Trump calls Putin talk a "win," but Zelensky probably should not trust either man because they are planning a con to divide "certain assets" belonging to Ukraine

War's destruction in Ukraine (Vatican News)

 

U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russia counterpart Vladimir Putin connected via phone conference for three hours yesterday to discuss issues related to a possible peace agreement that would end Russia's war with neighboring Ukraine. Were the talks what they appear to be in news accounts? We see signs that the answer is no, likely because history tells us Trump and Putin are integrity-challenged "leaders" whose words and actions tend to involve ulterior motives and rarely can be trusted. What might their motives be this time? They likely involve a planned con on Ukraine, a pivotal party that did not participate in the talks. In fact, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky said he hopes soon to talk to Trump to learn details about the talks. What were those details? The Hill provides some answers under the headline "Putin backs limited 30-day ceasefire in call with Trump." Laura Kelly and Brett Samuels report:

President Trump spoke for nearly three hours with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday amid the U.S. push to secure Moscow’s agreement to a ceasefire in its war against Ukraine.

While the White House gave no indication in a readout of the meeting that there was a tangible agreement on a long-term ceasefire, there appeared to be consensus that any pause in fighting would begin with a halt in attacks on energy infrastructure.

Trump and Putin also discussed potential ceasefire agreements on matters of energy, infrastructure and maritime.

“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” the White House said in a readout. “These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.”

Trump has previously said he plans to visit Saudi Arabia to meet with Putin to further discuss the ceasefire, but the precise timing of that meeting is yet to be determined by the White House.

Russian state media reported that Trump proposed a 30-day pause on attacks on energy infrastructure, and that Putin “responded positively.”

Putin immediately gave the Russian military the corresponding command, the Kremlin said in a readout of the call, and committed to talks about halting fighting in the Black Sea. 

But among Putin’s demands in the call included “the need to stop” Ukraine from mobilizing troops and rearming its army. The Russian leader laid out demands that working toward a resolution of the war should include “complete cessation of foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv.”

Putin told Trump that a prisoner exchange with Ukraine will be carried out Wednesday, with the transfer of 175 people on each side. The Kremlin said Russia will transfer 23 seriously wounded Ukrainian soldiers being treated in Russian hospitals. 

Trump and Putin also notably spoke “broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts,” the White House said. And they discussed efforts to stop the spread of “strategic weapons”; Trump has previously spoken about a desire to end nuclear proliferation.

The White House readout of the call made no mention about territorial concessions, which had been a key point of contention ahead of peace talks. Ukraine’s backers have argued Kyiv should not have to relinquish its territory to Russia.

Does that account, and similar ones at other news outlets, address all issues surrounding the talks? The answer appears to be no. We can find no report that includes talk of the U.S. and Russia "dividing certain assets" that belong to Ukraine. Yet, that was a prominent part of press reports on  Tuesday (3/17/25). It does not appear in most, or all, reports on the talks yesterday (3/18/25). Why is that? Apparently none of the source material mentioned it, even though it was widely discussed in the press the day before the talks. How do we know? This is from an account at The New York Times under the headline "Trump Says He Will Discuss Ukraine’s Land and Power Plants in Call With Putin on Tuesday; President Trump said negotiations over a U.S.-backed cease-fire proposal had continued over the weekend and that discussions had included “dividing up certain assets”:

President Trump said he would speak with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Tuesday about the war in Ukraine, noting that there had already been discussions about “dividing up certain assets” as the president continued to express some optimism that Moscow would agree to a cease-fire proposal.

“We want to see if we can bring that war to an end,” Mr. Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday evening. “Maybe we can. Maybe we can’t, but I think we have a very good chance.”

Mr. Trump said that progress on negotiations had been made over the weekend, and there have been ongoing conversations about concessions over land and power plants.

“I think we’ll be talking about land, it’s a lot of land. It’s a lot different than it was before the war, as you know,” Mr. Trump said.

Are Trump and Putin planning to essentially steal Ukraine's land -- and perhaps other assets? That's how it sounds. How would Zelensky react to such a plan? Probably not well. No wonder he was not involved in the talks. This is from an account at CNN under the headline "Trump says Ukraine-Russia peace talks looking at ‘dividing up certain assets’": 

Negotiators working to end the Russia-Ukraine war have already discussed “dividing up certain assets,” US President Donald Trump said Sunday as he announced he planned to speak to Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Tuesday. . . . 

Land concessions are among the most sensitive issues left to hammer out. American officials have said Ukraine will likely need to cede territory for the war to end, and Putin has made it a condition of entering into a ceasefire.

But conceding territory has long been a nonstarter for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and some European leaders have voiced concern about appearing to reward Putin for launching his invasion. Russia has also made clear it has no desire to give up the swathes of Ukrainian territory it has occupied. . . .

Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff told CNN on Sunday that the ongoing talks over Ukraine were productive, but didn’t say how the matter of territorial concessions would be resolved.

This is from a joint report at Bloomberg/Yahoo!News under the headline "Putin Spurns a Ukraine Ceasefire But Trump Calls Talk a Win":

President Donald Trump said the US and Russia are already talking about dividing “assets” as part of a push to end the fighting in Ukraine, the latest sign that he may be preparing to sacrifice Kyiv’s interests when he speaks with Vladimir Putin on Tuesday. . . . 

