Latest news with #EurasiaCenter
The Diplomat
11 hours ago
- Business
- The Diplomat
Washington Discusses the Future of Central Asia-US Relations, While Beijing Takes Concrete Action
The Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, held its inaugural U.S.-Central Asia Forum on June 5 to discuss the future of Washington's strategy toward the region. The discussion, organized by the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, comes at an opportune time as Central Asia engages extraregional states to cement relationships and attract new partners and investors. In the past two months, several high-profile meetings have taken place, including the first Central Asia-European Union summit, the first Central Asia-Italy summit (which took place during Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Miloni's visit to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), and an informal summit of heads of states of the Organization of Turkic States. Moreover, the second China-Central Asia summit occurred in mid-June. Meanwhile, Washington has lagged behind regarding high-profile engagement with Central Asia in the first months of the second Trump administration. Speakers at the event included Kazakhstan's Ambassador to the U.S. Yerzhan Ashikbayev; Alisher Akhmedov, the deputy chief of mission of Uzbekistan in Washington; and former officials like Lisa Curtis, currently a senior fellow and director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and former U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan (2008 to 2011) Tatiana Gfoeller. Mining was a significant topic for the conference. Ashikbayev, for example, highlighted that Kazakhstan produces '20 critical minerals;' regarding uranium, 'we have a gargantuan share of the global production, 40 percent.' Investment in infrastructure remains a priority for the country, which would help with the transportation of critical minerals to international markets, like the U.S. and Europe. Current projects include expanding Kazakhstan's railroad system 'We are planning to construct 5,000 kilometers of railroads [by] 2030,' the ambassador said. Moreover, Astana plans to expand the size of its Caspian fleet 'from 17 to 34 [transport] vessels.' The Caspian Sea is a critical artery of the Middle Corridor, connecting Kazakhstan's Aktau and Kuryk ports with Azerbaijan's Baku port, hence additional vessels and tankers are mandatory to increase the volume of transportation. Meanwhile, Akhmedov highlighted an April visit to the U.S. capital by an Uzbek government delegation led by Foreign Affairs Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov, which included meetings with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. A memorandum on critical minerals was reportedly signed during Saidov's visit. 'We are now moving forward' via this document, Akhemdov said at the forum, as the 'critical mineral focus is a strategic realignment' of bilateral relations. Figuring out how to capitalize on the second Trump administration's focus on critical minerals and energy-related supply chains in general to attract U.S. interest and engagement with the Central Asian countries is the primary challenge for Astana and Tashkent. Ashikbayev highlighted Astana's membership in the Mineral Security Partnership, the country being a 'strong supporter and participant in the critical minerals dialogue,' and noted how Kazakhstan is the 'driver' of the C5+1 format. Similarly, Akhmedov noted that Uzbekistan aims to use the country's mineral resources not only for extraction and mining-related profit but also to 'become a trusted and highly valued partner in global supply chains.' It is worth noting that, during the recent China-Central Asia summit, the presidents of China, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan discussed expanded cooperation on natural gas and minerals, and the construction of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway. Central Asian countries are engaging with Beijing on critical topics like energy and minerals, and pursuing concrete projects in these areas, while Washington remains stuck in conversation. The forum attempted to game out how Washington, once again under Donald Trump's leadership, will engage Central Asia. Curtis, a former National Security Council senior director for South and Central Asia (2017-2021), explained that the new Trump administration is still in its early days, and 'we haven't heard about Central Asia' in the U.S. capital yet. She argued that 'the China angle will dictate' U.S. engagement in Central Asia, with a focus on 'mostly economic but also political, and maybe security' issues. Gfoeller was more pessimistic, hypothesizing that Washington won't fully engage Central Asia 'unless President Trump sees that there is a specific reason to engage with a particular country.' The terms 'transactional' and 'realistic' were used often to describe how Washington may engage Central Asia for the next four years. For comparison's sake, Xi talked about 'mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual benefit' at the recent summit in Astana. The Biden administration maintained momentum in Central Asia-U.S. engagement with highlights including a historic presidential 5+1 meeting in 2023, a business-oriented B5+1 in Almaty and the launch of the C5+1 Critical Minerals Dialogue in 2024. (I have proposed a Green 5+1 to promote engagement on environmental issues.) During his confirmation hearing, Rubio noted the need to repeal the Jackson Vanik amendment – a topic mentioned by Ashikbayev at the forum – however, that requires Congressional legislation and previous efforts have stalled in committee. In spite of this promising statement, we have yet to see the formulation of a strategy or even direct interest in Central Asia on the part of the administration. Another topic discussed were potential trips by senior U.S. officials to Central Asia. Miras Zhiyenbayev, advisor to the chairman of the board for international affairs and initiatives at Kazakhstan's Maqsut Narikbayev University, noted that 'high-level visits are political acts that demonstrate a country's willingness to work with the region and engage with the region.' As noted above, in recent weeks, there were several high-level visits and meetings by European officials and China's president to Central Asia. A visit by Rubio to Astana for a ministerial 5+1 would help jumpstart the new administration's momentum in the region, but so far no such meeting has been announced. Overall, the speakers at the forum agreed on the importance of increased U.S. engagement with Central Asia. 