Midweek: Putin on the offensive, unsuccessful phone call, Kiev in turmoil

French President Emmanuel Macron appears ready to take a significant step toward recognizing the State of Palestine, as his second presidential term nears its end. Tensions between Macron and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have intensified, with reports describing the French president as being in a diplomatic "war" with Netanyahu.

Israeli media have reported extensively on France’s preparations to officially recognize Palestine. According to those reports, France plans to host an international conference on Palestinian statehood this June in New York, under the auspices of the United Nations, without Israel’s participation.

Macron’s intentions were first signaled during his recent visit to Egypt. The planned conference is expected to be co-hosted with Saudi Arabia. Influenced by the growing backlash against Israel’s actions in Gaza and following similar moves by several European nations last year, Macron has declared there are "no obstacles" to recognizing Palestine. His latest initiative is widely seen as a direct response to what he views as the aggressive and violent policies of Netanyahu's government.

According to "Israel Hayom", the conference will aim to create a detailed roadmap for recognizing Palestine, including concrete deadlines and mechanisms for implementation. Led by representatives from France and Saudi Arabia, the conference is expected to feature official sessions and debates. A framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state will be developed, completely bypassing Israel’s input on the matter.

This represents a major shift in diplomatic strategy. Unlike past symbolic gestures, Macron’s plan proposes tangible actions. Reports suggest the participating nations may even consider sanctions against countries or entities attempting to obstruct the recognition process.

Invitations have reportedly been sent to numerous UN member states, stating that the objective of the conference is to make Palestinian recognition irreversible, end the occupation, and work toward a permanent solution based on a two-state framework. The invitation also references the events of October 7, 2023, acknowledging the suffering of civilians on both sides—including hostages, their families, and the people of Gaza—without assigning exclusive blame.

The conference's organizers—France and Saudi Arabia—are said to support the use of UN sanctions to enforce the initiative. The process, according to the invitation, must be “rapid and irreversible,” ultimately leading to the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. To date, 147 out of 193 UN member states—about 75 percent of the international community—have recognized Palestine. These nations consider the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem to be integral parts of Palestinian territory. Given Macron’s recent moves and firm rhetoric, France appears likely to join their ranks soon.

Ukraine loses \$770 million on foreign arms deals amid wartime procurement rush

Ukraine has lost approximately \$770 million on foreign arms and ammunition purchases over the past three years, according to "The Financial Times". The losses stem from hasty procurement decisions and the high volume of orders made under urgent conditions following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. In the aftermath of the invasion, Ukraine was forced to swiftly secure weapons and ammunition from international suppliers. However, despite making advance payments for at least 30 contracts, many of the promised arms have not been delivered, were only partially fulfilled, or were substandard. Investigative findings indicate that since the beginning of the war, Ukraine has paid foreign suppliers \$770 million in advance. These funds account for a significant portion of Ukraine’s annual defense budget, which ranges from \$6 to \$8 billion.

Ukrainian law enforcement agencies are currently investigating several contracts involving foreign arms brokers. Criminal cases have been launched in connection with some of these deals, although no individuals have yet been formally charged.

One ongoing investigation involves former officials of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense’s Department of Military and Technical Policy—Thomas Nahkur and Oleksandr Liev—as well as managers from the Lviv Arsenal company and a representative of a foreign firm. They are accused of attempting to embezzle 1.5 billion hryvnias (approximately \$36.2 million) during a purchase of 100,000 mortar shells from Croatia. Prosecutors suspect that \$12.5 million in advance payments were misused through intermediaries. Both Nahkur and Liev have denied the charges, stating they were under intense pressure to procure weapons under wartime conditions.

Ukraine is now working to recover its losses through legal channels. The Ministry of Defense is attempting to reclaim \$309 million in court, while the remaining \$460 million is expected to be recovered through negotiations with suppliers.

As of January 2025, Ukraine’s international allies have spent a total of \$280 billion in aid since the start of the Russian invasion. The United States and the European Union have been the largest contributors.

The European Union has allocated \$138 billion across military, financial, and humanitarian sectors, including \$68 billion in financial and \$17 billion in humanitarian assistance. Meanwhile, the United States has contributed \$119 billion, including \$67 billion in military aid—making it the single largest military donor to Ukraine. Despite Ukraine's procurement challenges, Russia has reportedly suffered even greater financial losses. According to data from the Pentagon, Russia has spent over \$211 billion on the war and lost an estimated \$10 billion due to canceled or suspended arms sales. These figures suggest Russia's financial losses are more than 13 times higher than Ukraine’s in terms of wasted expenditure.

Trump and Putin's 3rd unsuccessful conversation

On his way back from a trip to the Middle East, U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters that he intended to speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. The world’s attention turned to Istanbul, where Putin was expected to appear on May 15. However, the Kremlin sent only a low-level delegation, signaling once again that it has no intention of halting the invasion. Following this, U.S. Vice President James David Vance stated that only a direct conversation between Trump and Putin could bring about an end to the war. As a result, a much-anticipated phone call between the two leaders was scheduled. On May 19, the world closely watched the outcome of the conversation between the White House and the Kremlin. Western media warned that the call might be dangerous for Ukraine, but Trump dismissed such concerns. It was later revealed that, prior to the conversation with Putin, Trump had spoken with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders.

