Ukraine's Zelensky says latest phone call with Trump his most productive yet
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
French intel chief: No certainty on whereabouts of Iran's uranium stocks
The head of France's foreign intelligence service said on Tuesday that some of Iran's highly enriched uranium stocks were destroyed by American and Israeli strikes, but there was no certainty on where the rest was now located. Speaking in an interview on LCI television, Nicolas Lerner, who heads the DGSE, said all aspects of Iran's nuclear program had been put back by several months following the air strikes, but while Paris had indications where Iran's highly enriched uranium stocks were there would be no certainty until the United Nations atomic watchdog returned to the country.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
What will the world look like in November 2026?
Listening to the speeches of US President Donald Trump leaves one with the impression that the man is convinced he can change realities he does not like. Theoretically, this conviction could be well-founded. He is the absolute ruler of the most powerful country in the world. I use the word 'absolute' deliberately; over the past few months, since assuming office on Jan. 20, Trump has managed to seize control of institutions through executive orders, marginalized the opposition and personalized the national interest. He has diminished international relations in ways that remind us of the famous phrase 'L'Etat, c'est moi' ('I am the state'), widely attributed to France's Louis XIV, who ruled from 1643 to 1715. Since he came to shape the course of events, everyone (rivals before allies) has acquiesced to playing the role of mere spectator. Among them are the major competing powers: China and Russia, NATO and other countries that have long convinced themselves they are 'friends' of Washington. So far, everyone has engaged with Trump's beliefs, actions and statements depending on their priorities, but the outcome is always the same. To this day, people rightly have the sense that confronting a US president who enjoys a clear and fresh popular mandate is futile. Thanks to that mandate, he has monopolized all the levers of governance: An absolutely loyal inner circle has been appointed to run all the agencies and departments of the executive branch. His party has a majority in Congress that is bolstered by a populist wave. An ideologically conservative judiciary that shares the administration's views and interests. A tamed media, either by owners or outside pressure. Even digital and 'smart' media alternatives and those who are 'too clever for their own good' have been brought to heel. A billionaire elite that find themselves completely unshackled. Indeed, they have been empowered to do whatever serves their interests and to crush any challenge to those interests. Accordingly, unless something wholly unforeseen occurs, this 'adaptation' to Trump will continue, at least until the midterm elections. His trial-and-error approach to both domestic and international issues will persist. And this brings us back to the question of Trump's ability to change the realities that bug him. Are the states' considerations not shifting? Are there not lessons to be learned from a gamble here, a misadventure there and a disappointment somewhere in between? Are there not unforeseen circumstances that have not been accounted for, such as natural disasters? Moreover, the global reach of the Trumpian experiment might well be a double-edged sword. While Washington's policies may be bolstered by the experiences of certain governments (whether in Europe or Latin America), the emergence of 'Make America Great Again' clones and the posturing of those who pretend to belong to the MAGA camp could aggravate contradictions in countries whose societies are less resilient or flexible than the US — societies that might not accept what the US public has been accepting. Whether Trump succeeds or fails between now and the midterm elections scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026, the implications will be global. Raising the stakes (especially in global hot zones like Ukraine, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Taiwan), the American president is a 'dealmaker' who relies more on instinct and public relations than on long-term strategic planning. That is why absolute loyalty, personal friendships and financial partnerships have largely determined his appointments of aides, advisers and Cabinet members. That is a break with the approach of most of his Republican and Democratic predecessors. This has meant that many critical responsibilities have been handed over to figures who are widely seen as controversial or underqualified. In fact, some of them are now beginning to lose the trust of even the hardcore ideological MAGA base, including media figures and activists like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes. The emergence of MAGA clones could aggravate contradictions in countries whose societies are less flexible than the US. Eyad Abu Shakra As for the Middle East, particularly the question of Palestine, Trump's handling of both Iran and Israel has begun to impose itself on political discourse, at least in the media and online. Strikingly, the white Christian right in America has publicly criticized Benjamin Netanyahu's policies. Chief among their complaints is the accusation that both Netanyahu and the American Jewish right are pushing Washington into war with Iran to serve the Likud and Israel's agenda. While they may differ on the details, several European countries, especially the UK, may be entering a phase of reassessment in their party politics. In Britain, where the current Labour government stands unapologetically with Israel, the political left has begun to shake things up. It was last week announced that a new left-wing party is in the pipeline, led by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and MP Zarah Sultana, both of whom are vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause. This was followed by early signs of a reconfiguration on the political right, with a new far-right party, Restore Britain, emerging. It is even more right-wing than the hard-line, anti-immigrant Reform UK. For this reason, I believe that between now and November 2026, Washington could, given the lack of real solutions to international crises, lay the groundwork for significant transformations outside the US. I believe that the fodder for these shifts will largely be: religious extremism, racial hatred and socioeconomic hardship.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