'The United States has a great opportunity to engage more in Central Asia. The Central Asians want the U.S. there,' Curtis argued. Gfoeller said, 'I recently met with a high-level Central Asian official who told me that he welcomed what he thought would be a more transactional approach from the Trump administration. She added that the official 'said that during the Biden administration, we were lectured to about climate change, about human rights, and it was just lecturing and never was anything concrete done to benefit our country.' Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan Daniel Rosenblum, moderating the panel, pushed back on that assessment, illustrating a diversity of perspectives on the tone and perception of U.S. engagement. Respecting the will and well-being of the people of Central Asia was a topic that the Atlantic Council's forum did not discuss in great detail. Navbahor Imamova, a longtime journalist with Voice of America, said on social media that the region's 'nontransparent and nepotistic regimes, marked by a lack of rule of law and media freedom,' should have been addressed. That label certainly applies to authoritarian Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and increasingly Kyrgyzstan. Finally, it is vital to acknowledge that the five Central Asian states differ regarding their foreign policy objectives, engagement styles, and domestic governance. Indeed, of the five states, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are clearly very interested in increasing engagement and cooperation with Washington, and have the capacity to do so. Two days before the forum, Kazakhstan's Ashikbayev spoke at the Future Resilience Forum about Kazakhstan as a middle power, an event also held in the U.S. capital. 'The more partnerships we have, the better it will be for our own development,' the Kazakhstani diplomat summarized at the Atlantic Council event. Similarly, Uzbekistan routinely sends delegations to Washington. However, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan's footprint in Washington is much more limited, with Turkmenistan's engagement in the U.S. capital almost non-existent. A lack of a strategy with short-, medium- and long-term goals and projects toward Central Asia continues to be Washington's loss, and Beijing's gain.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump needs to follow through and trigger the 'downfall of Russia'
After Russia unleashed an unprecedented third consecutive night of mass missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, U.S. President Donald Trump said his Russian counterpart had gone "absolutely crazy" and could be triggering "the downfall of Russia." In later comments, the U.S. president said he was "not happy with (Russian President Vladimir) Putin," and when pressed by reporters, he vaguely alluded to the possibility of imposing further U.S. sanctions on the Kremlin. Yet one glaring fact remains — despite months of resisting Trump's peace process, the U.S. has yet to take a single concrete step to pressure Putin into ending his full-scale invasion. "This is not the kind of diplomacy Trump promised when he talked about 'peace through strength,'" Daniel Fried, who served as U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs from 2005 to 2009, told the Kyiv Independent. "It's the kind of weak diplomacy the Republicans used to make a meal of." Fried and other former senior U.S. officials who spoke to the Kyiv Independent said that even after the Kremlin's repeated refusals to agree to a ceasefire and escalating Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians, Trump's rhetoric remains disconnected from meaningful action — and his recent diplomatic overtures may have done more to embolden the Kremlin than to restrain it. As Ukraine and its allies intensified efforts to end Russia's war, Trump and Putin held a phone call on May 19, during which Putin once again did not agree to a full ceasefire, despite calls from global leaders to do so. Instead of a ceasefire, Putin offered to negotiate a "memorandum regarding a potential future peace treaty" with Ukraine without any clear timeline. After the call, Trump briefed European leaders on the conversation, who were reportedly "surprised" the U.S. president was "relatively content" with what he heard from Putin. "Putin remains interested in continuing the fighting. He doesn't want a ceasefire," John Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and current senior director at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, told the Kyiv Independent. "He [Putin] would like to continue the war while not incurring any new American sanctions — and thus far he's winning." "And Trump has enabled Putin to maintain that position." Trump's description of the call as "progress" was also at odds with the Russian readout, which offered no substantive commitments and suggested only future discussions on terms — without any immediate ceasefire. "This was a victory for Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin wants to continue the war," said Steven Pifer, another former ambassador to Ukraine and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "He would like to continue the war while not incurring any new American sanctions — and thus far he's winning." All former officials interviewed noted that the Kremlin's demands remain maximalist and unacceptable to Ukraine. Russia continues to insist on Ukraine accepting the loss of occupied