Russia, Ukraine, US: News Round Up

Excerpts included from varied sources

Trump is ready to ‘crush’ the Russian economy if Putin doesn’t meet with Zelensky, says Lindsey Graham

Sen. Lindsey Graham has said that Donald Trump is ready to “crush” the Russian economy if Vladimir Putin refuses to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky in the coming weeks to discuss an end to the Ukraine war.

Graham has reportedly been pressuring Trump for months to support a sweeping sanctions bill designed to punish the Kremlin by placing massive tariffs on any country that continues to buy Russian oil and gas, thereby indirectly helping to bankroll its invasion of its western neighbor state.

The legislation would most obviously hurt rival superpowers China and India, who currently account for 70 percent of Russia’s energy exports and would face 500 percent U.S. tariffs if it were to be enacted.

Clearly tariffs are just another means of waging war.

No meeting planned with Zelensky

“President Putin said clearly that he is ready to meet, provided this meeting is really going to have an agenda, a presidential agenda,” Lavrov told NBC’s Meet the Press. “There is no meeting planned.”

No real reason for a meeting, so no meeting

Are US sanctions redefining the global arms trade by sidelining Russia ?.

Switch out the word redefining, insert monopolizing

On August 15, 2025, the Russian Ministry of Defense accused the United States of deliberately obstructing its defense exports in Asia-Pacific, a region where Washington seeks to expand its influence to counterbalance China. Speaking at the Moscow Conference on International Security, Igor Kostyukov, chief of the Main Intelligence Department (RuMoD), alleged that Washington is blackmailing regional governments with the threat of sanctions to derail contracts involving the S-400 air defense system for India, Su-35 fighter aircraft and Mi-17 helicopters for Indonesia, Mi-171 helicopters for the Philippines, and future cooperation projects with Vietnam. His statements, relayed by the Interfax agency, come against the backdrop of a collapse in Russian arms sales since the outbreak of the Ukraine war.

The example most frequently cited remains India, which acquired five regiments of the S-400 system despite U.S. opposition. Washington had initially exempted New Delhi from sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), but in recent months political pressure has resurfaced. President Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on Indian goods, while publicly criticizing New Delhi for buying Russian energy and arms. Russia has assured India that the two remaining S-400 squadrons will be delivered by 2027, with the system already deployed under the name “Sudarshan Chakra” playing a central role in India’s air defense posture. New Delhi, however, remains cautious about further acquisitions, notably regarding the Su-57 stealth fighter, which would risk worsening tensions with Washington.

An elusive peace in Ukraine

The fact is, the elusiveness of peace is fundamentally a political problem reflective of the fact that the war is the result of a coalition mobilised by the U.S. over many years, since Bush Junior opened the door to Ukrainian membership of NATO in 2008. Having mobilised a coalition, involving European countries backing the training and arming of Ukraine as operational proxy, we now confront a situation in which the coalition displays fragmented purpose and interests. The coalition cannot be readily controlled from one single point, and in fact, exhibits fragmented interests and drivers.

While Russia operates with relative unity of purpose, the “non-Russia” side – encompassing Ukraine, Western Europe (including the UK) and the United States – is increasingly fractured by competing interests, incoherent strategies and contradictory readings of battlefield reality. Until these contradictions are resolved, a meaningful settlement will remain elusive.

Despite Western portrayals of fragility, Russia’s goals are stable: secure its strategic perimeter, prevent Ukraine becoming a NATO outpost, and weaken nationalist forces. Debates over whether to push further or pursue regime change are tactical, not existential. State, economy and society remain aligned.

Lastly, Fortune- Trump’s pressure on Powell an attempt to lower debt costs-

No guarantee a rate cut will translate to lower mortgage rates- Mortgage rates being tied to the bond market

While Trump’s pressure on Powell hasn’t been popular with Wall Street, pitching the battle on behalf of consumers is more politically palatable. While Trump leads with the benefit to consumers, economists are focused on Trump’s point that the country is also paying more because of Powell’s refusal to capitulate to his demands.

This is what may be at the heart of the White House’s crusade against the current base rate, experts believe, because if the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) made borrowing cheaper for everyone, that would include the government.

The White House will be well aware of this fact, particularly in an environment where fiscally conservative Republicans will be shuddering at Uncle Sam’s $37 trillion (and growing) national debt.

Of course, Trump’s motivation can be twofold: He can want to foster economic activity, and conveniently bring down his own overheads as well.

Of course this could result in higher inflation.