Even the faint progress on Tuesday for Trump’s high-profile but controversial ceasefire proposal could be enough to silence some criticism that he’s selling out the Ukrainians. It may even constitute a political win at a time when some analysts feared Trump might formally recognize Russia’s sovereignty over Ukraine’s Crimea region or make some other concession.

“I was expecting the worst,” retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of US Army Europe, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “The fact we did not hear those is better than if we had. But we have to be very clear — I think Vladimir Putin has zero interest in any true long-term settlement as long as he remains in power, and his objective still remains the destruction of Ukraine.”

What does Zelensky make of all this talk about his country? It's hard to tell because he's been kept in the dark? From a report at The Hill under the headline "Zelensky eager for details on Trump-Putin talk":

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday called for more details in President Trump’s proposal for a ceasefire with Russia that would spare energy and infrastructure targets, warning that Russian President Vladimir Putin is pressuring Ukraine in ground operations. 

Zelensky made his remarks in a press conference organized shortly after Trump held a phone call with Putin to discuss the terms of a potential ceasefire. Putin held back committing to a U.S.-pitched ceasefire that Ukraine accepted last week and that would halt ground and air attacks. 

“We support all steps aimed at the end of the war. We will support them. But in order to support them, we need to understand what exactly we support,” Zelensky said in remarks in Ukrainian and shared by Reuters. 

“When President Trump has time, he is a busy man, when he has time, he can call me any time; he has my phone number. We are ready to talk through further steps, with pleasure.”

The White House did not return a request for comment by The Hill on whether Trump has plans to call Zelensky.

The Ukrainian leader said a prisoner exchange set for Wednesday will demonstrate a will and desire to end the war, on the part of Russia. But he said Kyiv is skeptical in trusting the Russians, saying there is no trust in Putin to hold to a truce. 

“That’s why I am saying we need to understand how it will work technically so that it will not depend on their desire only. That is it,” Zelensky said. 

Zelensky said Putin is intent on conducting offensive operations in key areas of Ukrainian territory, which Moscow claims it annexed but does not have full control. This includes the Ukrainian oblasts of Zaporizhia, the site of a critical nuclear power plant, and the areas of Sumy and Kharkiv in the northeast of the country, on the border with Russia. 

“Putin wants to conduct a few offensive operations,” Zelensky said. “He will try to do it. For what? To put maximum amount of pressure on Ukraine. When will it happen? Trust me, he will try to do it in the nearest few months.”

Zelensky also spoke out about demands Putin raised in the call with Trump, that any ceasefire would require Ukraine to halt recruiting new soldiers and stop rearmament. Zelensky also rejected Putin’s calls for the U.S. to end military assistance for Ukraine. 

Trump briefly halted U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing but restored it when Zelensky agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. 

“[Putin] saw that the United States can take steps [to stop military aid and intelligence sharing] and that is why he is raising topics which he thinks may work in his favor. It happened before, so why not to do it again. But once again, it means weakening of the Ukrainian army,” Zelensky said. 

“I think military aid will continue. We have aid from both the United States and our European colleagues. We are constantly in touch with them. I am certain there will be no betrayal from the partners’ side and that the flow of military aid will continue.”

Scott Horton, a lawyer with an eye for news -- who produced keen reporting on the Don Siegelman case -- exposes Elon Musk's ties to Putin; Horton's insights on my UAB termination speak to attacks on a free press

(VOA)

The FBI for years tracked Elon Musk's interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the bureau kept what they learned from the public, ensuring voters would know nothing about it when they went to the polls last November 5 and gave Donald Trump a victory over Democrat Kamala Harris, including wins in seven swing states. Despite spending almost all of his professional life on the East Coast, Trump even won the western states of Arizona and Nevada, right next door to Harris' home state of California. It was a stunning performance that almost certainly would not have happened without the assistance of Musk, who endorsed Trump in July 2024, shortly after an alleged assassination attempt of the candidate in Butler, PA. 

Robert Scott Horton, who long has been one of our most articulate voices on matters of justice in the United States and beyond, writes at his Facebook page that Americans had a vested interest in knowing about Musk's connections to Putin because the billionaire -- reportedly worth $335.2 billion (per Forbes) and long touted as the world's richest person -- has made a habit of parroting Kremlin talking points, Horton writes:

As we will shortly learn, for years the FBI tracked Elon Musk's nefarious dealings with Vladimir Putin and his agents and decided to do nothing whatsoever about it. Indeed, they decided to keep what they learned secret, so that American voters knew nothing about it when they went to the polls in 2024. "For years, he has increasingly regurgitated Kremlin talking points, especially regarding Ukraine. In late 2022, with Russian troops starting to be pushed out of much of eastern Ukraine, Musk began broadcasting Kremlin talking points to halt Ukrainian advances. He started peddling Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian territories like Crimea are “absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia”—and that Russia would resort to nuclear war if Crimea was threatened by Kyiv. He further peddled a supposed “peace plan” that would not only return Ukraine to neutrality—the same neutrality Ukraine enjoyed when Russia first invaded in 2014—but further force Ukraine to give up its claims to Crimea.

Does Horton know what he's talking about? He's had a long and distinguished career in law, journalism, and academia, with an emphasis on human rights. In Alabama he is well known for his extensive reporting on the political prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman during the George W. Bush administration. (Also see The Pork Barrel World of Judge Mark Fuller, Judge Fuller: A Siegelman Grudge Match? and 2003 Affidavit Raises More Serious Questions About Siegelman Judge.)