Crimea, recognition of its occupation of four Ukrainian oblasts in their entirety despite Russia not fully controlling any of them, permanent neutrality for Kyiv, demilitarization, and regime change in Ukraine. And while Putin has yet to offer a single concession that indicates any genuine intent for peace, Trump called the "tone and spirit of the conversation" with Putin "excellent," claiming "progress" was made. In reality, Kremlin officials have since the call given up any pretense of being interested in negotiations with Ukraine, or in a ceasefire, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week saying "We don't want this anymore." After the unprecedented mass attacks on Ukraine over the weekend, those who spoke to the Kyiv Independent question why the U.S. response has so far remained constrained to strong words on social media with no real concrete action. "Although Trump has substantial leverage that he could use to put pressure on Russia from things like tightening sanctions, moving to seize Russian frozen Central Bank assets, to giving or selling Ukraine more weapons, he's done none of that," Pifer told the Kyiv Independent. "And Vladimir Putin doesn't care if Trump says he's unhappy about the slow pace of negotiations, as long as Trump does not take any steps to put pressure on Moscow," he added. Fried agreed, stressing that the U.S. is the only player who can make a meaningful difference to Russia's approach. "Without the threat of U.S. action, the Russians are not going to allow a ceasefire," he said. "It's bad diplomacy to let Putin set the terms for talks or the schedule while he continues attacking Ukraine." Fried also expressed dismay at what he sees as a squandered opportunity. "The Russian economy is not in great shape. The Russian advances in Ukraine are slow and costly. This is the time to press our advantage, not let it leak away," he said. Read also: After 3 days of consecutive attacks on Ukraine, Russia calls UN meeting over alleged European 'threats to peace' On May 26 it was reported that Trump is considering imposing sanctions on Moscow this week, but with nothing officially announced, and U.S. policy on Russia seemingly drifting, some suggest Europe may have to take the lead. "We've now retreated from (sanctions)," Fried said. "It seems the Europeans and Ukraine need to figure out their Plan B, with an America that's sidelined itself." Pifer also noted the contrast between early transatlantic unity and the current diplomatic incoherence. "I'd like to see the U.S. engaged in a positive and helpful way," he said, adding: "But I don't see that happening under Trump's leadership." "It is not correct to say that the Ukrainians have no cards. They have arguably one of the best militaries in Europe." The issue took on extra urgency on May 27 when it was reported that U.S.-EU negotiations on coordinating the enforcement of sanctions against Russia have failed, making a future united strategy against Moscow uncertain. Former Assistant Secretary of State and Executive Director of the George W. Bush Institute David Kramer noted that while "Europeans still might move ahead with their sanctions, it's obviously much better if Europe and the United States are united on this." Kramer said the U.S. and Europe should impose additional sanctions and increase military assistance for Ukraine, putting Ukraine in a stronger position at the negotiating table when it comes to the real negotiations. Referring to the remarks made in the Oval Office during the February meeting between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky — that Kyiv had "no cards to play" — Kramer firmly believes the opposite to be true. "Ukrainians do have cards to play. It is not correct to say that the Ukrainians have no cards. They have arguably one of the best militaries in Europe," he said. He added that Ukraine is in a decent position to negotiate, and they "don't need to argue from a position of weakness, but they do need the help of the West." The former diplomats and officials still claim that there remains a sliver of hope — contingent largely on a shift in Trump's approach. Fried said Trump might grow "tired of being played" by Putin and eventually use the tools at his disposal. Herbst expressed similar optimism. "If Trump does what he said he'd do — press the side that refuses to compromise — that could open the door to real peace," he said. Read also: Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Debunking Putin's 'root causes' claims We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
CNBC
19-05-2025
- Politics
- CNBC
Trump-Putin talks did nothing to move toward durable peace in war regions: Atlantic Council's Herbst
John Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, joins 'Power Lunch' to discuss Trump's recent calls with Putin, what sanctions can do, and much more.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
With minerals deal, Ukraine finds way to secure Trump support
In signing a minerals deal, Ukraine has found a new way to tie the United States to its future, but it remains to be seen if it can guarantee long-term support from mercurial President Donald Trump. Two months after President Volodymyr Zelensky was unceremoniously kicked out of the White House following an on-camera clash with Trump, Ukraine renegotiated the deal he had been set to sign, with the Ukrainian leader hailing the signed version as truly equal." Trump has already made clear that he will not back Ukraine's accession into NATO, backing Russian President Vladimir Putin's position that membership in the Western alliance is a red line, and he has repeatedly criticized the billions of dollars in US assistance to Ukraine since Russia's invasion in February 2022. But after earlier bristling at Trump's demands for compensation for past aid, Ukraine managed through the deal to secure a US presence in a way relatable to the businessman Trump, experts said. The deal puts the Ukrainians "in their strongest position yet with Washington since Trump took