During his call with Trump, Zelensky reportedly assured him that Ukraine is ready for an unconditional ceasefire. He also suggested that future negotiations could take place in countries such as Turkey, the Vatican, or Switzerland. Zelensky urged Trump not to abandon mediation efforts, especially since the U.S. government was actively applying pressure on both sides—through financial sanctions on Russia and diplomatic leverage over Kyiv. Zelensky emphasized the need for continued U.S. involvement in the negotiations.

That evening, Trump and Putin held their third official phone call of the year—the previous ones having taken place on February 12 and March 18. Reports suggest there may have been additional unofficial calls between the two leaders. The latest call was initiated by Trump, reportedly to determine whether Putin was genuinely interested in ending the war. Senior U.S. officials, including Vice President Vance, have recently voiced frustration over Moscow’s actions.

The conversation lasted more than two hours. Following the call, the leaders offered differing accounts.

Putin described the discussion as “open and meaningful,” though he reiterated his usual talking points without introducing any new proposals. He did, however, outline a few steps forward: delivering Moscow’s terms to Ukraine, suggesting a timeline for a potential peace agreement, and proposing a ceasefire memorandum. He stated that Russia is prepared to negotiate but emphasized the need for mutually acceptable compromises.

“The U.S. President expressed his position on the ceasefire, and in turn, Russia reiterated its support for a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis. However, it is necessary to determine the most effective methods for achieving peace. We offered Ukraine a set of principles for a potential peace agreement, including a timeline for signing and a memorandum outlining a temporary ceasefire. Contacts have resumed between participants in the Istanbul negotiations, which gives reason to believe we are moving in the right direction,” Putin said.

Trump, for his part, posted on Truth Social that the call with Putin went “very well,” describing its “tone and spirit” as “excellent.” He claimed that Russia and Ukraine would soon begin negotiations aimed at achieving a ceasefire and ending the war. He also noted that the Vatican, led by Pope Leo XIV, had expressed interest in mediating the talks. Trump further stated that Russia was seeking to restore “full trade” with the U.S. after the war and hinted at offering economic incentives to Moscow in exchange for a halt to its aggression. He emphasized Russia’s vast resources and future economic potential.

After the call, Trump reportedly briefed Ukrainian President Zelensky, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

Despite this, analysts are skeptical of the outcome. Many observers saw the call as another minor win for Putin, especially given Trump’s apparent shift in tone toward the Kremlin. Trump announced that no new sanctions would be imposed on Russia for the time being, citing the ongoing potential for peace negotiations.

Trump expressed optimism that significant developments would follow the call, but he also warned that he could withdraw from mediating the conflict if the negotiations failed to make “substantial progress.” In that case, he said, the United States would hand over the role of mediator to Europe. However, Europe’s stance on Russia remains hardline—the EU has imposed 17 rounds of sanctions since the invasion began, and few European leaders are willing to engage in direct talks with Putin.

Putin's Plan A: Full seizure of Ukrainian regions by 2025

Despite U.S. President Donald Trump's renewed promise to launch peace efforts, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears unlikely to halt the war in Ukraine anytime soon. According to "Bloomberg", Putin remains convinced that the Russian military can break through the defenses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and fully capture four regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporijia—by the end of 2025.

However, military analysts are skeptical. Ben Barry, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the probability that Russia will succeed in fully seizing Donbas, Zaporijia, and Kherson by the end of this year is "extremely low."

"Bloomberg" reports that Putin is determined to continue the offensive and is unfazed by Washington’s threats of harsher sanctions. Trump had previously warned that the U.S. would increase sanctions if Putin did not agree to a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine. Nevertheless, sources say the Russian leader responded with indifference—his calm likely reinforced by a recent phone call with Trump, during which the U.S. president reportedly hinted that no new sanctions would be imposed.

Russia also reaffirmed its position during the recent peace talks held in Istanbul, making it clear that it will not withdraw from the four partially occupied regions. Moreover, in a provocative move, the Russian delegation warned Ukrainian officials that the number of regions under Russian control could soon grow to five. The delegation, led by Vladimir Medinsky, also made veiled threats about Russia’s long-term military endurance. They referenced the 21-year war between Russia and Sweden in the early 18th century as an example of how long Moscow could sustain a conflict if necessary.

However, Medinsky also acknowledged that the global context has changed. A war of attrition in today's interconnected world does not carry the same implications as it did centuries ago. Modern global dynamics suggest that a state pursuing aggressive foreign policy and protracted warfare may eventually face collapse. Historical examples support this perspective. Iraq’s prolonged war with Iran during the 1980s, under Saddam Hussein, inflicted devastating economic and human losses. In a bid to recover from those losses, Saddam invaded Kuwait—a move widely regarded as a strategic blunder that led to Iraq's isolation and long-term decline.