Horton earned his J.D. at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin. He worked at two New York-based law firms (Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, along with DLA Piper in London). He was a lecturer at Columbia University and a contributing editor at Harper's Magazine.

I should note that I have first-hand experience with how Scott Horton handles a sensitive story. On Dec. 31, 2008, he reported at Harper's about my unlawful termination at UAB (For more details on what happened to me at UAB, please see this link, and this link.) Under the headline "The Argus-Eyed University," Horton wrote about my dreadful experience in the workplace with professionalism and care.

While some official types at UAB probably did not care for the story, Horton was fair to everyone involved. The following paragraphs are examples of how Horton approached his work:

We could hardly end 2008 without delivering a George Orwell Honorable Mention to the University of Alabama at Birmingham for its truly extraordinary “acceptable use” policy on employee Internet use. There’s nothing strange about the language of the policy–in fact it’s pedestrian (the Internet “may not be used for any activity which is destructive, disruptive, or illegal” it says). But how the university interprets and applies this prohibition might surprise an observer–unless, of course, the observer is attuned to the peculiarities of Alabama politics.

Case in point: The university recently fired Roger Shuler, a long-time public relations employee who blogs on legal developments under the moniker “the Legal Schnauzer,” apparently expressing concern in a grievance hearing over the fact that he regularly visited and read Harper’s. After The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the firing, the university posted a credibility-straining assertion that the firing was “based solely on work performance.” Also according to the Chronicle:

The university told The Raw Story that Mr. Shuler had not been fired for blogging, but it would not comment further. In June an appeals committee at the university voted to overturn Mr. Shuler’s dismissal. But he says the university recently told him that, while he could be rehired, he would not get his former job back.

Shuler says the decision to fire him was based on the political content of his blog posts, which were critical of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and one of his key allies, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. According to Shuler, the firing occurred only a few months after one of Riley’s political cronies threatened him with the loss of his job because of his blogging. Indeed, to the university’s chagrin, his final review session was taped, and portions which have now been published suggest that the primary concern of his reviewers was that he was publicly critical of the state’s political powers.

That is spot-on accurate and fair to everyone involved. If some folks at UAB didn't like it, well, that's because they were lying when they said I was fired because of my work performance. Anita Bonasera, the university's own HR specialist, admitted to me -- in a phone conversation I recorded -- that I was fired because of my blog, especially my reporting on the Siegelman case. You can read the relevant parts of the transcript and view a video that features audio of the Bonasera phone call at this link. Horton portrayed UAB's spokespeople as liars, and that is exactly what they are.

My main point: Scott Horton is a bright, talented guy and a world-class journalist and lawyer. When he writes about Elon Musk -- probably the most controversial person on the planet right now -- the public would be wise to pay attention. Horton states in clear, straightforward language that Musk is a deceptive individual, particularly when it comes to the interests of Vladimir Putin:

In late 2022, with Russian troops starting to be pushed out of much of eastern Ukraine, Musk began broadcasting Kremlin talking points to halt Ukrainian advances. He started peddling Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian territories like Crimea are “absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia”—and that Russia would resort to nuclear war if Crimea was threatened by Kyiv. He further peddled a supposed “peace plan” that would not only return Ukraine to neutrality—the same neutrality Ukraine enjoyed when Russia first invaded in 2014—but further force Ukraine to give up its claims to Crimea.

All of it added up to a sudden pro-Kremlin shift in Musk’s public rhetoric—and a complete shift away from the backing for Ukraine he’d initially exhibited. For those familiar with the region and Russian politics, Musk’s additional calls to have Ukrainian water flow to the peninsula, while also dubbing Ukraine’s claims to Crimea as “Khruschev’s mistake,” were immediate red flags, directly parroting Kremlin rhetoric. “It’s very clear that Elon Musk is transmitting a message for Putin,” Russia expert Fiona Hill said at the time. Soon thereafter, we learned that Musk had specifically blocked a Ukrainian military mission from targeting the peninsula, with Musk waffling in the face of Russian nuclear threats—arguably the only time Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling has actually worked.

 

Now we know how, and why, Musk suddenly lurched toward supporting Putin—and why he’s continued down that path since. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Musk has spoken multiple times, including this year, with high-level Russian officials—including Putin. In addition to pushing the kinds of talking points Musk then regurgitated, the Kremlin further encouraged Musk to block his Starlink satellites from operating over Taiwan, “as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.”

 

Trump administration appears to shrug off court orders involving deportations to El Salvador and Venezuela, setting the stage for a clash with U.S. judges

 

Prison guards prepare deportees for transfer to a confinement center in El Salvador (AP)

 

The Trump administration over the weekend appeared to ignore a federal judge's order that it cease using an obscure 1798 law to deport migrants first to El Salvador and then Venezuela. The actions in the case, which remain unclear in some regards, could set the Trump presidency on a collision course with the federal judiciary in what some have feared would spark a constitutional crisis, according to a report at The New York Times (NYT). Under the headline "With Deportations, Trump Steps Closer to Showdown With Judicial Branch, Mattathias Schwartz writes:

The Trump administration moved one large step closer to a constitutional showdown with the judicial branch of government when airplane loads of Venezuelan detainees deplaned in El Salvador even though a federal judge had ordered that the planes reverse course and return the detainees to the United States.

The right-wing president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, bragged that the 238 detainees who had been aboard the aircraft were transferred to a Salvadoran “Terrorism Confinement Center,” where they would be held for at least a year.

“Oopsie … Too late,” Mr. Bukele wrote in a social media post on Sunday morning that was recirculated by the White House communications director, Steven Cheung.

