The Trump administration is considering allowing selected U.S.-Russia economic agreements to proceed before a peace settlement in Ukraine, even as Congress sends President Donald Trump a new sanctions package designed to increase financial pressure on Moscow.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is weighing whether economic cooperation with Russia could begin before the war in Ukraine is formally resolved, potentially reversing an earlier position that major business agreements with Moscow should follow, rather than precede, a peace settlement.
Two people close to the negotiations said the White House is considering allowing some economic deals to move ahead while fighting continues, according to The New York Times.
A U.S. official familiar with the discussions told the newspaper that early agreements could demonstrate to Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials that Washington is serious about establishing a different relationship with Moscow.
The administration believes the prospect of tangible economic benefits could potentially give Russian political and business leaders an additional incentive to support ending the war, according to the report.
No agreements have been announced, and the administration has not publicly identified which industries or projects might be considered.
The deliberations would represent a change from Trump’s position last year that economic agreements with Russia should wait until the conflict was settled.
The possibility is being explored as Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner attempt to restart negotiations that have made little progress toward resolving the territorial and security disputes separating Russia and Ukraine.
Witkoff and Kushner met Putin in Moscow for more than three hours Sept. 5.
Kremlin foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov described those discussions as “highly useful” but gave no indication that the meeting produced a breakthrough. He said economic cooperation received significant attention alongside negotiations over Ukraine.
“The talks went beyond a mere exchange of views on resolving the Ukrainian crisis. Economic issues and potential major, mutually beneficial Russian-American projects were discussed in some detail,” Ushakov said following the meeting.
Russia has previously raised the possibility of expanded U.S.-Russian business cooperation involving rare-earth minerals, aluminum, Arctic development, energy and natural gas.
The discussions suggest Washington is considering whether such economic opportunities could become part of the negotiating process itself rather than a reward available only after an agreement ending hostilities.
Major obstacles remain.
Russia continues to demand control over Ukrainian territory in the Donbas that Russian forces do not currently occupy. Kyiv has rejected demands that it voluntarily withdraw from Ukrainian-held portions of the region.
The disagreement over territory remains one of the central barriers to a broader settlement.
Ukraine is nevertheless preparing for another possible round of trilateral negotiations with Russia and the United States in October.
Kyrylo Budanov, chief of staff to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said Kyiv is preparing for renewed three-way discussions after the earlier negotiating process stalled. Russia has indicated that it remains open to talks but has not confirmed the details of an October meeting.
Witkoff and Kushner traveled to both Moscow and Kyiv in early September in an effort to restore momentum.
Their Moscow visit marked their first trip there since January. Ushakov said the American envoys presented Putin with several ideas for a possible settlement, though neither government publicly disclosed the proposals.
The potential use of economic incentives is developing at the same time Congress is moving in the opposite direction by increasing economic pressure on Russia.
The House voted 262-159 Wednesday to approve a sweeping sanctions package targeting Russian officials, financial institutions, the country’s energy and defense sectors and networks used to evade existing sanctions.
The Senate passed the legislation 86-11 in August.
The bill, named for the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., now goes to Trump, whose administration has indicated support for the legislation.
Among its provisions are new sanctions aimed at Russia’s so-called shadow fleet of tankers used to transport energy while circumventing Western restrictions.
The legislation would also authorize Trump to impose tariffs of as much as 100% on major purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas.
Those provisions could affect countries that continue buying substantial quantities of Russian energy and are intended to reduce the revenue available to Moscow during the war.
Supporters of the bill argue that greater economic pressure will make continued warfare more expensive for Russia and increase Putin’s incentive to negotiate.
The White House’s consideration of early business agreements presents a different but potentially complementary strategy: threatening Russia with additional costs while offering possible economic benefits if relations improve.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned Thursday that additional American sanctions would complicate efforts to reach a negotiated settlement.
Russia has repeatedly argued that sanctions should be removed as relations with Washington normalize, while U.S. lawmakers supporting the new bill contend that easing pressure before Moscow changes its conduct would remove negotiating leverage.
The White House has not publicly explained how potential economic agreements would interact with the new sanctions legislation if Trump signs it.
The administration would retain considerable discretion under portions of the legislation, including authority governing tariffs on countries purchasing Russian energy.
The competing approaches reflect a broader debate over what could change Moscow’s calculations after more than four and a half years of war.
Some lawmakers believe stronger financial restrictions are necessary before Russia will make meaningful concessions.
Administration officials considering economic incentives appear to be examining whether another form of leverage could come from demonstrating that normalized relations would bring substantial commercial opportunities.
Putin’s government has publicly expressed interest in rebuilding economic ties with the United States.
During the Sept. 5 Moscow meeting, Ushakov said potential “major, mutually beneficial Russian-American projects” were discussed in detail, confirming that economic cooperation was part of conversations that otherwise focused on ending the conflict.
No evidence has emerged that those discussions produced agreements.
The administration also has not said whether any business arrangement would require preliminary steps from Russia, such as a ceasefire, territorial compromise or other concessions.
For Ukraine, the central issue remains whether any U.S.-Russia economic engagement would contribute to a settlement acceptable to Kyiv.
Ukrainian leaders continue to reject Moscow’s demand for territory Russia has not captured and maintain that any peace arrangement must protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.
The prospect of October trilateral talks provides another potential opportunity to test whether the renewed diplomacy can narrow those differences.
The White House is therefore considering two forms of economic leverage simultaneously: a congressional sanctions package that could further restrict Russia’s economy and possible commercial agreements intended to show Moscow what improved relations could offer.
Whether either approach can break the negotiating stalemate remains unresolved, and the administration has yet to authorize or publicly identify any specific U.S.-Russia business deal while the war continues.
Original article
Comments