Don’t be fooled
Rasha Gaddh of Al-Sharq News asked some followup questions after reading my post from earlier today. I answered.
Q: President Trump’s tone toward Russia and Putin changed following last month’s NATO summit and pressure from NATO allies urging him to commit more strongly to Ukraine. Do you believe this is the reason behind his shift in stance? What other factors may have contributed to his loss of patience with Moscow?
A: Trump is trying to fend off both NATO pressure and domestic political pressure to do more to counter Russia. He is doing so by pretending to get tough but in fact doing nothing substantial.
Q: Do you think Russia will comply with the threat and end the war within the 50-day deadline?
A: Russia will do everything it can to gain territory during the 50 days. It may then agree to a ceasefire, but not an end to the war, unless it has gained all of the territory it has already in theory annexed. Trump has already promised Putin no NATO membership for Ukraine.
Q: If the deadline passes without Russian compliance, what actions is the U.S. administration likely to take? What kind of sanctions might be imposed on Russia, and in which sectors?
A: I doubt Trump will do anything serious. He is committed to strengthening Russia.
The key to sanctions is to end Russian use of a “ghost fleet” to export oil and to end transshipment of goods to Russia from Europe and the US through former Soviet republics.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s head fake on Russia
President Trump says a lot. But what it means is often hard to understand. Max Boot interpreted his comments on Ukraine above as a hardening of his attitude toward Russian President Putin. But their real meaning was the opposite. Despite Putin’s behavior, Trump is signaling that he will resist efforts to harden US policy. He will continue to tolerate Russian attacks on Ukraine.
The threats
The threat is unclear. Tariffs on Russia won’t make a dent, since Russia exports only about $3 billion to the US. Trump mumbles about imposing 100% tariffs on countries that trade with Russia. That would mean first and foremost China and India, Russia’s main trading partners. We know he isn’t going to do that with China, since he has already lowered tariffs he imposed on China. The Chinese blocked the export of rare earth minerals in response, panicking the US auto industry. Nor will he do it on India. The US is trying to wean New Delhi away from its close relationship with Russia.
The threat is also delayed. Fifty days is a long time. Delaying action, but seeming to promise it, will help fend off Congressional moves to impose tough sanctions on Russia. Trump forgets most of the promises he makes to do something in two weeks. Putin understood and ramped up attacks on Ukraine. Even if Trump were serious, Russia would want to do as much damage as possible before the ceasefire.
Thus the net effect of these comments is the opposite of how they sound. They encourage Putin:
Weapons supplies
Trump also said he would sell arms to NATO for transfer to Ukraine. This, too, sounds anti-Russian. But it is the opposite. The US used to give arms directly to Ukraine. Europe will now pay for them. Putin understands well that this will reduce the flow of weapons to Ukraine, not increase it.
Fortunately, the Europeans are clever. They are investing in expanding Ukrainian arms production, which has suffered from lack of financing. This makes a lot of sense. But it is not a quick solution.
Diplomacy
Meanwhile, Putin is getting other signals from Washington. The State Department is RIFing the people who document Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity:
The Russian President doesn’t really care about what the State Department is documenting. But getting rid of it tells him what he needs to know about Administration policy.
Trump is not serious about hardening the approach to Russia. It’s a head fake. Don’t be fooled.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
America’s better angels reside in Kosovo
I thought President Osmani’s talk at Hudson last week was first rate. But it was also unusual, so a comment is in order.
Rather than the now common pandering to President Trump, she mostly took a different tack. She appealed mainly to America’s better angels: liberty, democracy, rule of law, the rules-based international order. That’s an America I prefer, but I can’t say Washington is moving in that direction today. Instead, the Trump administration is jailing asylum seekers, denying citizenship to people born in the US, and intimidating news media. It is also violating the well-established rules of international trade. And the President is kowtowing to Russia’s autocrat and war criminal.
Even his threat to impose tariffs on Russia is vacuous, since Russian exports to the US are minimal. He also mumbled something about secondary sanctions on countries that trade with Russia. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for those.
NATO is the crux
I don’t expect people in the Trump Administration to find Osmani’s clarion call for American leadership entirely appealing. Many of the MAGAtes want to retreat from global responsibilities, not discharge them. She belongs to a cohort that is more in tune with American values than the Washington incumbents. But I do hope that they will take seriously her appeal for NATO membership.
