Good morning,

I hope you enjoyed your weekend. Let’s review some key updates.

Reporting Period: October 16-20, 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

Trump Hosts Zelenskyy At White House, Relayed Russian Demands

Summary
Between October 16–18, 2025, President Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House following a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. U.S. officials confirmed that Trump relayed Russian ceasefire terms to Zelenskyy, including a demand that Ukraine cede Donetsk in exchange for the return of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Trump reportedly pressed Zelenskyy to consider the proposal while withholding firm commitments on U.S. long-range strike support.

Findings

• Trump-Putin Phone Call: On October 16, President Trump confirmed he shared a phone call with President Putin (BBC). Trump confirmed that Putin congratulated him on his ceasefire efforts in Gaza. Trump also confirmed that he and Putin discussed “Trade between Russia and the United States when the War with Ukraine is over” (Axios). Trump confirmed that “High Level Advisors” led by Secretary Rubio will likely meet in Budapest, Hungary, this week (Axios).

  • Russian Demands: On October 18, following the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting at the White House, it was confirmed that Russia demanded Ukraine cede the Donetsk region in order to negotiate a peace deal (WSJ). Russia reportedly offered to return the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts in exchange (Instagram).

• Trump-Zelenskyy Meeting: Despite mainstream speculation that Zelenskyy would leave the White House with new military aid guarantees, President Trump reportedly urged Zelenskyy to accept Russia’s most recent demands (Financial Times). Despite Trump’s threats that the United States would provide Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles, Trump confirmed the United States will retain its arsenal for now.

Why This Matters
The Trump administration has, to some degree, flip-flopped on its support for Ukraine. Now, the potential for future Russian diplomatic and economic partnership appears to be a driving force behind a peace push.

• U.S. Policy May Be Pivoting From Victory to Containment — Rather than enabling Ukrainian reconquest as stated in September, the Trump administration appears focused on freezing the conflict to negotiate a new regional status quo following a peace deal.

• Kyiv Risks Losing Leverage if Forced to Negotiate Under Duress — With U.S. long-range strike support withheld, Zelenskyy’s bargaining position weakens while Moscow’s demands gain institutional recognition.

• Allies Will Reassess Washington’s Reliability — European states that invested in a total Ukrainian victory will question whether U.S. support is contingent on political expediency, not principle. This is also true for Taiwan, which has grown dependent on U.S. support to prepare for and deter a conflict with China.

• Russia May See Concessions as Proof That Armed Revisionism Works — A negotiated territorial settlement risks validating Moscow’s strategy of force-backed annexation, setting a precedent for future coercion.

A counter-position to these claims is that the United States and its allies could seek to end the war and pursue a long-term policy of opening, democratizing, and partnering with a post-Putin Russia. But Russia’s historic strategic ambitions and adept coercion make it difficult to discern if this could be feasible, or if Russia will perpetually remain attuned to great power politics.

This is what Trump’s gambit appears to be.

Trump Admin Rejects De-escalation Offer With Venezuela, Denounces Colombian President’s Legitimacy

Summary
Between October 16–19, 2025, the Trump administration intensified its confrontation with Venezuela and Colombia, rejecting a reported Maduro transition proposal, authorizing covert CIA operations against cartel networks, and escalating kinetic strikes on maritime trafficking assets. President Trump also publicly denounced Colombian President Gustavo Petro as illegitimate and threatened to cut U.S. subsidies while hinting at possible intervention if Bogotá does not comply with U.S. anti-cartel demands.

Findings

• Venezuela: On October 17, senior Venezuelan officials within the Maduro regime approached the White House to offer a de-escalation plan (AP News). The plan reportedly included Maduro’s removal or resignation and a government run by Vice President Delcy Rodriguez until 2031 (AP News). The White House rejected the plan (AP News).

  • CIA Operations: On October 16, President Trump reportedly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct operations in Venezuela to prepare for strikes on cartel sites and, if a conflict escalates, the removal of the Maduro regime (BBC).

