World about US

Germany has welcomed the suspension of new tariffs against Canada and Brussels’ support for the International Criminal Court amid pressure from Washington. Turkey reports that Russia is ready for substantive dialogue with the United States. Taken together, these developments show how other countries are simultaneously resisting Washington’s economic and legal pressure, seeking diplomatic compromises, and striving to preserve room for negotiations. This article is based on publications by Euractiv.com (Germany) and Vietnam.vn (Turkey).

EU Supports ICC After U.S. Sanctions Imposed

The European Union has publicly defended the International Criminal Court following new U.S. sanctions targeting the Hague-based institution’s leadership and staff. As reported by the German edition of Euractiv, Brussels views the situation not only as a dispute over specific court decisions, but also as a question of preserving the independence of international justice.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa declared their “firm support” for the International Criminal Court, its president Tomoko Akane, and all the institution’s staff. In their view, judges and officials must be able to perform their duties “independently and without external pressure.”

This wording reflects the EU’s fundamental position: investigations into the gravest international crimes must not depend on the political will of individual states. For European countries, the ICC remains an important element of a rules-based international order and a mechanism for holding perpetrators accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations.

Washington, by contrast, has sharply criticized the court. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the ICC a “corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court,” accusing it of exceeding its authority. The U.S. administration is seeking to limit the court’s ability to act against U.S. citizens and their allies, particularly Israel.

The International Criminal Court itself has warned that the sanctions could undermine the rule of law and obstruct the work of an independent international justice mechanism. The court maintains that pressure on its staff and leadership affects not only specific investigations, but also the international community’s ability to prosecute those responsible for grave crimes.

For Germany, this debate carries particular political significance. Berlin has traditionally been among the ICC’s most consistent supporters, as well as a strong advocate of international criminal law. In the German view, the Hague court is not merely an international organization, but one of the institutions that enables states to defend human rights and legal norms without relying exclusively on military or economic power.

Brussels’ reaction to the U.S. sanctions therefore demonstrates another divergence between Europe and Washington in their approaches to international law. The EU emphasizes the court’s institutional autonomy and the need to shield it from outside influence, while the United States portrays the ICC as a politicized structure that threatens its sovereignty.

More broadly, the conflict affects Europe’s ability to pursue its own foreign-policy agenda concerning accountability for international crimes. Weakening the ICC could limit the EU’s ability to uphold the principle that war crimes and crimes against humanity must not go unpunished. That is why European support for the court in Brussels is seen as defending not only its staff, but also the very principle of an international legal order.

Moscow and Washington Maintain a Cautious Dialogue

Russia and the United States are coordinating the timing of the next round of bilateral contacts, while the details of the talks are not being disclosed by mutual agreement. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said that this closed format is intended to preserve the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts, according to a Vietnam.vn report.

This is not a matter of full political reconciliation between Moscow and Washington, but rather an attempt to preserve practical channels of communication amid profound disagreements. Issues that the sides may discuss include the return of confiscated Russian diplomatic property, the restoration of the diplomatic missions’ full operations, and the possible resumption of direct air service.

This list shows that normalization, if possible, begins with the basic infrastructure of contact: the work of embassies and consulates, travel by citizens, diplomatic channels, and procedural matters. These issues attract less attention than statements on major international crises, yet they are precisely what allows states to maintain communication even in the absence of trust and amid continuing sanctions.

The continued communication channel between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is also significant. For countries interested in reducing international tensions, the very fact that direct dialogue continues means that there is an instrument for preventing further escalation and discussing unresolved problems.

This dynamic is being watched particularly closely in Turkey. Ankara remains a NATO member and maintains close relations with Washington, while at the same time preserving trade, energy, and tourism ties with Russia. Therefore, even a limited reduction in confrontation between Moscow and the United States could affect the situation in the Black Sea region, maritime security, energy routes, and tourism flows.

In recent years, Turkey has repeatedly sought to preserve negotiating platforms on the conflict in Ukraine, the grain corridor, and prisoner exchanges. From this perspective, the cautious return of Russia and the United States to substantive contacts is consistent with the logic of mediation: negotiations are needed not because the contradictions have disappeared, but because crises become less manageable without them.

As noted in the Vietnam.vn publication, the current Russian-American dialogue should be viewed primarily as a gradual and limited step toward conflict management. This is important for Turkey and other regional powers: maintaining channels of communication between the major players reduces uncertainty, whereas continued diplomatic restrictions and sanctions pressure increase the risks for states forced to balance between Russia and their Western partners.

❮ ❯