The merits are clear. Kosovo will do pretty much anything NATO wants, within its limited capacities. Instead of only receiving US troops, Kosovo will then be contributing to Alliance missions. That is what Americans should want. The Kosovo Security Force (KSF) is arming itself with Blackhawk helicopters, Javelin anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft missiles, and Turkish Bajraktar drones. Theirs won’t be a huge force–5000 or so, with a few thousand in reserve.
Once Pristina joins, Belgrade and Sarajevo will then be the only Balkan capitals outside the Alliance. The pressure on them to come to terms will be high, but it really doesn’t matter whether they join. If they prefer to occupy the hole in the doughnut, so be it.
The hurdles
The four NATO members that don’t recognize Kosovo (Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Greece) are the biggest hurdle. All of them would need to agree to its membership. That’s a diplomatic challenge, but not an insurmountable one. Greece has been friendly to Kosovo for years. It is a de facto but not a de jure recognizer. Spain is opting out of NATO’s latest military expenditure pledge. It would do well to lie low on the Kosovo issue. The United States would need to squeeze Romania and Slovakia hard.
KSF troops have already deployed with the US to Kuwait and with the UK to the Falklands. They have also participated in UK training for Ukrainian troops. A combat deployment with NATO forces should be high on its priorities. Demonstrating combat capability was vital to North Macedonia’s NATO bid and will be also for Kosovo. Among other roles, Macedonia’s troops fought integrated with the Vermont National Guard in Afghanistan.
Serbia’s objections
Serbia of course will cry foul as Kosovo approaches NATO membership. But Belgrade’s rhetoric and behavior have given most of the people of Kosovo reason to want a strong defense. Before the 1999 war it deprived them of their governing institutions. During the war, Belgrade’s forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. And after the war Serbia has continued its irredentist rhetoric as well as provocative behavior.
The KSF as presently conceived poses no threat to Serbia and cannot be used inside Kosovo, except in emergencies. The fastest way for Serbia to guarantee that it remains that way is mutual recognition with Kosovo.
Even short of that, establishing a military to military relationship would be a fine idea. All friendly neighbors make sure that their armies understand each other well. The time has come for the army commanders in Serbia and Kosovo to meet and exchange views and data. That might even hasten the day of mutual recognition.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Let us hope it is not too late
Sonja Biserko, a leading light of Serbia’s human rights community, gave this talk “In the Spririt of the UN Resolution on Srebrenica (2024), at the UN in Vienna on July 11:
As we commemorate the 30th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, we do more than honor the victims. We are called to defend the truth.
The UN Resolution on Srebrenica, adopted in 2024, reminded the world of the legal and moral clarity surrounding this crime. It named what happened — genocide. And it urged all societies, especially those in the region, to confront that truth with courage, not denial.
Memory is a warning
In today’s world, where ethnonationalist rhetoric and authoritarian rule are on the rise, memory becomes a warning. A warning against scapegoating. A warning against exclusion.
Genocide remembrance gives us a framework. It helps us understand and respond to mass atrocities today — whether in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, or Ukraine. It compels international actors to act. Not to stand aside.
Remembering genocide is not a backward-looking act—it is a profoundly forward-looking responsibility. In today’s unstable international environment, where power politics often trumps principles, remembrance becomes a form of resistance, a defense of truth, and a call to uphold the values of humanity.
Serbia is stuck in denial
Yet, three decades later, we face a harsh reality. Serbia not only denies the genocide — it continues to justify and politically reproduce the very ideology that made it possible.
Denial in Serbia does not stop with political leaders. It is embedded in academic institutions, in the media, in intellectual circles, and in the church.
Serbian elites — writers, professors, historians, clergy — continue to promote the idea of a “Serb world.” This is nothing less than a euphemism for the old Greater Serbia project. A project pursued through war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and ultimately, genocide.
The “Serb world” is not merely a cultural aspiration. It is a geopolitical ambition. It is built on the erasure of non-Serb communities from territories claimed as “historically Serb.”
Bosnia is still at risk
Srebrenica was the most brutal expression of that logic. The killing of over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys was meant to ensure that a future Republika Srpska would be ethnically pure, safe zone free.