Around the same time, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in another social media post, thanked Mr. Bukele for a lengthy post detailing the migrants’ incarceration.

“This sure looks like contempt of court to me,” said David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University. “You can turn around a plane if you want to.”

As to a lack of clarity surrounding the matter, much of it is driven by uncertainty about the times certain events took place. Schwartz explains:

Some details of the government’s actions remained unclear, including the exact time the planes landed. In a Sunday afternoon filing, the Trump administration said the State Department and Homeland Security Department were “promptly notified” of the judge’s written order when it was posted to the electronic docket at 7:26 p.m. Eastern time on Saturday. The filing implied that the government had a different legal authority for deporting the Venezuelans besides the one blocked by the judge, which could provide a basis for them to remain in El Salvador while the order is appealed.

The administration said the five plaintiffs who filed suit to block their deportations — the suit that yielded the judge’s order — had not been deported.

On Sunday, legal analysts were still stitching together the timeline, trying to determine where the planes were shortly before 7 p.m. Eastern time on Saturday — and how close the Trump administration was to open defiance of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.

That was when Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Trump administration to cease its use of an obscure wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, as a pretext for the expulsion of migrants, and immediately return anyone it was expelling under the act to the United States.

Regardless of the timing, Judge Boasberg’s order appeared to have been brushed aside by the Trump administration, which went ahead and turned the Venezuelans over to the government of El Salvador for detention. In touting the event, Mr. Rubio made no mention of Judge Boasberg’s order. On Saturday, the judge had ordered the government to return anyone removed under the Alien Enemies Act to U.S. soil, “however that’s accomplished — whether turning around the plane or not.”

The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, issued a statement on Sunday denying that the administration had refused to comply with the order, and questioning the judge’s authority to issue it. She said Boasberg had no "jurisdiction" to issue the order, and it had "no lawful basis." Leavitt did not cite any law to support those claims.

In a 25-page appellate filing on Sunday, Justice Department lawyers called the order by Judge Boasberg, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a “massive, unauthorized imposition on the Executive’s authority.” Mr. Trump’s actions, they argued, “are not subject to judicial review” because of what they said was the presidency’s inherent constitutional authority over national security and foreign policy matters, and that the federal courts as a whole lacked jurisdiction over his exercise of a “war power.”

This is the latest chapter in a clash driven mainly by Trump's tendency to issue executive orders of dubious merit, including many that appeared to involve no legal research before they were written and signed. Schwartz reports:

Federal judges have been clashing with the Trump administration for weeks over dozens of executive actions that the courts have tried to put on temporary hold while their legality is assessed. In some cases, plaintiffs who sued the administration and obtained favorable judicial orders have returned to court saying the administration was failing to comply with them.

On Friday, a kidney transplant specialist and professor at Brown University’s medical school was deported from the United States, even though a court had ordered her expulsion temporarily blocked, according to her attorney and federal court documents.

But the mockery by Mr. Bukele — and the tacit endorsements of it by senior administration officials — seemed to push Washington closer to a constitutional crisis, critics of the administration said Sunday.

“Court order defied,” wrote Mark S. Zaid, a Washington lawyer whose legal fights with the administration have put him in Mr. Trump’s cross hairs. In a social media post, Mr. Zaid said the events on Saturday and Sunday were the “start of true constitutional crisis.”

Other experts were concerned but more cautious.

“We need a little more development of the facts,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “If the report is true about timing, then it does seem like the administration has ignored a binding court order. And if that’s the case, then the courts must act swiftly to punish the Trump administration. We cannot have the executive branch ignoring the orders of the judicial branch.”

On Saturday, the Trump administration claimed authority under the Alien Enemies Act to immediately deport any Venezuelan citizen age 14 or older who the administration says is a member of Tren de Aragua, a violent criminal gang that was designated a foreign terrorist organization in February. In its proclamation on Saturday, the White House called the gang a “hybrid criminal state” that was “perpetrating an invasion” of the United States, justifying use of the 1798 law, which had only been invoked three times before — for the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.

Earlier in the day, anticipating that step, five Venezuelans in federal custody filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that their expulsion on that basis would violate federal law and the Constitution’s guarantee to due process. Judge Boasberg soon issued a restraining order blocking their removal.

Then, in a hearing on Saturday afternoon, lawyers for the plaintiffs told the judge that two planes carrying other Venezuelans expelled under the Alien Enemies Act were “in the air.” From the bench, shortly before 7 p.m., Judge Boasberg ordered the government to turn the planes around and bring the detainees back. Then he issued a second written order barring the government from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport any suspected members of Tren De Aragua.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has appeared to violate a court order. In fact, it's almost becoming a habit, Schwartz writes:

The flights to El Salvador marked the second time in quick succession that the administration has been accused of deporting someone in violation of a court order. Lawyers for Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a physician specializing in kidney transplant patients and a professor at Brown University’s medical school, said she was deported on Friday despite a court order to the contrary from Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts. On Sunday, Judge Sorokin gave the government a Monday deadline to respond to charges that it had “willfully disobeyed” his order.

Skye Perryman, chief executive of Democracy Forward, which has helped bring a multitude of lawsuits against the Trump administration, said she still expects the government to comply with court orders.

“We will continue to work through the courts to ensure that orders are faithfully executed and — if not — that there is accountability for the government,” she said in a statement on Sunday.

