, the military version, is not available to Ukraine. Kyiv has asked for it to carry out strikes deep inside Russia, and that request is under discussion, he said.
The next day, Zelenskyy told Bloomberg that Starlink in Ukraine cuts out above 161 km/h, and Kyiv says its Starshield terminals are capped as well. His post after the call still says the service needs to be restored.
The order to slow Starshield came from inside the White House, Reuters reported, citing two US officials and a Western official. They described it as the Starshield service for the Ukrainian military, the version Rubio says Ukraine does not have. A senior Ukrainian official told Reuters that Kyiv had been told it was a White House decision. A senior US official told the agency the president never made such a request, and the White House did not answer whether other officials had. Rubio called a report that the White House ordered Starlink slowed “categorically false.”
Overnight on 18–19 October, Ukraine got no partner warning before the first of two Russian ballistic waves, Air Force spokesman Yurii Ihnat said on the national telethon. That came hours after Zelenskyy said US warnings had resumed. On 19 October, Rubio pushed back against suggestions of a pause in US intelligence sharing, AFP reported.
Zelenskyy also told Bloomberg the US sends only 12 Patriot interceptors a month and has authorized only part of those “we have paid for” under PURL. Ukrainian officials told the Kyiv Independent that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not signed the contracts. A US government official called those claims “not true.”
Ukraine is counting on buying part of Lockheed Martin’s growing output of ballistic missile interceptors, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. He met the US company’s team in Kyiv on 19 October and also raised servicing and repairing F-16 fighter jets inside Ukraine.
Russia keeps striking Ukraine’s power grid with ballistic missiles, and interceptor supplies fall short of that threat. Kyiv is working every route to more Patriot missiles, from US deliveries to allies’ stocks, and some have stalled. Greece, for one, has not confirmed it will hand any over, citing its own defense needs. A purchase from the missiles’ maker would add one more route.
Lockheed Martin builds the PAC-3 MSE interceptors fired by Patriot air defense systems, as well as the F-16. Zelenskyy said both matter against Russian ballistic missiles and jet-powered Shahed drones. Neither area is easy right now, he added.
“We count on the opportunity to purchase some of them to protect more lives,” he wrote.
On 28 July, Zelenskyy met the company in Washington to discuss joint production. That came weeks after US President Donald Trump pledged Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriots.
Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not signed off on a “significant” batch of Patriot missiles, Ukrainian officials told the Kyiv Independent. One official said allies had already paid for them. A US government official called the claims untrue, and the Pentagon did not respond. A NATO official said allied-funded deliveries, including air defense, continue. A second NATO official said some shipments could be delayed, but likely not for political reasons.
Zelenskyy told Bloomberg on 18 October that the US delivers only 12 Patriot interceptors a month. On 20 October, interceptors topped his list in a call with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
No purchase was announced, so new interceptors from this route remain a prospect. Meanwhile, partners’ early warnings of Russian ballistic launches have gone missing three times recently, Zelenskyy wrote. Those warnings give air defenses extra minutes to prepare.
The telephone conversation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, 20 October, has exposed an increasingly uncomfortable contradiction in American policy towards Russia. While President Donald Trump is easing economic pressure on Moscow and attempting to restrain Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, senior members of his administration are having to address the consequences for Ukraine’s defence.
Zelenskyy raised three immediate concerns: the availability of Patriot interceptor missiles, interruptions to American early-warning intelligence concerning Russian ballistic attacks, and restrictions affecting Starlink and Starshield satellite communications. He described the discussion as constructive, expressing appreciation for Rubio’s willingness to help.
The significance lies less in the diplomatic language than in the circumstances surrounding the call. Washington is attempting to obtain concessions from Moscow while several of its own decisions have weakened confidence in the security arrangements on which Kyiv depends. Rubio’s involvement suggests that these difficulties cannot simply be left unresolved while Trump’s envoys pursue another round of negotiations.
Trump’s recent decisions concerning Russian energy exports have brought an existing disagreement over Ukraine into American domestic politics.
The administration has facilitated Russian diesel exports and waived new sanctions under the Graham Act, legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia and its principal energy customers. Rubio has said the president will use a 60-day period to assess the economic consequences of implementing the measures.
For Trump, the immediate attraction is apparent. Rising fuel prices have become a political liability ahead of the 3 November congressional midterm elections. Increasing supplies on international markets offers the administration a potential means of relieving pressure on American consumers.
The difficulty is that concessions to Vladimir Putin carry their own electoral consequences. Moscow remains deeply unpopular among substantial sections of the American political establishment, including Republicans who regard support for Ukraine as a matter of American strategic interest.
That opposition is no longer confined to public criticism. Republican senators have joined Democrats in challenging decisions affecting Ukraine’s military capabilities, creating an additional problem for an administration already facing a difficult electoral environment.