In that sense, the ongoing secessionist policy of Republika Srpska is not new. It is not separate. It is the political finalization of the genocide.
It aims to legitimize the territorial outcome of ethnic cleansing. To cement the results of violence. To institutionalize apartheid through laws, symbols, and a false narrative of victimhood.
By denying genocide while glorifying its perpetrators — Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić — Serbia insults the memory of the victims. But more than that, it sustains the ideological infrastructure that made the genocide possible.
So too is the region
This is not only dangerous for Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is dangerous for the region. It undermines the credibility of international law.
In the spirit of the UN Resolution on Srebrenica, we must state clearly:
There can be no reconciliation without truth.
There can be no peace while war criminals are celebrated.
And there can be no stability if the results of genocide are normalized through secession.
The international community must not allow Republika Srpska’s push for independence to go unchallenged. To allow it would be to reward genocide. It would permanently fracture Bosnia and Herzegovina.
It would send a dangerous message to the world: that crimes against humanity can succeed, if pursued with enough persistence.
What Serbia needs to do
In the spirit of the UN Resolution on Srebrenica, we must insist: Serbia must confront its past honestly.
This means acknowledging the genocide. But it also means dismantling state-sponsored narratives that glorify its perpetrators.
It means introducing genocide education into school curricula. Removing war criminals from the pantheon of national “heroes.” Supporting civil society actors who courageously speak the truth.
Meanwhile, civil society in Serbia — along with the brave individuals who stand against denial — must be supported.
They are few. Often silenced. But they are the future.
They hold the key to an honest reckoning. And to a Serbia that can one day return to Europe. Not as a revisionist force, but as a democratic partner rooted in truth and accountability.
True reconciliation begins with truth. Without it, peace remains superficial. A fragile pause, not a durable foundation.
Serbia resists, but Europe should insist
However, Serbia has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of political will and institutional capacity to confront its own past. Instead of fostering accountability and reconciliation, the political elite continues to engage in historical revisionism, the glorification of war criminals, and the denial of atrocities such as the Srebrenica genocide.
In this context, the role of the European Union and the Council of Europe is not only important—it is irreplaceable. These institutions hold a unique responsibility and capacity to shape the normative and institutional frameworks that Serbia has so far failed to establish on its own.
In the spheres of education, culture, and media, their involvement is crucial.
By reinforcing these three pillars, the EU and the Council of Europe can help lay the foundation for a democratic and self-reflective Serbian society. This is essential not only for Serbia’s own future, but also for the stability and democratic integrity of the wider region.
Srebrenica is not only a place of mourning — it is a call to action for all international organizations and institutions whose mandate is to uphold fundamental human rights and freedoms.
In commemorating the genocide in Srebrenica, they confront one of the greatest challenges of the post-1995 world: the imperative to prevent further descent into human rights atrocities and genocidal violence. These horrors, as we are painfully aware — and as the UN Secretary-General has described — are “beyond atrocious, beyond inhuman.”
So far, we have failed to truly “learn the lessons” of Srebrenica. Let us hope it is not too late.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Diplomacy should follow the 12-day war
Former IAEA inspector Pantelis Ikonomou writes:
As the ceasefire between Israel and Iran continues, the new reality is characterized by some critical certainties and uncertainties.
Certainties:
1. The Israeli and US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities have caused significant damage to its nuclear program.
2. Tehran has expelled the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, suspending indefinitely inspections of its nuclear program. But Iran remains a member of the IAEA and party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
3. Tehran’s regime remains in place, enjoying enhanced internal popular and military support. Moscow and Beijing have also confirmed their strategic alliances with Tehran.
Uncertainties:
1. Indeterminate loss of knowledge on Iran’s nuclear program, resulting from the suspension of IAEA inspections by Tehran.
2. This knowledge was already incomplete, based on confirmation of Tehran’s nuclear declarations and not of their completeness. It did not cover potential clandestine nuclear material, facilities, and activities.
3. The current quantitative and qualitative level of Iran’s uranium enrichment is unknown. Did Iran rescue its highly enriched uranium and advanced centrifuges, to what extent and where?
