World Review: Putin Says No. Strikes in the Caribbean. Trump Berates Europe

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.

Today, December 5, we discussed the latest on Ukraine, the boat strikes in the Caribbean, and how the Trump Administration sees Europe. Joining me this week were Carla Anne Robbins of the Council on Foreign Relations, Steven Erlanger of The New York Times, and Matthew Kaminski, formerly of Politico.

“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:

• It’s been another chaotic week in the quest for peace in Ukraine. Following a weekend of talks in Miami with the Ukrainians, on Monday Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner flew to Moscow for talks with President Putin. They strolled through Moscow, had lunch at a swanky restaurant, and then had to wait for three hours to meet with Putin. The talks went deep into the night—lasting a total of five hours. Despite the ritual claims of “progress” and “productive” meetings, in reality the two US negotiators flew back empty handed. By all accounts, Putin didn’t move an inch on his bottom line—which is that he wants to incorporate territory he has been unable to conquer in 11 years of war into Russia and limit Ukraine’s sovereignty in myriad ways. While Ukrainians are exhausted and want to end the war, they cannot settle for a deal that satisfies Russia. And that’s the problem with these negotiations, Matt argued. Trump seems more interested in a deal—no matter its details—than in negotiations necessary to reach a deal. His aims are mainly self-serving, notably recognition as a peacemaker and helping US business (and the government) making money. Neither of these goals are compatible with a negotiated outcome to the war that both sides can accept. So back-and-forth we go—like a gerbil on a wheel.

• It’s been another week debating the US strikes against boats traversing the Caribbean Sea. Seemingly everyone this week was talking about the strikes on September 2nd against the first boat crossing the Caribbean allegedly carrying large quantities of drugs. The Washington Post reported last week that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the military to launch a second strike when it appeared the first one had left two survivors. Many call this a war crime. The White House and Pentagon went into damage-limitation mode, predictably pointing fingers to the military rather than taking responsibility themselves. On Thursday, Admiral Frank Bradley, the head of Special Operations Command, testified behind closed on Capitol Hill that the strike he’d authorized was legitimate—even though it is hard to see how two men hanging on to a capsized boat that has just been hit by a missile constitute a threat. But, as Carla argued, the specifics of the case are less important than the strategic vacuum within which the some 20 boat strikes are taking place. What is their purpose? And how can they be legally justified? As worrisome for the future of our security is passing the buck to the US military, which undermines morale in the uniformed military. High ranking people are being fired, scapegoated, or looking for an early exit—weakening the ranks of some of the most experienced and dedicated offers in the military.

• Finally, we turned to politics in Europe—in particular how the Trump administration sees Europe. The White House’s new National Security Strategy, issued this week, argues in no uncertain terms that Europe is declining because it’s “less European.” It speaks of the prospect of “civilizational erasure” and says that on the present course Europe won’t be European in 20 years. To counter this trend, it advocates support for far-right parties who seem to share the christian-nationalist – dare I say white – view of civilization. Steve argued that the strategy makes explicitly what had been clear for a long time, starting with Vice President JD Vance’s speech in Munich last February. There, the vice president argued that the biggest threat to European security didn’t come from Russia or China, but “from within.” He condemned threats to free speech, warned about judges interfering in democratic processes, and worried about how immigration was undermining European cohesion. Vance and other members of the administration have openly campaigned for far-right candidates in Poland and Germany, and sought to strengthen the far-right in other ways. But, as Steve noted, they may be betting on the wrong horse, for many on the far right not only embrace Putin, they also are generally anti-American.

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.