White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said on Friday that court orders blocking Mr. Trump’s agenda were “unconstitutional and unfair.” That added to speculation, prompted by statements made by Mr. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance on social media, that the White House might openly defy the judiciary, which under the Constitution is a branch of government equal in authority to the executive.

Mr. Super, the Georgetown law professor, said the Justice Department’s arguments for deference to the president’s sole power to conduct foreign policy may be weighed by an appeals court when it considers whether to uphold Judge Boasberg’s order, but they do not provide a justification for violating the order.

“You have to comply with court orders until they’re reversed,” he said. “Otherwise, you and I become our own courts. We follow what we think is right, we violate what we think is wrong, and the judges may as well go home.”

AOC leads the charge against Schumer as Dems seem tired of leaders who show weakness when strength is needed -- and the base wants to fight Trump, Musk

AOC: Mobilizing the troops against Schumer (Getty)

(Note: This post includes an update at the end bout the results of last night's vote on the budget bill.)

Democrats are seething after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced he would vote with Republicans to help them avoid a government shutdown that could take effect at midnight. Some Dems are so mad they are encouraging Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Ortez (AOC, D-NY) to run against Schumer when he's up for re-election in 2008. In the meantime, AOC is trying to mobilize against siding with Republicans as they struggle to pass their own budget bill, even though they hold majorities in both houses of Congress. In essence, AOC's message is this: "Don't help Republicans when they are down. Let them figure it out themselves, without help from us."

Are Democrats finally ready to stand up to Trump, Musk, and their allies in Congress? That seems to be the primary question at the heart of the matter -- and the answer appears to be a resounding yes, according to a report from The New Republic (TNR). Under the headline "Democrats Push AOC to Take Schumer’s Seat After Shutdown Surrender; Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has managed to do the impossible: unite almost the entire left (against him), Hafiz Rashid writes:

Senator Chuck Schumer’s decision Thursday to vote for the House GOP funding bill seems to have been the final straw for House Democrats—many of whom are now urging Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to mount a primary challenge against the Senate minority leader.

The New York congresswoman is in Leesburg, Virginia, with her Democratic colleagues for a policy retreat, and has been urging Senate counterparts to fight against the GOP continuing resolution (CR).

“I think there is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters, saying she and other House Democrats are “texting, calling, sending carrier pigeons” to get the Democratic base to rally against Schumer’s plan to support the Republican bill.

“We have time to correct course on this decision. Senate Democrats can vote no. We can correct course, and that is the most important thing in front of us right now,” added Ocasio-Cortez, calling out Democratic senators for deciding to “completely roll over and give up on protecting the Constitution.”

Privately, House Democrats, angry with Schumer, are telling her that she should run against Schumer when he is up for re-election in 2028, CNN reports, citing an unnamed member of Congress. Several Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well as others encouraged Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday night to primary the minority leader.

Schumer seems to have lit a fire under Democrats, although he probably did not think they would come after him. The big news might be this: Schumer is showing weakness at a time when Democrats want him to show strength. The party's base appears tired of leaders who approach conflict with an "I'll roll over if you rub my belly approach" when their constituents are ready to fight. Is Schumer misreading his own party? That appears to be the case. Rashid writes:

According to the unnamed representative, even centrist Democrats were “so mad” that they were “ready to write checks for AOC for Senate.” Ocasio-Cortez declined to comment on challenging Schumer, saying she was focused on getting Democrats in the Senate to vote no. She noted that all but one House Democrat opposed the GOP bill, unlike in the Senate.

“There are members of Congress who have won Trump-held districts in some of the most difficult territory in the United States who walked the plank and took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people, in order to defend Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Just to see Senate Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk, I think is a huge slap in the face. And I think there is a wide sense of betrayal if things proceed as currently planned.”

Ocasio-Cortez has been vocal and effective in criticizing President Trump and Elon Musk, calling out everything from Trump’s attempt to deport activist Mahmoud Khalil to the president’s lies about January’s deadly D.C. plane crash. While 2028 is still three years away, the New York congresswoman is visibly fighting against the Trump and Republican agenda, and drawing support from unusual places.

UPDATE:

The Senate last night narrowly averted a government shutdown at midnight, passing a G.O.P.-written stopgap spending measure after Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and a small group of Democrats joined Republicans in allowing it to advance.

The final vote to pass the spending measure, which would fund the government through Sept. 30, was 54 to 46, nearly along party lines. But the key vote came earlier, when after days of Democratic agonizing, Mr. Schumer and nine other members of his caucus supplied the votes needed to allow it to move ahead, effectively thwarting a filibuster by their own party in a bid to prevent a shutdown, according to a report at The New York Times.

The action came just hours before a midnight deadline to avoid a lapse in funding.

The spending debate inflamed intraparty tensions among Democrats that have simmered for weeks about how to mount the most effective resistance to President Trump at a time when he is taking full advantage of his governing trifecta — control of the White House, Senate and House — to trample on congressional power, slashing federal funding and firing government workers with little regard for the guardrails that normally constrain the executive branch.

Mr. Schumer’s abrupt decision to reverse himself and allow the spending legislation to advance stunned many of his colleagues and angered many Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists who were spoiling for a shutdown fight to show their determination to counter Mr. Trump. Many in his party vociferously opposed the temporary spending measure, arguing that it was a capitulation to the president that would supercharge his efforts, and those of his billionaire ally Elon Musk, to defund and dismantle broad swaths of the government.

