World Review: Escalation in Venezuela. Ukraine Endgame. Fighting Undermines Peace President
A synopsis of this week's edition of World Review
Each week, I host a video podcast called World Review with Ivo Daalder where journalists from major news outlets around the world join me to discuss the latest global news stories of the week.
Thursday, December 18, we discussed the escalation around Venezuela, the most recent round of Ukraine negotiations, and President Trump’s wobbly track record as the chief peacemaker, as claimed. Joining me this week were Nahal Toosi, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent of Politico, Alex Ward, National Security Reporter of The Wall Street Journal, and Giles Whittell, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of The Observer.
“World Review is always fascinating. I love the fact that you can get journalists from around the world to participate since zoom is the medium.”
— A Subscriber to America Abroad
While I encourage you to watch or listen to the episode (and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts!), here are a few interesting things I took away from our discussion:
Venezuela is turning into the purest expression of this administration’s foreign policy style: maximum pressure, maximum ambiguity. The latest step, a blockade targeting Venezuelan oil shipped on sanctioned vessels, comes alongside the largest U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean since 1962. And yet, the administration’s strategy remains ambiguous, ranging from regime change to stopping the flow of drugs and migrants into the US to reclaiming “stolen” oil. Nahal suggested that this may be the point: it enables the administration to declare victory if any of these goals are met. But it’s unclear that the sustained pressure campaign will work and actually lead Maduro to leave, or what the strategy would be if he does. Nobel Peace Prize recipient María Corina Machado may be a potential successor, but Nahal cautioned that views of her inside the administration are mixed. Alex argued that the incoherence was the result of an administration being run by six people over Signal. And the implications may extend well beyond this particular crisis. If the Western Hemisphere truly is becoming the administration’s organizing priority, the show of force in the region may not be temporary, especially in light of reports in the Washington Post about reorganizing the U.S. command structure into three sectors: an Americas Command, Indo-Pacific Command, and an International Command that lumps Europe, Africa, and the Middle East together.
Ukraine, by contrast, is where the administration insists it is getting close to a deal. Alex argued that the latest talks do show real movement, most notably, a narrowing of differences between the United States and Ukraine on security guarantees, including ideas that would involve Europeans and potentially even a U.S. effort to codify commitments so they aren’t simply the whim of one president. But we are still far away from an actual settlement. Territory remains a key contention that has yet to be resolved, and that the Trump administration has left to the last minute to negotiate. Nahal noted that the administration seems to be profoundly misreading the Russians on this question, treating it as a real estate issue and failing to understand that, for Putin, it is not really about land but about power and restoring the Soviet Union. The administration’s reliance on negotiators with little Russia experience - Witkoff foremost among them - doesn’t help. Meanwhile, Europe is struggling with the financial side of keeping Ukraine afloat, and the debate over the use of frozen Russian assets has become a stress test for allied cohesion. €290 billion remain frozen in Europe, a large share at Euroclear in Brussels, and European leaders remain divided over using those assets to support Ukraine. The absence of a decision may be explained in part by the sustained American pressure and personal threats against the Euroclear Head and Belgian Prime Minister, as Giles points out. The administration’s strategy to focus solely on monetary gains and play the Europeans off against the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians off against the Russians, seems to make a deal less likely.
Finally, we turned to President Trump’s favorite subject: his role as the chief peacemaker. But his record appears to be wobbling. Out of the 8 wars the President claims to have resolved in 10 months, several are seeing renewed violence: fighting has returned along the Cambodia-Thailand border, and in the Eastern DRC, the Rwandan-backed rebel group M23 is advancing despite the agreement signed in Washington. Trump has his eyes set on the Nobel Peace Prize, but his administration’s efforts seem to fall short of success. Giles argues that while Trump is able to get parties to the table through levers like tariffs, the agreements lack the conventional tools needed for conflict resolution, particularly sustained engagement and enforcement power on the ground. Gaza may be the exception, as Nahal notes, where the administration has put some muscle behind enforcing the ceasefire. The other part of the issue, as Alex notes, is the lack of coordination between leading figures in the Trump administration and staffers in the State Department, Department of Defence, and other agencies, who are left in the dark on most decisions, making it difficult to put the available capabilities into motion to provide enforcement. Allies have adapted to this new decision-making style and prioritize their personal relationship with Trump, sidestepping the usual staff-to-staff exchanges. But the President’s efforts may still be better than the counterfactual, as Nahal notes, many African leaders are appreciative that Trump is showing any attention to conflicts on their continent. The administration’s sprint-like mentality can serve as an important catalyst, but creating lasting peace is a marathon that requires endurance, which the current strategy lacks.
Those are my quick takes on this week’s episode here on World Review. To get the full story, please listen to the episode itself.