office," said Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council think tank's Eurasia Center. "While the Trump administration put tremendous pressure on Ukraine to accept earlier deals, Ukraine managed to show that it is not just a junior partner that has to roll over and accept a bad deal," she said. The deal does not speak of any debt owed by Ukraine, despite demands from Trump after he took office. - 'Extortion'? - But one lesson from recent history could dishearten Ukrainians. Trump, critical of US involvement in Afghanistan, early in his first term reached an agreement with the country's Western-backed president, Ashraf Ghani, to develop untapped mineral wealth. By the end of Trump's term, the United States had effectively sidelined Ghani by negotiating a deal with the Taliban, who swiftly took over when president Joe Biden carried out the agreement and withdrew US troops. Some of Trump's Democratic rivals dismissed the importance of the Ukraine minerals deal. Representative Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement called it "extortion" by Trump. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said that the agreement was meaningless without Trump committing further weapons to Ukraine. "Right now all indications are that Donald Trump's policy is to hand Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, and in that case, this agreement isn't worth the paper that it's written on," Murphy said on MSNBC television. - Shift at least in short term - Robert Murrett, deputy director of Syracuse University's Institute for Security Policy and Law, said it was too early to see how much of a security guarantee the deal would provide. But he said that from an economic perspective it can only be read as "something positive, in terms of giving the United States a long-term stake in Ukraine." "I think the other good indicator is a kind of acid test -- the fact that the Kremlin is very, very unhappy with the deal," he said. Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that the language in the deal was striking, two months after the Trump-Zelensky clash. The agreement speaks of Russia's invasion and raises the prospect of renewed US military assistance, by saying that security funding would be counted as US investment in the fund. She said that the deal was a means for "long-term economic recovery" and acknowledged that much could change over time. But in the short term, "it actually provides a Trump administration avenue for support" to Ukraine, she said. "This is a pretty big shift from where we were 60 days ago," she said. sct/jbr
France 24
01-05-2025
- Business
- France 24
With minerals deal, Ukraine finds way to secure Trump support
Two months after President Volodymyr Zelensky was unceremoniously kicked out of the White House following an on-camera clash with Trump, Ukraine renegotiated the deal he had been set to sign, with the Ukrainian leader hailing the signed version as truly equal." Trump has already made clear that he will not back Ukraine's accession into NATO, backing Russian President Vladimir Putin's position that membership in the Western alliance is a red line, and he has repeatedly criticized the billions of dollars in US assistance to Ukraine since Russia's invasion in February 2022. But after earlier bristling at Trump's demands for compensation for past aid, Ukraine managed through the deal to secure a US presence in a way relatable to the businessman Trump, experts said. The deal puts the Ukrainians "in their strongest position yet with Washington since Trump took office," said Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council think tank's Eurasia Center. "While the Trump administration put tremendous pressure on Ukraine to accept earlier deals, Ukraine managed to show that it is not just a junior partner that has to roll over and accept a bad deal," she said. The deal does not speak of any debt owed by Ukraine, despite demands from Trump after he took office. 'Extortion'? But one lesson from recent history could dishearten Ukrainians. Trump, critical of US involvement in Afghanistan, early in his first term reached an agreement with the country's Western-backed president, Ashraf Ghani, to develop untapped mineral wealth. By the end of Trump's term, the United States had effectively sidelined Ghani by negotiating a deal with the Taliban, who swiftly took over when president Joe Biden carried out the agreement and withdrew US troops. Some of Trump's Democratic rivals dismissed the importance of the Ukraine minerals deal. Representative Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement called it "extortion" by Trump. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said that the agreement was meaningless without Trump committing further weapons to Ukraine. "Right now all indications are that Donald Trump's policy is to hand Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, and in that case, this agreement isn't worth the paper that it's written on," Murphy said on MSNBC television. Shift at least in short term Robert Murrett, deputy director of Syracuse University's Institute for Security Policy and Law, said it was too early to see how much of a security guarantee the deal would provide. But he said that from an economic perspective it can only be read as "something positive, in terms of giving the United States a long-term stake in Ukraine." "I think the other good indicator is a kind of acid test -- the fact that the Kremlin is very, very unhappy with the deal," he said. Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that the language in the deal was striking, two months after the Trump-Zelensky clash. The agreement speaks of Russia's invasion and raises the prospect of renewed US military assistance, by saying that security funding would be counted as US investment in the fund. She said that the deal was a means for "long-term economic recovery" and acknowledged that much could change over time. But in the short term, "it actually provides a Trump administration avenue for support" to Ukraine, she said.