As recently as Wednesday, Mr. Schumer was arguing strongly against the bill and proposing a monthlong alternative to allow Congress to reach an agreement on individual spending measures with specific instructions over how federal funding should be doled out.

But he reversed course on Thursday after Republicans rejected a shorter-term stopgap bill, with a shutdown looming and amid concerns that Democrats would be blamed.

Recognizing that Democrats were left with only an up-or-down alternative, Mr. Schumer argued that a shutdown would only play into the hands of Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk, ceding more power to them to commandeer federal agencies. In a shutdown, he said, the Trump administration could decide which federal workers would be deemed “nonessential” and furloughed. And he warned that Republicans would have little incentive to reopen the government.

“As bad as the C.R. is,” Mr. Schumer said on Friday morning, using shorthand for continuing resolution, “I believe that allowing President Trump to take more power is a far worse option.”

Democrats joining Mr. Schumer in voting to move it forward included several members of his leadership team — Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada — and two who have announced their plans to retire: Senators Gary Peters of Michigan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. Democratic Senators John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire also voted yes, as did Senator Angus King, the Maine independent who caucuses with their party.

Ms. Shaheen and Mr. King also voted for final passage. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was the sole Republican to oppose it.

What most concerns Democrats is that the stopgap measure does not contain the specific congressional instructions to allocate money for programs usually included in spending bills. Top Democrats, including Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the party’s lead appropriator, have warned that the lack of explicit directions would essentially create slush funds for the Trump administration at a time when it has already disregarded spending directives set by Congress.

“We have already seen how far President Trump, Elon Musk, and Russ Vought are willing to twist — and outright break — our laws to suit their will,” Ms. Murray said, referring to Russell Vought, Mr. Trump’s budget director. “But House Republicans are setting them up to make everything so far look like child’s play.”

The measure’s Democratic opponents included senators from across the ideological spectrum. A number of centrists voted against the measure, as well as those facing tough re-election contests next year.

The intraparty divide over the measure boiled down to a dispute among Democrats about which of two bad outcomes would be worse for the country. Mr. Schumer and those who voted to allow the spending patch to move forward argued that failing to do so would cause a shutdown that would give Mr. Trump maximum latitude to fund or defund whatever parts of government he saw fit to. But other Democrats said funding the government when the president was moving unilaterally to cut programs and employees would endorse his actions and cede even more congressional control.

Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who will face voters next year, said in a statement that he was against the legislation in part because it failed “to impose any constraints on the reckless and out-of-control Trump administration.”

“Both parties in Congress must fulfill our constitutional obligation to check the president,” Mr. Ossoff said.

President Trump praised Schumer for supporting the budget bill. From a report at The Hill:

President Trump on Friday congratulated Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) for opting to vote to advance the House-Republican drafted six-month government funding bill, despite pushback from liberal colleagues.

“Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing — Took ‘guts’ and courage! The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming. We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights,” Trump wrote on Trump Social.

He continued, “Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer. This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning! DJT”

Putin dons military apparel as he flips Trump a middle finger and shows zero interest in a cease-fire while his troops regain control of strategic town in Kursk region

 

Putin applies his military look (EPA-EFE)

President Vladimir Putin made it clear during a news conference yesterday that he was in no hurry to agree to a truce with Ukraine. Two days after Kyiv said it would agree to a monthlong cease-fire, Putin said he was in favor of “the idea” of a short truce, but added there were “questions we need to discuss.”

Those questions came in the form of conditions that raised doubts about whether Russia was serious in pursuing a good-faith peace agreement, according to a report at The New York Times (NYT).

Putin said the questions included whether Ukraine would be able to continue receiving arms shipments during the truce, and how the cease-fire would be enforced. He also said that he would not allow Ukrainian forces to peacefully withdraw from Russia’s Kursk region, where Russian troops have recently made progress. He encouraged them to “simply surrender.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he was not surprised, while U.S. President Donald Trump held out hope that a peace deal could be reached.

The Times' Anton Troianovski reports from Berlin under the headline "Putin Stops Far Short of Agreeing to a Cease-Fire, and Adds Tough Conditions; President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said the Russian leader had no desire to end the war, proposing conditions that made a truce unattainable:

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia yesterday did not rule out a U.S. and Ukrainian proposal for a monthlong cease-fire, but he set down numerous conditions that would most likely delay any truce — or could make one impossible to achieve.

His remarks, at a news conference in Moscow, came as U.S. officials were in Russia to discuss the cease-fire proposal that Ukraine has already agreed to.

“The idea itself is the right one, and we definitely support it,” Mr. Putin said. “But there are questions that we need to discuss, and I think that we need to talk them through with our American colleagues and partners.”

Those questions, Mr. Putin said, included whether Kyiv would be able to continue receiving arms shipments during the 30-day truce, and how the cease-fire would be monitored and enforced.

Putin's statement seemed to be a signal that he is determined to maintain the upper hand in a conflict that started when Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago. How did Zelensky respond? His remarks understandably had an "I told you so" quality to them. Troianovski reports:

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said that Mr. Putin’s comments had been “very predictable, very manipulative.”

“Putin, of course, is afraid to tell President Trump directly that he wants to continue this war, wants to kill Ukrainians,” Mr. Zelensky said in his evening address. He said the Russian leader had set so many preconditions “that nothing will work out at all, or that it will not work out for as long as possible.”

Mr. Putin also said Russia would not allow Ukrainian forces occupying land in Russia’s Kursk region to peacefully withdraw, and that the Ukrainian leadership could instead order them “to simply surrender.”