4. Whether Tehran will remain party to the NPT and eventually continue nuclear inspections is unpredictable.
5. Next Israeli and American moves to obliterate Iran’s potential nuclear weapons capability are vague.
Implications
The military operations and subsequent ceasefire were a high-risk undertaking. It was based on the expectation Iran would not withstand maximum pressure, abandoning at least its controversial nuclear activities.
However, Tehran had already resisted strong pressures after the 2018 US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). This suggests incredible resilience and strategic persistence in continuing its controversial nuclear program. Iran may try to reconstitute its nuclear capability. However, this time the program would most probably include a declared, not just a possible, military dimension.
A new attack could lead to all-out war with tragic and irreversible consequences. War in areas with nuclear processing facilities could result in radioactive contamination of the environment. Or, in case of an attack to the Bushehr nuclear power reactor, to a Chernobyl-type nuclear catastrophe.
Revival of a serious diplomatic process is a necessity. Iran’s possible exit from the NPT will encourage would-be proliferators. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan, South Korea, and others are watching attentively.
The United Nations’ global architecture for defending peace and security is severely endangered. Its credibility needs to be restored.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Iran isn’t Israel’s only problem
American politicians are quarreling about whether the US bombs obliterated Iran’s nuclear program or just seriously damaged it. Meanwhile, the situations in Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen, and Lebanon are deteriorating.
War crimes in Gaza
The Israel Defense Force denies targeting civilians in Gaza. But some of its soldiers disagree. And some of Israel’s politicians aren’t being shy about wanting to displace the Palestinians there. Both targeting civilians and displacement of them are war crimes, as is denying them humanitarian assistance. Prime Minister Netanyahu himself told a Knesset committee that
The only inevitable outcome will be the desire of Gazans to emigrate outside of the Gaza Strip.
The May operation he was referring to was named Gideon’s Chariots. The 1948 Operation Gideon aimed to expel Arabs from an area of the Jordan Valley. The Old Testament’s Gideon was a military commander who led a small Jewish army against a much larger Midianite force. But his career ends in heretical idolatry and without honor to him and his family. That makes the name of the operation doubly, if unintentionally, appropriate.
Even if large numbers of Palestinians were to leave Gaza, it is not clear that would help Israel. Some would settle in Sinai, which has a longer border with Israel than Gaza. Egypt doesn’t want them, but it will be difficult to avoid taking some. Others would join the more distant diaspora, with no friendly feelings towards Israelis or Jews in general. Palestinian terrorism worldwide is still within living memory. It is not a fond one.
Crimes in the West Bank
In the West Bank, Jewish settlers commit most violent crimes, with little provocation by Palestinians or intervention on the part of the Israeli security forces:
But the IDF is increasingly involved in violence against civilians as well:
Israel has embraced impunity. The settlers and the security forces are doing what they please. They show little regard for the welfare of Israelis or Jews in general.
The north and south are problematic too
The Houthis in Yemen have returned to attacking Israel with missiles and drones. They are upholding the agreement not to attack US ships in the Red Sea. But that is doing little to revive commerce and passage through the Suez Canal. Traffic there was off by well more than 50% between 2023 and 2024. The dip is continuing. Few commercial ships fly US flags.
In the north, Israel claims Hezbollah is reconstituting. The IDF is renewing attacks in southern Lebanon and remains in five locations inside Lebanon. That puts its President and Prime Minister, committed to moving Hezbollah north of the Litani River, in an awkward spot.
The regional war
A regional war many feared has arrived.
Arab states are staying out of it. Syria has done little or nothing to prevent Israel from using its airspace. It is too weak to force Israel out of newly occupied Syrian territory along their border. Jordan and Egypt speak out against mistreatment of the Palestinians, but neither wants more Palestinian refugees. The Gulf states are doing likewise. Qatar took a hit from Iran aimed at its American guests but remains committed to its mediator role. For many Arabs, watching Israel clobber Iran and its proxies is a find spectator sport.
But Israeli diplomacy is a far cry from its military prowess. Prime Minister Netanyahu played President Trump like a violin. He gave the narcissist an opportunity to join a winning war. Trump couldn’t resist. But an agreement to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is now a distant mirage. A political solution to the military violence in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Yemen also seems far off.
RSS - Posts