NATO members' collective defense vow holds — for now
The pendulum of relations between NATO and Washington has swung from side to side a few times since Donald Trump won the US presidential election for the first time in 2016. It reached an all-time low in his first term, leading his successor Joe Biden, in one of his first acts after taking office, to reassure NATO members of America's commitment to the organization and its Article 5, which is the cornerstone of the alliance and states that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all members. Now, in the aftermath of Trump's return to the White House, he and the NATO leadership seem to have found a modus vivendi, albeit very much on Trump's terms, whereby all members substantially increase their defense spending. As has become customary before a summit or international visit by the US president, there is a sense of trepidation. This is most keenly felt by the NATO members that, and not without good reason, are uncertain about the US under Trump's presidency and its commitment to this alliance, the security of Europe and the most acute and urgent issue of supporting Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte embodied this anxiety in sending very flattering text messages to Trump on the eve of last month's summit in The Hague, stating that 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.' He added that Trump had achieved what 'no American president in decades could get done.' This correspondence, which was supposed to be private, seemingly pleased Trump enough for him to post it on his social media platform. These attempts to keep the Trump administration on board are coming at a heavy financial cost, but they have nevertheless been necessary and long overdue. Whether they have been a response to Trump's relentless pressure on member states to increase their defense budgets or to the realization that the post-Cold War bonanza of 'butter instead of cannons' is over, it is clear that maintaining Western-style democracies and their values must be backed by investing, and massively so, in the rebuilding of the West's military muscle. The trajectory of substantial increases in defense budgets began as a result of Russia's aggression against its Ukrainian neighbor, which illustrated that Europe faces a threat very close to home. The current commitment by the allies to hike their defense budgets to 5 percent of gross domestic product, to be reached within a decade, is a huge leap that only a year ago would have been unthinkable. The alliance is at its best when it is united, coherent in its objectives and prepared to use military force Yossi Mekelberg Admittedly, out of this 5 percent, 'only' 3.5 percent of GDP will be allocated directly to defense, 'based on the agreed definition of NATO defense expenditure by 2035 to resource core defense requirements, and to meet the NATO Capability Targets.' But beyond this very bureaucratic language lies a sea change which means that Europe and Canada can no longer rely on the US alone for their security and must play a much more proactive part, backed by adequate resources. The war in Ukraine no doubt helped to focus the minds of NATO members on the fact that they face real threats and that the deterministic approach that assumes that liberal democracies are not only immune from threat, but also too attractive a proposition not to be emulated by other countries, are long gone. Moreover, the lingering ideological and socioeconomic crisis in the US also means that it has no intention of indefinitely shouldering the main burden of securing the West. It can be argued, and not without justification, that setting a target to be achieved in a decade, while the security threats are very much present right now, could hardly be the answer, especially considering that the additional 1.5 percent is not on core defense spending on troops and weapons but allocated to 'defense-related expenditure.' Nevertheless, this is a significant change in the attitude to security and how to achieve it in Europe and Canada. And at least for the remaining years of the current American administration, the other members of the alliance know that Washington will be watching like a hawk to ensure that they stand by their commitments. But it is also an important signal, first and foremost to Russia, as well as to China and any nonstate actors that pose a threat to security and international stability, that Europe is building up its military force, mainly as a deterrent, but it will not be afraid to use it if necessary. One of the most important takeaways from The Hague summit was that, by the end of it all, countries affirmed their commitment to collective defense as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. In other words, at least for now, America's commitment to the glue that keeps NATO together and relevant, of mutual responsibility for the 32 members to protect each other and the freedom and democracy of their 1 billion citizens, holds. However, the biggest and most immediate challenge for NATO is to prevent Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine and, currently, the mixed messages from Washington are not helping this cause. Ukraine is under immense military pressure from Russia, whether on the front line or in the intensity of drone attacks on centers of population, which also affect morale and add to the war fatigue. While Trump said toward the end of last week that he came away disappointed from a telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin because it does not appear that the Russian leader is looking to stop the war against Ukraine, his administration also held back some weapons shipments to Ukraine at a crucial time, apparently due to a review of military spending. Not an encouraging response. NATO's importance as a collective security mechanism for defending its members' liberal-democratic way of life has not diminished over the years, although it has seen changes in terms of the challenges it faces and the methods of addressing them, whether this is traditional warfare, hybrid warfare, fighting nonstate actors or increasing cybersecurity defenses. The alliance is at its best when it is united, coherent in its objectives and prepared to use military force either to protect itself or those that are prey to aggressors such as Russia in Ukraine. NATO is facing major tests and it cannot afford transatlantic divisions or being under-resourced, a situation that at least for now seems to have been considerably improved. • Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