Speaking at the Kremlin with the visiting president of Belarus, Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, Mr. Putin suggested that Ukraine was much more in need of a pause in the fighting than Russia was. He appeared confident that he would be able to force Ukraine to make extensive concessions, potentially including a requirement that Ukrainian soldiers in Russia’s Kursk region surrender.

“In these conditions, it seems to me that it would be very good for the Ukrainian side if there were a cease-fire, even for 30 days,” Mr. Putin said. “And we’re in favor of it. But there are nuances.”

Mr. Putin then listed those “nuances,” starting with the Ukrainian forces still in Kursk. He said that Russia would not allow those troops to withdraw peacefully and that the Ukrainian leadership could instead order them “to simply surrender.”

Ukraine stunned Russia in August with a cross-border incursion into Kursk, seizing several hundred square miles of territory. It was the first extensive fighting on Russian territory during the war, which Mr. Putin started with a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

But Russia now appears close to pushing Ukraine out of Kursk, a development that would reduce Kyiv’s leverage in any peace talks.

Mr. Putin also suggested he might demand that Ukraine halt its mobilization of new troops and Ukraine’s Western allies stop arms deliveries, and said it was not clear how the cease-fire would be monitored along a front line of some 700 miles.

“These are all questions demanding very careful study,” Mr. Putin said.

As he has in the past, Mr. Putin said that any deal to end the fighting would need to address the “original causes” of the war — suggesting that he would push for major Western concessions, such as a reduction of NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe, though it wasn’t clear if he would make them a stipulation for a monthlong cease-fire.

But Mr. Putin also appeared to take pains to show he was ready for substantive negotiations with Mr. Trump, beginning his remarks on a cease-fire by thanking the American president for paying “so much attention to a settlement in Ukraine.”

Mr. Putin, notably, did not repeat the onerous cease-fire conditions that he laid out in a speech last summer and that Russian officials have been repeating ever since. He said at the time that Ukraine needed to withdraw in full from the four regions that Russia has claimed as its own but does not fully control.

Still, Dara Massicot, a Russian military specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called Mr. Putin’s new demands “very dangerous for Ukraine.” In effect, she argued, Mr. Putin was pushing for a scenario in which the West would not be able to help Ukraine rebuild its armed forces while Russian factories pumped out new weaponry.

He was expected to meet with Mr. Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, later on Thursday — and Mr. Putin said he might soon speak with the American president.

While Zelensky is set to dig in for the long haul, Trump still seems hopeful that a quick resolution can be reached. From the NYT report:

Mr. Trump, during a meeting with the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office on Thursday, said there were “very serious discussions” going on with Mr. Putin and others as they tried to finalize the 30-day cease-fire deal.

“We’d like to see a cease-fire from Russia,” he told reporters. When asked if he would speak with the Russian president, Mr. Trump said he would “love to meet” and talk with him.

Mr. Trump said the United States had discussed with Ukraine possible concessions as part of a peace agreement. “We’ve been discussing with Ukraine land and pieces of land that would be kept and lost, and all of the other elements of a final agreement,” Mr. Trump said, adding: “A lot of the details of a final agreement have actually been discussed.”

Here’s what else to know:

• Fighting in Kursk: Moscow’s forces have intensified a campaign to push Ukrainian forces out of Kursk, the border area where Kyiv’s troops occupied several hundred square miles of territory in a surprise incursion last August. On Thursday, Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed that Russian forces had retaken Sudzha, the main population center in the region that was captured by Ukraine last year. There was no immediate comment from Ukraine’s military.

• Putin’s dilemma: The Russian leader has seen a dizzying reversal in his geopolitical fortunes over the last month as Mr. Trump realigned American foreign policy in Russia’s favor and antagonized U.S. allies. But the emergence of a joint cease-fire proposal from the United States and Ukraine complicates things for Mr. Putin, deepening the tension between his desires for a far-reaching victory in Ukraine and close ties with Mr. Trump.

• On the front line: Dressed in fatigues, Mr. Putin visited a command post near the front in Kursk late Wednesday to cheer on his military’s ejection of Ukrainian forces from much of the territory they had been occupying in the Russian border region.

Zelensky sounded as if he had seen Putin's act before and said Russia remains the primary impediment to peace. From The Times' report:

• Mr. Zelensky said the Russian leader had set so many preconditions to a cease-fire “that nothing will work out at all, or that it will not work out for as long as possible.” He added that Mr. Putin’s remarks matched a longstanding pattern.

  “Putin often does this — he does not say ‘no’ directly, but does so in a way that practically only delays everything and makes normal decisions impossible,” Mr. Zelensky said. “We believe that all this is now another Russian manipulation.”

  Mr. Putin suggested that Ukraine was much more in need of a pause in the fighting than Russia was, and he appeared confident that he would be able to force Ukraine to make extensive concessions, potentially including a requirement that Ukrainian soldiers in Russia’s Kursk region surrender.

  “In these conditions, it seems to me that it would be very good for the Ukrainian side if there were a cease-fire, even for 30 days,” Mr. Putin said. “And we’re in favor of it. But there are nuances.”

  Mr. Zelensky vowed to continue to work with both the Americans, Europeans and “everyone in the world who wants peace, to force Russia to end the war.”

  “The only one who will delay everything, the only one who will be nonconstructive, is Russia,” Mr. Zelensky said.