  • Strikes on Cartel Vessels: On October 18, the United States confirmed that a kinetic strike was carried out on a cartel trafficking submarine (Fox News, X). Two survivors were captured, one Colombian and one Ecuadorian (USA Today, X).
    On October 19, Secretary of War Hegseth confirmed that the U.S. had carried out an October 17th strike on another smuggling vessel (X).

• Colombia: On October 19, President Trump posted on official social media accounts that Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro is an illegitimate president and a supporter of drug trafficking and cartel operations in Colombia. Trump announced that “large scale payments and subsidies” from the U.S. to Colombia will no longer be made. Trump also threatened kinetic intervention against cartels in Colombia if Petro fails to do so.

Why This Matters
President Trump’s recent rhetoric, the rejection of the Maduro removal plan, and expanded military operations in the region suggest a rapid expansion to anti-cartel operations, especially as a means of pressuring regime change in Colombia and Venezuela. The campaign is a clear declaration that the United States will unilaterally dictate security if necessary, and that diplomatic concessions between unstable governments and the cartels within them are a secondary priority.

If the region continues to escalate towards conventional conflict, rather than law enforcement operations and counter-cartel operations, then some risks become more likely:

• Regional powers like Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina will face pressure to either align with U.S. intervention or treat it as neocolonial overreach.

• Cartels may choose to align closer to foreign state actors such as Russia, China, and Iran.

• U.S. military operations could rapidly expand into sustained ground or covert operations across multiple sovereign territories.

France’s Political Turmoil Continues

Summary
France is trapped in an extended political impasse. After the 2024 snap elections produced a fragmented National Assembly, President Emmanuel Macron’s government led by Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu has narrowly survived recent no-confidence votes. Key reforms, including a contentious pension overhaul and the 2026 budget, are on hold. Credit agencies have responded by downgrading France’s rating, citing political risk, while markets and EU defence partners warn of broader fallout.

Findings

• Survival of Government: On October 16, Prime Minister Lecornu’s government narrowly survived two motions of no confidence after Macron threatened to dissolve the National Assembly (AP News). The continued survival allows the coalition to delay snap elections but does not resolve the underlying fragmentation.

  Since the 2024 election, no party or coalition has retained a majority. Macron’s centrists, the far-right Rassemblement National, and the left-wing La France Insoumise remain locked in a stalemate (The Guardian).

• Pension Reform: The government announced the suspension of the 2023 pension reform, which would raise the retirement age to 64 (The New York Times, The Guardian). The reform is postponed until the 2027 election, estimating a cost of €400 million in 2026 and €1.8 billion in 2027 (The Guardian).

• Credit-Rating Downgrade: On October 18, S&P Global Ratings cut France’s credit rating from AA- to A+, citing the “worst political instability since the Fifth Republic” and pointing to rising debt expectations (Le Monde). This generally means France is at an increased risk to not repay its debts, a factor that could lead to weaker investment and lesser French participation in transnational issues (i.e. ReArm Europe, Ukraine, etc.).

Why This Matters
France’s political paralysis carries significant implications for U.S. and transatlantic policy:

• France has traditionally played a central role in European defence and strategic autonomy initiatives. Continued instability hampers its ability to commit credibly, opening gaps that Russia or China could exploit.

• With rising debt and downgraded credit status, France must still deliver its 2026 budget. Fiscal weakness in France undermines the Eurozone’s stability and constrains French defence and NATO spending (which affects U.S. burden-sharing).

• If snap elections occur and the far-right RN or radical left gain power, France’s foreign policy could shift dramatically, impacting U.S. allies, EU sanctions regimes, and Western sentiments toward strategic adversaries.

In short, the dysfunction in Paris matters for Washington because an unstable France weakens the Western alliance architecture at a moment when major power competition is intensifying globally.

End Brief

That concludes this brief.

Thank you for reading!
— Nick