Trump can justify Russian energy concessions as an attempt to protect American consumers. Explaining why Ukraine should simultaneously experience interruptions to critical defence systems is considerably more difficult.
Rubio’s position within the administration is particularly important. As both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, he occupies two offices central to the formulation and execution of American foreign policy.
His conversation with Zelenskyy took place during a diplomatic tour of Uzbekistan and India, demonstrating that the deterioration in relations with Kyiv required attention even while the administration was pursuing other international priorities.
It would be premature to interpret Rubio’s intervention as evidence of an independent foreign policy. There is no indication that he is acting against Trump’s instructions. The more plausible interpretation is that the administration recognises a need to contain the consequences of its recent decisions without requiring the president publicly to reverse his position.
The controversy surrounding Starshield is particularly revealing. Reuters reported that instructions to restrict the satellite service used by Ukrainian forces originated inside the White House. The officials cited did not identify who authorised the order, while the administration has denied Trump’s personal involvement.
Separately, Zelenskyy has reported failures to receive advance warnings of Russian ballistic attacks. The cause of those interruptions remains disputed.
These developments have already attracted congressional scrutiny. Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen led a bipartisan request for an investigation, warning that failures in communications and intelligence-sharing may have endangered American personnel in Ukraine.
Congress cannot directly manage the administration’s foreign policy. Nevertheless, its powers over expenditure, legislation and oversight make sustained opposition politically consequential, particularly when members of the president’s own party are involved.
The immediate requirements in Kyiv are considerably more specific than the objectives being discussed in Washington’s diplomatic negotiations.
Ukraine needs reliable satellite communications, uninterrupted intelligence concerning incoming missiles and sufficient Patriot interceptors to defend its cities and critical infrastructure. Delays in any of these areas have consequences that cannot be addressed through declarations about a future peace settlement.
The shortage of Patriot missiles is particularly serious. Zelenskyy has complained that American authorisation is delaying deliveries under arrangements financed by European governments. Washington’s commitments elsewhere, including the Middle East, add further pressure to American air-defence inventories.
Meanwhile, preparations for new negotiations in Oslo involving American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner continue. The involvement of European leaders may broaden the diplomatic discussion, but it does not resolve the central obstacle: Putin has offered no convincing indication that he is prepared to end the invasion on terms acceptable to Ukraine.
Proposals concerning Ukrainian elections, NATO membership or alternative negotiating arrangements remain subordinate to that problem. Without a ceasefire that can be enforced, even an agreement on the political framework for peace would leave fundamental questions of security unanswered.
Trump retains substantial authority over American sanctions, military assistance and diplomatic engagement. Yet his ability to offer Moscow meaningful concessions is constrained by several factors beyond his immediate control.
Congress can challenge further attempts to weaken sanctions or restrict assistance. European governments maintain their own sanctions regimes and are not obliged to follow Washington’s approach. Ukraine retains considerable military capacity, including the ability to attack Russian energy facilities that contribute to financing the war.
Nor can the American president compel Putin to accept a settlement. If Russia calculates that continuing military operations offers greater advantages than negotiations, additional concessions from Washington may encourage Moscow to prolong the conflict rather than end it.
Rubio’s conversation with Zelenskyy therefore suggests that the administration is being forced to confront the practical consequences of its policy. An American president may seek improved relations with Moscow, but the institutional interests of the United States do not necessarily change with his personal diplomatic priorities.
For Kyiv, the question is whether those interests will translate into the continued supply of weapons, intelligence and communications support. Russia’s attacks will continue irrespective of the timetable established for American diplomatic initiatives.
Russia wants America and China to decide Ukraine’s future without Kyiv. Europe must challenge this dangerous return to diplomacy of the strong for the strong
Does Vladimir Putin know exactly how to play Donald Trump? The history of chummy phone calls, high-profile meetings and attempts to bring Russia in from the cold certainly suggests that Moscow’s thuggish ruler has a hold on this American president. If Mr Trump agrees to negotiate Ukraine’s future with Mr Putin and China’s Xi Jinping without Ukraine at the table, he will have handed the Russian leader a victory before talks begin. The message will be that strongmen are ruling the world and determining the fate of weaker nations.
Ukraine has the right to determine its future. That right cannot be waved away by a self-serving Russian proposal, however much it indulges Mr Trump’s belief that world affairs should be settled by powerful men. The scales are falling from European eyes. Trumpian America is raising doubts about whether it will help deter aggression or even honour its Nato commitments. If Washington now rewards Moscow and pressures Ukraine to accept a raw deal, it would be a betrayal. European governments would wonder where America might be in the future when their own security is threatened.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: José Luis Magaña/AP
© Photograph: José Luis Magaña/AP
© Photograph: José Luis Magaña/AP
Login