  In Washington, meanwhile, Trump was striking chords of hope. Was his optimism based on reality or was he falling for a Putin con game? It likely is too early to know. Reports The Times:

  President Trump said Thursday he saw “good signals” toward finalizing a 30-day cease-fire agreement between Russia and Ukraine, as U.S. officials visiting Moscow were expected to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

  The remarks, delivered in the Oval Office while meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, came as Mr. Putin made clear he was in no hurry for a cease-fire, laying out numerous conditions before he could agree to a truce.

  “It doesn’t mean anything until we hear what the final outcome is, but they have very serious discussions going on right now with President Putin and others, and hopefully they all want to end this nightmare,” Mr. Trump said of the meetings his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, was having in Russia. “It’s a nightmare. It’s a horrible thing.”

  Mr. Trump said he hoped to speak to Mr. Putin soon. He also said the U.S. had discussed with Ukraine possible concessions as part of a peace agreement.

  “We’ve been discussing with Ukraine land and pieces of land that would be kept and lost, and all of the other elements of a final agreement,” Mr. Trump said.

  He added: “A lot of the details of a final agreement have actually been discussed.”

  Despite Mr. Trump’s years of complaints about NATO, an organization from which he has repeatedly threatened to withdraw, the meeting with Mr. Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister, proceeded amicably as the two leaders discussed areas of cooperation.

  Mr. Trump commended Mr. Rutte for “doing a fantastic job” while Mr. Rutte heaped praise on Mr. Trump, crediting him with revitalizing the organization by pushing countries to contribute more military spending.

  “I really want to work together with you in the run-up to The Hague summit to make sure that we will have a NATO which is really reinvigorated under your leadership, and we are getting there,” Mr. Rutte said, referencing this summer’s meeting in the Netherlands.

  Many American presidents have complained that other European allies do not spend enough on defense, relying instead on American protection, but Mr. Trump has escalated the rhetoric to a new level, suggesting the U.S. may not fulfill its mutual defense commitment for countries that have not contributed enough.

  Mr. Trump’s more conciliatory approach to Russia and his sweeping tariffs on the European Union have also divided the alliance and its member states, some of which are starting to explore a future that does not depend so heavily on the United States.

  Mr. Rutte, seeking to avoid the kind of confrontation that blew up Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Zelensky in early March, complimented the U.S. president and tried to steer away from conflict — at least in front of news cameras.

  When Mr. Trump was asked about his efforts to annex Greenland — a territory controlled by Denmark, a NATO member — the president noted that Mr. Rutte “could be instrumental” in making that happen.

  “We have to do it,” he said. “We really need it for national security.”

  Mr. Rutte deflected the question of the United States taking Greenland, saying he did not want to “drag NATO into that.” Instead, he pivoted to agreeing with Mr. Trump that Russia and China posed threats to the Arctic region.

  Was Putin's aggressive tone, as Trump naively hoped for a resolution, a massive show of disrespect for the U.S. president? That's how it appears.
  

  Looming over much of yesterday's discussion was a strategically significant region called Kursk. The NYT tells us why Kursk is important:

  Kursk is an area of western Russia that borders the Sumy region of Ukraine. Sumy had long been thought to be a place where Russia might try opening a new front in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022.

  But in a move that surprised even its key allies, Ukrainian troops caught Moscow off guard last summer, pouring across a thinly defended border and opening a new front themselves.

  The main objectives, one Ukrainian colonel told The New York Times, were to divert Russian troops from the grueling fighting in the eastern Donbas region of Ukraine, push Moscow’s artillery out of range of the Sumy region and damage Russian morale.

  Within weeks of the incursion, Ukraine had established control over a slice of Kursk that its officials said encompassed nearly 500 square miles of farmland and settlements. Though barely a sliver of Russia, the largest country in the world, the assault was an embarrassment for Mr. Putin. It also surprised Ukraine’s allies, including the United States, who had not been told in advance.

  The most important town in Kursk that Ukrainian forces seized was Sudzha, an administrative center with a population of around 5,000 people before the incursion.

  Analysts said that Ukraine’s offensive was a gamble, stretching its military resources at a time when Kyiv’s troops were struggling to defend a long front line in their own territory.

  Mr. Zelensky said that his military did not want to stay on Russian soil indefinitely, and that territory gained in Kursk could be used to strengthen Ukraine’s position in future negotiations with Moscow.

  How has Russia responded?

  Initially, rather than diverting large numbers of troops to defend Kursk, Mr. Putin said that eastern Ukraine remained Moscow’s main military focus. Russian troops continued their creeping advance within Ukraine, taking the town of Vuhledar in October and then pushing farther west.

  Weeks into its incursion in Kursk, Ukraine’s push slowed and its troops began gradually to lose ground as Russian forces deployed there in greater numbers.

  Then, in the fall, Russia received a boost from its ally North Korea, which deployed around 11,000 soldiers to Kursk to assist Moscow’s defense. The deployment at first unnerved Ukraine and its allies. But the North Korean troops suffered wave after wave of heavy losses and, for a time, were withdrawn from the frontline.

  In recent weeks, Russian forces, assisted by North Korean fighters, have advanced rapidly in Kursk, using drones and fighter jets to retake much of the territory that Ukraine had held. In a sign of renewed military confidence, Mr. Putin visited a command post near the front in Kursk late Wednesday, the Kremlin said. On Thursday, Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed that its forces had retaken Sudzha. There was no immediate comment from Ukraine. If confirmed, that Russian advance would leave only small pockets of Russian land along the border under Ukrainian control.